Very bad news for everyones own personal "precious" - page 2

137 answers Last reply
  1. Ummm, Im a midwesterner, and Ive growup "out there", flown over it, and love its people. Its not any 1 given fix for right now, until a fusion type answer is found, as per my previous post to you and zorg both.

    Im addressing the larger picture, youre misinterpreting what Im trying to say. These are all just stop gaps. Another type of transportation would frankly be better, but til then, we have to make do
  2. Zorg said:
    And why don't we just drill for oil, mine oil shale, use our coal and build more nuclear plants, in order to give us time to further develop the alternatives?

    The amount of ethanol produced from corn is a drop in the bucket, and is causing food prices to go up and creating world food shortages.

    How complicated its this?

    Am I the only one who sees this?

    Nah, can't be.


    Oil and coal are finite and dirty. Nuclear is long term and 'clean' but comes a a huge cost in terms of constrcution, regulation and maintenance because of the inherent dangers. There are new nuclear technologies emerging whcih promise to be vastly better in all aspects, but they will still be electricity producers and any of the electricity producing technologies are limited. They wont help the oil burning container ships carrying amrican produce to asia, or asian manufactured good to the US, nor will they help the airline industry fuel its planes. Yes, you can build nuclear ships, but again, very costly

    Ethanol does suck, but the greenies think its "the answer"....well, some of the greenies. Im a greenie , but I know better.

    Simple answer? There is no good answer as there are no cheap high energy alternatives. There will be for electricty, but untill the day comes that they can invent an ulra super multi octa uber battery, electricty wont be great for anything mobile that travels 'off the beaten path'
  3. I don't question the fact that it isn't a panacea, but it beats the crap out of doing nothing and being at the whim of OPEC. I prefer to call them econazis.

    This latest problem, although caused by Marxism in the housing lending market, was triggered by the high oil prices.

    There is an easy way to mitigate the short term energy problem, but the econazis would rather wind up with anarchy instead.

    We should have been doing these things for the last 30 years. Yes it will take some time to implement all of the options, so we should do nothing?
  4. Mathos said:
    I just think it's more Ironic that the entire time Bush was in office, oil prices have skyrocketed. But since Obama got elected as president, suddenly gas prices are on the way down to where they were prebush.

    But in the end, we're all gonna end up having to take a bite out of the massive **** sandwich that's been served up by the last 8 years.


    I hate to break it to you dude but Oboma dont take office till january.... so that means Bush is still president and still in office...
    Just saying : )
  5. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Ummm, Im a midwesterner, and Ive growup "out there", flown over it, and love its people. Its not any 1 given fix for right now, until a fusion type answer is found, as per my previous post to you and zorg both.

    Im addressing the larger picture, youre misinterpreting what Im trying to say. These are all just stop gaps. Another type of transportation would frankly be better, but til then, we have to make do

    Actually, I disagree. Reduced consumption would solve the problem, and guess what, reduced consumption is solving the problem right now, "as we speak", firguratively speaking, so to speak.


    Unless your talking about going back to horse and buggy or sail boats there are no alternative forms of transpotation, only alternative forms of powering transportation. I dont hink Newegg is going to want to start shipping using the pony express.


    Stop gaps never solve the problem Jay, which goes right back to the abu investment in AMD. Thats all that is, a stop gap, which does not adreess poor design, manufacturing problems or crappy managment. Just like the US Governemtn bailouts, all it does is reward poor managment. It does not resolve the problem of poor management. Cutting down ornage trees to grow corn is a short term stop gap. It doesnt solve any problems other than putting some money in someones pocket a little faster, but at the expense of long term sevurity.

    As with all things there is a balance. Haveing balance means having self control. Something which the the US doesn not have right now, and something which is diametrically opposed to our current form of economy.....consumerism. Consumerism is a failing economy. Trying to prop it up is a failing stratedgy. Reducing consumption and accepting reduced income is the long term albeit painful solution.


    And Jay, Im not twisting your words, it just that you dont grasp the depth of what your saying.
  6. Zorg said:
    I don't question the fact that it isn't a panacea, but it beats the crap out of doing nothing and being at the whim of OPEC. I prefer to call them econazis.

    This latest problem, although caused by Marxism in the housing lending market, was triggered by the high oil prices.

    There is an easy way to mitigate the short term energy problem, but the econazis would rather wind up with anarchy instead.

    We should have been doing these things for the last 30 years. Yes it will take some time to implement all of the options, so we should do nothing?


    The yin and yang of oil.....when its cheap, there is no need to solve any problems becuase there is no problem. When it is expensive, it becomes a problem that needs a solution.
  7. True, but even though it was going up and up the Congress was fighting the solutions that I addressed tooth and nail.

    Additionally, even though the prices were lower there was still the little problem of the balance of trade. One would hope that the idiots in charge of the country would want to mitigate that. I guess they are too stupid. I can't wait to see what's in store for us.

    I want to go completely Marxist, it will be fun while it lasts. :lol:
  8. Reducing and using less only prolongs the inevitable. Im speaking of real alternatives, and in the mean time, anything goes. But to deter away from something else is tattamount to foolishness and anarchy
  9. I don't really understand what you are saying, unless you are responding to someone else, then never mind.
  10. Zorg said:
    True, but even though it was going up and up the Congress was fighting the solutions that I addressed tooth and nail.

    Additionally, even though the prices were lower there was still the little problem of the balance of trade. One would hope that the idiots in charge of the country would want to mitigate that. I guess they are too stupid. I can't wait to see what's in store for us.

    I want to go completely Marxist, it will be fun while it lasts. :lol:



    Balance of trade: Traded (or tarded if you prefer) for security. Intertwine national economies into a single global economy to eliminate the prospect of war by making it economically unfeasible. Simply put: You dont attack your source of income.

    A very 'logical' notion, but only from a very short sighted perspective. And remember who brought you that perspective.


    http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/14_21/1044-1.html
  11. turpit said:
    Balance of trade: Traded (or tarded if you prefer) for security. Intertwine national economies into a single global economy to eliminate the prospect of war by making it economically unfeasible. Simply put: You dont attack your source of income.

    A very 'logical' notion, but only from a very short sighted perspective. And remember who brought you that perspective.


    http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/14_21/1044-1.html
    I'm not getting your point here either. What does that have to do with all of the money pouring out of the US for oil and no one attempting to mitigate it in any way?
  12. The people closest to the oil, the jihadists, dont care about global cohesiveness in the way youre talking, and theyre more apt to war than anyone, for their own reasons, reasons which cant be included in such a plan.

    And its not nearly as perfect as one would think, but Im not going there either.
  13. Zorg said:
    I'm not getting your point here either. What does that have to do with all of the money pouring out of the US for oil and no one attempting to mitigate it in any way?



    That specific link is about US money pouring into china.


    The single most wastefull thing any country can do is go to war. The second most wastefull thing any country can do is field a standing military. The ostensible purpose of a military is to prevent hostility by presenting a deterent. Retribution.

    How do you eliminate the single greatest drain on an economy with out removing the security it provides? Simple, you remove the threat of hostility. No threat of hostility = no need for a military = more money to spend elsewhere

    So how do you remove the threat of hostility? You give provide potential enemies with something they need. Something they cant simply take by force or military action. You give them long term sustained income, and you give them debt.

    The oil rich countries of the middle east could easily afford large militaries. China has a large military. India is building a large military. How do you offest those potential threats without spending a huge chunk of your GNP on the deterent of an expensive standing military? Simple...Give those countries incentive not to attack. Make them dependent on your economy by consuming that which they produce. Oil, technology, trinkets etc. Make them dependent by pumping your money into their economy. Make them dependant by selling them that which they need to produce the afore mentioned products...knowledge.

    You make them dependant, but in such a way that they cant simply take what you have, and dare not attack as you are their source of income. But in the process, you surrender a measure of control to them, in addition to shifting your economy away from the 3 fundemental economies, agrarian, industrial, and service in favor of the foruth type of economy, consumerism. The "Balance of Trade" equates to the Balance Of Power, but the problem is that everyone must play their role. There must be balance. When anyone gets greedy and trys to take more than they should, they upset the balance. You cant have one country taking more and giving less. The country that is taking less for more eventually runs out whatever it is they are trading. When that happens, the row of dominoes falls....the cascade effect.
  14. Thank's for the negative rating, but I suppose this would be a good time to state I'm neither a republican or democrat supporter, I'm more of a centrist, I'll vote for whoever I think will screw things up less. I voted for Bush in 04 for example. And I voted for McCain this time due to Obama's policies on certain things that would effect me.

    Now on topic to the tech market. If the tech market starts to shrink thats gonna hit everyone not just the US. Most micropocessors are assembled in Taiwan. Many computer manufacturers assemble their PC's or many of their components in China, Korea or Taiwan. Just take a look at where a lot of computer cases and enclosures are made. Throw on power supply units, many other things even right down to case fans. Think about the only thing that won't be effected by this possible shrinkage in growth, is tech support. And thats due to the fact that as computers start to get older, they start to fail more. So I guess soon will be a good time to be in the tech support and computer repair business.

    Except for certain things, I myself generally always buy american. EVERY vehicle I've owned has been an american made vehicle. Starting with my 83 AMC Alliance, Then the 82 Olds Cutlass Supreme (damn pos 360 diesel version), 85 Buick Electra, 91 Olds Cutlass Calais, 97 Ford Taurus, and 97 Chevy S-10 Blazer (4.3L v6 Vortec, still impressed at 22mpg for that one)..

    Now with some of the electronics, it's hard to tell these days. Not sure if there are any american companies left that don't make the products over seas. Though think RCA is still one of the few, since philips is owned by a japanese company now.
  15. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    The people closest to the oil, the jihadists, dont care about global cohesiveness in the way youre talking, and theyre more apt to war than anyone, for their own reasons, reasons which cant be included in such a plan.

    And its not nearly as perfect as one would think, but Im not going there either.



    Jay, stop. Just stop. The Jihadists are closest to the oil? Jay....I really have no clue where you get this stuff from, but you have no clue.


    I will tell what though, by pure accident, you did get a truth right. Pure accident though. And that is about the motivations of people. Would you please go read up.


    The jihadists.......for mugz sake......
  16. So, I may be getting it from a couple of towers that fell. I may be getting it from a base that was bombed. Or a ship? Or many hotels? My point is, they DONT want what youre offering, have no need for it, and want YOU to change to THEIR ways, and have high influence where the majority of the worlds power supply is located. Simple
  17. turpit, that's a great philosophy...not. Whatever floats your boat.
  18. Zorg said:
    turpit, that's a great philosophy...not. Whatever floats your boat.



    Not my philosophy, and I dont agree with it, but its there and it drives/drove descisions. Decisions made by idiots. I agree with you, but regardless that you and I may think is "a great philospohy....not", it is a philiosphy that exists, and the question is, how influential has it been?


    Below is a small, small sampling of analsys.


    http://www.freetrade.org/node/215
    http://www.e-elgar-economics.com/Bookentry_Main.lasso?id=3031
    http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/07_national_security_brainard.aspx
    http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2006/securitybyothermeans.aspx
  19. Anyone whos ever heard George Carlins Industry shtick knows this, its old old news, by the way, the middle 2 letters in Industry is.....
  20. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    So, I may be getting it from a couple of towers that fell. I may be getting it from a base that was bombed. Or a ship? Or many hotels? My point is, they DONT want what youre offering, have no need for it, and want YOU to change to THEIR ways, and have high influence where the majority of the worlds power supply is located. Simple


    Ping!! We have a winner!!!!


    You got your information not from acts of terrorism, but from CNN (the Clinton News Network) Fox and sounds like Rush Limbaugh as well. Oh, and no doubt, crapipedia.


    OPEC did not drop the twin towers, hit the USS Cole or bomb any bases.

    Lets see....bite the hand that feeds you...yup, that rite thar is some sound logic. I suggest you STUDY islam and the events you just wrote about before you start assigning traits to anyone. Islam has more divisions than any popular western religion, ranging from near Ghandi-like pacifism to ultra extremist. There are at least 11 Shiite Sects, 8 Sunni Sects, 15 Sulfi sects and this doesnt even consider the Ahmadiyya sects that beleive Mohammed was NOT the final prophet, and based on the rate that sects of that house have spread OUTSIDE of the middle east, I wont even try to guess how many sects they now have.

    And that does even start to cover the different interpretations of Islam, such as Salafiyya. Many of the the so called "jihadests" (a made up name) you refer to are ACTUALLY Salafis, those who interpret the Qur'an literally and are closely related to the Hanbali school of Islamic law....which is NOT a law school but cultural interpretation of Islamic law as presented within the Qur'an. I cant even begin to go into depth. THG doesnt have enough server space to hold all the text of a file that would only begin to scratch the surface of thousands of years of religiuos traditions, splits, interpretations and interactions and I dont know the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction of all the various permutations,................. but I do know enough to spot someone whose been sucked in by the mighty american media machine and fed the fallacy.


    Jay, you are talking out your behind, being fueled by popularized perceptions presented by a media whose only truth is "he who dies with the most cash wins". They dont give a crap about the truth. The only thing they care about is presenting the "product" thats going to increase ratings the most so they can charge more for their advertarding time.

    For mugz sake, get off the computer and crapipedia, get away from the tube and go to a library. If you cant do that, heres a very tiny, very basic, minblowingly limited explantion of the four basic houses of islam

    http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/sects.htm

    Jay, Im gonna tell ya, there are a lot of people in the federal government who are paid to spend their whole days tracking trends in the various sects. You clearly arent one of those people. Im not either, but you better hope none of them read this or I fear they will post you a shelacking. Do you realize what you wrote equates to 'a guy in a turban had a bomb, so OPEC is out to kill us'.
  21. If someone is so blatant as that in their thinking, I guess theres not alot I can do about it. Nor you, thus my post to begin with. Or, am I wrong, and it only works for (against?) me and not you, and anyone else that doesnt think their way?
  22. I specified who Im refering to, and not including ones that dont harbor such thoughts, which is the vast majority on your list. Its not just jihadists either. And dont think I dont have a wider understanding of things, and most of what youve already said, I havnt heard,been exposed to, figured out myself, or been councilled to before, way before
  23. What Im saying to you is, Ive already heard this before, and pointed out 1 group of people who wont settle for less than anything that they want, period. As I said, theres others as well, many others. The ones we hear about from the media have either been exposed from their nasty doings, or, IF its newsworthy are exposed for their thoughts, as opposed to the medias idea of what America thinks, which doesnt match most the time. Theres others that none of us know about. This isnt paranoid thought, just filling in all the gaps here.

    If you think this is new to me or the world, better think again. If you think achieving less is more, ditto. War has brought us many things we hold dear in our lives right now. Was it worth it? No, but its driven technology like nothing else has. Does this make it worthwhile? No. It has allowed the US to gain high achievement and authority in the world. Again, not worth it, but for those opposed to war to the extent where its unconceivable, and everyone should just go out and buy some flowers, my message is this. Not everyone is going to do it. I chose 1 group, only 1, dont waste your time extolling about its broader foundations with me, instead, hear what Im saying, and dont include where or who formed my thoughts while doing so
  24. Amiga500 said:
    I'm going on the assumption your yet another ill-informed xenophobe from your little rant earlier.


    So when was the last time you broke a GPU? Considering TSMC makes both ATI and Nvidia GPUs...

    Not much point having a good 'ol US of A CPU if you cannot actually display the processed data is there?


    The Chinese make decent stuff, sure, they are still behind in a lot of areas, but they are rapidly pulling up, and will soon be racing ahead.

    Compare the number of graduates in real (read: useful) subjects in China to the US or anywhere else in the western world.

    In terms of useful degrees, or useful degrees per head, we (all western countries) are getting destroyed by the Chinese.


    Actually I have no phobias and am very informed. I do like to read news and the such.

    As has been stated, Taiwan is different. While they are a Republic of China, they are like Hong Kong. They are still their own country. Most stuff made in Taiwan is not that bad actually. But China itself has a reputation for very crappy quality.

    You can take it as racists. I can tell you that I love the Chinese culture, have you read Romance of the Three Kingdoms? I have, I love Chinese food and have had some good Chinese friends. I myself don't judge people based on race more based on how they present themselves. If they are stupid they are stuipid. Thats all there is to it.

    Decent stuff as in bad QA that allows them to use lead based paint (thats been banned for years) on childrens toys? Or when all those different pet foods somehow got poison in them. Or the fact that most stuff that I buy made in China just breaks easily. Had a pair of Sony Headphones, they used to be good, mad in China that broke in less than a month. Paid $40 bucks for them.

    Either way their quality is not up to par. And personally I would prefer to have, as I have said before, CPUs still fabbed here then packaged in other places. Besides foreign countries have taken everything else from America, at least we still have computer technology.

    Oh and of course every Western country gets destroyed in degrees per head. China has almost 2 billion people. Thats more than 4x the amount of people we have. Not really a good way to compare it. I would more go compare it percentage wise and see the difference. Thats like comparing the US to a small country with only 10 million ppl and saying we have more degrees per head. Of course we will have more because we have more people that can get degrees.

    Homeboy2 said:
    arent most of intel and amd fabs in foreign countries anyway?


    Not really. Intel has 3 (maybe more or less) main ones I know of right here in the US that produces the chips for the US. We have Chandler, where the newest most advanced 45nm FAB was built, Oregon and Colorado. Then the chips are sent to their plants in some Pacific Asian country to be packaged.

    They have a FAB in Israel but those chips end up going to Europe and the middle east.

    gamerk316 said:
    First off, Ethonol is a REALLY bad idea. First off, more than any other crop, corn is the least resistent to weather. Secondly, corn is typically one of the foods used to feed produce. As less of this corn is avaliable, the price of produce starts to rise (as it did this summer after the floods in the midwest). You save on gas, but loose on food. And if you have another year of heavy flooding?

    Secondly, theres a reason why only 15% of all GM vehicles on the road are over 5 years old, compared to 70% for Toyota. Ever american car I've owned dies before it hits 100k miles. My 94 Camry, which I brought used at 85k miles, is all the way up to 235k, and only had one or two minor issues along the way, and get 25 MPG to boot. Total cost: $7,500.

    As for oil prices, they were largely driven up by speculators. I would know, I was one of them. Everyone knew the price of oil was over-inflated, and most everyone started to bail when it hit $140. Now, the price is too low, mainly because of the economic issues. The real price is in the neigborhood of $75-80.

    I still find it funny: gas prices drop and Ford re-opens its F-150 plant. People are going to get a rude awakening when prices jump next, although NOT bailing out GM would destroy the economy anyway, so the points moot...


    I was just saying, its still better then being dependant on foreign oils. Ethanol may not be the best idea but its still a step in the right direction. personally I can't wait for the Focus Fuel Cell. Looks interesting and they found a way to bump its mileage to over 30MPG by using twin turbos.

    You must have done something wrong with your American cars then because I had a 96 Contour GL with 150K miles still going strong until a accident that killed it. My uncle had a old F100 Ranger that hit 300K miles when the transmission finally gave out (he drove it hard all over the South West US from Colorado to California to Texas and in between). He just got rid of it for a newe Explorer Sport Trac about 2 years ago. Had it for over 10 years.

    That all depends on how well you take care of the car. My current Contour is at almost 90K miles. Worst thing was gaskets needing to be replaced (I do live in Southern AZ afterall). Other than that it was Wal Mart putting a GM oil plug in my Ford and Pep Boys putting the wrong sized drums on my rear brakes that caused them to break. BTW never use Pep Boys. They do a very poor quality job.

    I have a saying. The longevity of a car (any) is based on the owner and how they take care of it. There is no doubting it. I have seen Japanese cars that smoke or break down at early miles. And I have seen the worst cars (think Pinto) that have hit 400K miles with no problems. The only saving grace for American car companies right now to most people are the trucks. The foreign car companies try but TBH a American truck is still the best. Be it a Chevy, Ford or Dodge they have the best quality overall.

    Amiga500 said:
    There are two Chinas. You've even pointed it out yourself.


    For Jimmy to say:

    "Cold day in hell when my CPUs are made in China by Chinese. No offense but they are the proverbial suck when it comes to quality. I try not to buy Chinese made goods, as hard as it is, because I know its quality will be worse."

    Is cutting close to racism.


    Quote:

    By the way, Intel's IGPs are made in the US, therefore by saying "not much point having a good CPU if there's no display", you're being ignorant.


    'cos those IGPs do go well with a good CPU don't they?

    How'd you like your solitaire, low res or super low res? :D


    Meh. I have figured this out, a while ago anyways. No matter what you say these days someone will find a way to make it offensive. They will set and laugh when comedians make racist jokes or watch Family Guy and laugh at the stereyotyping they do of all the races and laugh. But a real person says something they try to make it offensive or some BS.

    Its sad really.

    Amiga500 said:
    And you don't think if Honda made a bike for $600 it would have a lot lower quality?


    You cannot have it both ways regarding low prices and low quality. :hello:


    Anyway - if everyone is so scared of (PRC) Chinese goods - then I wouldn't advise flying again, considering the major manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer) all have parts made in China, some are even moving assembly lines to China.

    The pre-concieved notion that the (PRC) Chinese cannot build high quality goods is past its sell by date. You don't send people into space with shoddy engineering.


    Lets figure this one out. Honda is not Chinese. They are Japanese. Big difference. If you call a Japanese person Chinese they will be pretty pissed off. And vice versa.

    I personally think its a mistake to move anything there. We are already at a point where finding deent jobs anymore is pretty damn hard. Especially for those without a proper education.

    Hell the companies do it only to make even more money. They already profit quite a bit but want more. Its all based on greed. Companies want more money to pay their CEOs and top execs more than they truly deserve. In the end they move a plant to some other country and lay off thousnads of Americans who might not be able to get another job because the other companies move their stuff too.

    Like call centers. They are great for ppl just out of high school or in college. But so many get pushed over to India that its hard to find a decent one anymore that pays you and expects good work, not over the top work. And TBH most ppl hate talking to someone in India. And I understand why. They are very scripted calls and cannot go outside of that scripting to help the customer.

    Either way my point still stands. There is not going to be any way that China can start to produce CPUs. Mainly because they cannot get a x86 licesne. They have to emulate. And unless they have something that blows x86 out of the water that is EASY to transition to I think intel and AMD will be fine.
  25. turpit said:
    Very sad story, and doesnt take much effort to believe. But the sadesst thing of all is that we have been warned time and time again about the 4rth level of economics and its pitfalls, the same as we have been warned about how we treat our environment and what the effects will be. It amazes me that people become so involved in the 'now; that they dont consider the consequenses of their actions.

    In terms of consequences, there is ostensibly a positve consequance to consumerism fueling a global economy....the end of war. At least in theory as presented by those who support global consumerism, but frankly, there are so many holes in that theory that its far to scary.

    Regardless, I agree with the author, a break in consumerism would be nice. Painful at first, to be sure, but IMO healthy in the long run. Well, potentially healthy.


    My wife's grandmother died a few years before I met her, but she was a shopaholic. One of the things that my wife inherited from her grandmother was a never used, still unopened in the box, Seventies era hotplate that's better made than modern day hotplates from China. We've been using it on and off for 10 years.

    Maybe American's have a genetic disposition for hoarding? My wife had to fight against being a shopaholic and I could easily click on computer parts at Newegg that I don't always need (same for books at Amazon).

    I still find it both sad and amusing that laid off Chinese factory workers blame their managers, but understand it's necessary and then turn around and blame America more. We can't win for losing in terms of world opinion. We have to be the police, the philanthropist and the consumer for the rest of the world.

    Still might build a Phenom II system next fall, since I talked to my manager, my job's moderately secure, but no way am I going out the day after Thanksgiving and spending more. Most of our gifts are bought.

    What is it with analysts and their fixation on one day of the year to decide if the consumer economy's going to tank or not? Buying year round doesn't rack up credit charges at usurious rates. That's the way a stable consumer economy can be managed.

    So far, there's a 5th way past agrarian, industrial, financial and consumer. It's intellectual property and as long as we can be on the forefront of research (or at least even with the other big research nations), then that can generate wealth and national income too. Manufactured products and entertainment can be pirated or copied without royalties paid, but other more innovative science and tech can't. That can keep us even, even if we lose being ahead of China in the mid to late 21st century.

    At least until the Singularity arrives, then it's everyone's guess as to where we'll be on the sentient being food chain. :lol:

    As far as biofuels go, sawgrass and algae instead of corn or rice. The world's poor need the grains for food. Though we should cut down on meat consumption, we need grains for both food and animal feed. If algae can be grown in tanks, and sawgrass on land not usually arable, then it's a great way to cut down on oil consumption without causing starvation and hunger in the Third World.
  26. yipsl said:
    As far as biofuels go, sawgrass and algae instead of corn or rice. The world's poor need the grains for food. Though we should cut down on meat consumption, we need grains for both food and animal feed. If algae can be grown in tanks, and sawgrass on land not usually arable, then it's a great way to cut down on oil consumption without causing starvation and hunger in the Third World.
    Absolutely correct, except I do need my meat. ;) I will add one last time, one way to cut down on foreign oil consumption is to drill for it locally.
  27. Yep, drill drill drill, and then drill some more, but to deviate on a planned option for better alternatives, and we all lose. Id love for the governments to stop all wars, and the costs of their war machine, and put those monies there, at a better power solution, but its just not realistic.

    My question isnt why as americans WE are questioned about the resposibility once we took it as the worlds advanced guard, but rather, how long will we have to continue to do this, and if not us, then whos next? People who see this as unimportant , to me deny history, and the very essence of mankind
  28. turpit said:
    Not my philosophy, and I dont agree with it, but its there and it drives/drove descisions. Decisions made by idiots. I agree with you, but regardless that you and I may think is "a great philospohy....not", it is a philiosphy that exists, and the question is, how influential has it been?
    Based on your earlier posts I didn't think you embraced it fully, but I got an inkling that you weren't really against it either. Nice to see you condemn it, and to know that I didn't fully understand you earlier.

    Globalization or "consumerism" is being pushed by the same people that believe in, and are driving us to, a one world government. It's one step in the process. I believe it is specifically intended to destroy the US economy.

    Rather than pick a few links I figured I would leave you with many to choose from.

    "one world government" - Google Search
    bildeburgers - Google Search

    I don't know if you saw this insanity but it was/is an attempt to move solidly in that direction. It was pushed by Clinton and by Bush. I wonder what will happen with our new President and Congress. ;)

    Ah, the future. :lol:

    U.N. Law of Sea Treaty on Senate fast-track
    LOST - Source Document

    And here's a little video for the lazy among us, of which I am one. :lol:

    I switched the video to two others. They are a little dry and a little light IMO, but a better explanation.



  29. jimmysmitty said:
    Actually I have no phobias and am very informed. I do like to read news and the such.

    As has been stated, Taiwan is different. While they are a Republic of China, they are like Hong Kong. They are still their own country. Most stuff made in Taiwan is not that bad actually. But China itself has a reputation for very crappy quality.

    You can take it as racists. I can tell you that I love the Chinese culture, have you read Romance of the Three Kingdoms? I have, I love Chinese food and have had some good Chinese friends. I myself don't judge people based on race more based on how they present themselves. If they are stupid they are stuipid. Thats all there is to it.

    Decent stuff as in bad QA that allows them to use lead based paint (thats been banned for years) on childrens toys? Or when all those different pet foods somehow got poison in them. Or the fact that most stuff that I buy made in China just breaks easily. Had a pair of Sony Headphones, they used to be good, mad in China that broke in less than a month. Paid $40 bucks for them.

    Either way their quality is not up to par. And personally I would prefer to have, as I have said before, CPUs still fabbed here then packaged in other places. Besides foreign countries have taken everything else from America, at least we still have computer technology.

    Oh and of course every Western country gets destroyed in degrees per head. China has almost 2 billion people. Thats more than 4x the amount of people we have. Not really a good way to compare it. I would more go compare it percentage wise and see the difference. Thats like comparing the US to a small country with only 10 million ppl and saying we have more degrees per head. Of course we will have more because we have more people that can get degrees.


    Not really. Intel has 3 (maybe more or less) main ones I know of right here in the US that produces the chips for the US. We have Chandler, where the newest most advanced 45nm FAB was built, Oregon and Colorado. Then the chips are sent to their plants in some Pacific Asian country to be packaged.

    They have a FAB in Israel but those chips end up going to Europe and the middle east.


    I was just saying, its still better then being dependant on foreign oils. Ethanol may not be the best idea but its still a step in the right direction. personally I can't wait for the Focus Fuel Cell. Looks interesting and they found a way to bump its mileage to over 30MPG by using twin turbos.

    You must have done something wrong with your American cars then because I had a 96 Contour GL with 150K miles still going strong until a accident that killed it. My uncle had a old F100 Ranger that hit 300K miles when the transmission finally gave out (he drove it hard all over the South West US from Colorado to California to Texas and in between). He just got rid of it for a newe Explorer Sport Trac about 2 years ago. Had it for over 10 years.

    That all depends on how well you take care of the car. My current Contour is at almost 90K miles. Worst thing was gaskets needing to be replaced (I do live in Southern AZ afterall). Other than that it was Wal Mart putting a GM oil plug in my Ford and Pep Boys putting the wrong sized drums on my rear brakes that caused them to break. BTW never use Pep Boys. They do a very poor quality job.

    I have a saying. The longevity of a car (any) is based on the owner and how they take care of it. There is no doubting it. I have seen Japanese cars that smoke or break down at early miles. And I have seen the worst cars (think Pinto) that have hit 400K miles with no problems. The only saving grace for American car companies right now to most people are the trucks. The foreign car companies try but TBH a American truck is still the best. Be it a Chevy, Ford or Dodge they have the best quality overall.


    Meh. I have figured this out, a while ago anyways. No matter what you say these days someone will find a way to make it offensive. They will set and laugh when comedians make racist jokes or watch Family Guy and laugh at the stereyotyping they do of all the races and laugh. But a real person says something they try to make it offensive or some BS.

    Its sad really.


    Lets figure this one out. Honda is not Chinese. They are Japanese. Big difference. If you call a Japanese person Chinese they will be pretty pissed off. And vice versa.

    I personally think its a mistake to move anything there. We are already at a point where finding deent jobs anymore is pretty damn hard. Especially for those without a proper education.

    Hell the companies do it only to make even more money. They already profit quite a bit but want more. Its all based on greed. Companies want more money to pay their CEOs and top execs more than they truly deserve. In the end they move a plant to some other country and lay off thousnads of Americans who might not be able to get another job because the other companies move their stuff too.

    Like call centers. They are great for ppl just out of high school or in college. But so many get pushed over to India that its hard to find a decent one anymore that pays you and expects good work, not over the top work. And TBH most ppl hate talking to someone in India. And I understand why. They are very scripted calls and cannot go outside of that scripting to help the customer.

    Either way my point still stands. There is not going to be any way that China can start to produce CPUs. Mainly because they cannot get a x86 licesne. They have to emulate. And unless they have something that blows x86 out of the water that is EASY to transition to I think intel and AMD will be fine.


    Go buy a 2008 diesel from any of the top 3 they are garbage PERIOD. Or maybe you should go talk to a technician for any of the big 3 and ask them how hard it is to do any normal maintenance on any of the new trucks. Good ownership doesn’t cover for crap glow plugs or crap rad hoses, gasket seals or transmission lines. Drives me nuts seeing you go on and on and on and ON about **** you assume is the case.

    Cars I have no clue I am a tradesman so trucks are part of the territory and let me tell you the latest and greatest are garbage.

    Also I am talking about 1 tonnes 3/4 tonnes no experience with 1/2 tonnes as they cant haul a 5th wheel.

    Word, Playa.
  30. ^Actually I have spoken with the dealer mechanics. And he gave me a great example. Two guys both had the same model Ford F450 Super Duty, the one with the deisel.

    One guy had 300K miles on it no problems and all he did was the normal routine maintenance (you get a book that tells you what to do and at what mileage).

    The other guy had problems all along to 300K miles. But guess what the difference was? He didn't do the required maintenance. He didn't do oil changes when needed or fluid flushes. And I am talking about a 2005+ truck not a older one.

    Hell I want a new F450 Super Duty. I have read a lot about that truck and its engine design and its pretty damn nice considering you can haul 12 tons and it will start at -32c weather.

    I may not drive a lot of trucks, I prefer cars for handeling reasons, but I don't just talk. I actually look them up and when I have work done on my car I talk to mechanics. Not just dealers but also thrid party mechanics.
  31. jimmysmitty said:
    He didn't do oil changes when needed or fluid flushes.
    That usually creates problems.

    Not major problems though, just the occasional spun rod/main bearing.

    Nothing an engine overhaul won't take care of. :lol:
  32. Zorg said:
    That usually creates problems.

    Not major problems though, just the occasional spun rod/main bearing.

    Nothing an engine overhaul won't take care of. :lol:



    Right! Grandpa always said " You can run 'em all day long without gas, but you gotta keep the oil changed. :pt1cable:
  33. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    If someone is so blatant as that in their thinking, I guess theres not alot I can do about it. Nor you, thus my post to begin with. Or, am I wrong, and it only works for (against?) me and not you, and anyone else that doesnt think their way?


    Coherency, please.

    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    I specified who Im refering to, and not including ones that dont harbor such thoughts, which is the vast majority on your list. Its not just jihadists either. And dont think I dont have a wider understanding of things, and most of what youve already said, I havnt heard,been exposed to, figured out myself, or been councilled to before, way before



    What you said was:

    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    The people closest to the oil, the jihadists, dont care about global cohesiveness in the way youre talking, and theyre more apt to war than anyone, for their own reasons, reasons which cant be included in such a plan. .


    First, You used made up word; "jihadist', which demonstrates a lack of knowledge about islam, the middle east, the sociopolitical situation there and who has control/influence over the oil supplies. A lack of knowledge other than what you get from crapipedia, CNN and the like.

    Second, your theory that those "closest to the oil" are these 'jihadists' is purely and simpley popular media inspired. They are not. Get off the electronic devices, go to a library and start studying the facts, not the crak.

    Third, your comment "And dont think I dont have a wider understanding of things".
    I dont have a wider understandtanding of those things as they are so complex as to require a lifetime of study, and that is not my area of expertise. But as I said, I do know enough to spot someone who is pulling crap out of their behind. So, you pull a media made up word and comment, state it as what you beleive to be fact, then say "And dont think I dont have a wider understanding of things" Jay, you clearly dont have a wider understanding of things. Did you have a wider understanding of things, you would have NEVER made the comment:
    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    The people closest to the oil, the jihadists, dont care about global cohesiveness in the way youre talking....



    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    What Im saying to you is, Ive already heard this before, and pointed out 1 group of people who wont settle for less than anything that they want, period. As I said, theres others as well, many others. The ones we hear about from the media have either been exposed from their nasty doings, or, IF its newsworthy are exposed for their thoughts, as opposed to the medias idea of what America thinks, which doesnt match most the time. Theres others that none of us know about. This isnt paranoid thought, just filling in all the gaps here..


    Allow me to simplfy for you Jay. You are "trying to fill in the gaps" with a tiny piece of incorrect information You beleive the information to be correct. You do know understand that the reason your information is wrong is that it is incomplete. It does not even begin to address the breadth of the "gap" you are trying to "fill", and because your understanding is incomplete, you dont understand that the applicability of your made up word is 'zero'. In short you have 1 tiny piece of a huge puzzle and are trying to force it someplace where it does not fit.

    You made this statement Jay
    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    "I specified who Im refering to, and not including ones that dont harbor such thoughts, which is the vast majority on your list. Its not just jihadists either".
    to defend the statement you made about the people you "specified"
    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    The people closest to the oil, the jihadists, dont care about global cohesiveness in the way youre talking, and theyre more apt to war than anyone, for their own reasons, reasons which cant be included in such a plan. .
    These people are NOT the people closest to the oil. What you are not getting from your popular media fueled perception is that there is no single faction that controls the oil in the middle east, and of those many factions that do have some percentage of control, it is not , to use the made up word you favor, the "Jihadists". And before you try to come back with some statement to the like of "Im not talking about direct control" , the "jihadists" have no control or influence, direct or otherwise with the exception of the very limited potential to occassionally dispsrupt flow. I already know what your responsei to going to be to that, as it is neither new nor original. So before you say "If their potential to occassionally dispsrupt flow is so limited, then how do you explain a ship a base and 2 towers?" consider that while the media was busy exploiting (yes, exploiting) those isolated instances they gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted. Perception of power. Power perceived is power gained, and clearly, those nasty 'jihadists' have gained so much power over you that you beleive they have control over one of the largest commodities in the global economy. The premise that those instances reperesent either a global trend or inevitable threat is the same as saying a loose nail on the road means that anyone can and will have a flat tire. Congradulations Jay, you are a victim of the media, and you will remain so until you go to the library and study. I doubt that you will do that, so consider this, if your 'jihadists' are so apt to war, and are the closest to the oil, as you would have it, then why does the world have oil? How is it I can go to the gas station and buy gas @ $1.84/gallon when these warring people are so close to the oil? Surely, if they have as much influence as you believe, and they are so prone to war, then they would have cut off the worlds oil supply by now as any threat to them, any modern military offensive weapon/transport system is dependant on oil derived fuel for power...oil to power the engines of ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles and the various transport equipment, oil to power the generators to provide electricity to power fixed wepons systems, oil to power the vehilces to transport the raw materials to the factories to produce the ordinance, and then transport the ordinance to the 'troops', oil to power the elecrtical grid used to charge the batteries in the NVGs, MANPADS, RPGs and on, and on, and on. Basic principle of modern combat Jay...cut off the supplies. The farther down the line, the better. Cut the supplies off at the source, and you are well on your way to winning the war. So if these "jihadists" are so close to the oil, and are so prone to war, why are they still supplying their enemies (again, if you bothered to study beyond the media, you would know who these "jihadists" enemies are, and why) with a crucial resource? Could it be, you dont know what you are talking about Jay?


    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    If you think this is new to me or the world, better think again. If you think achieving less is more, ditto. War has brought us many things we hold dear in our lives right now. Was it worth it? No, but its driven technology like nothing else has. Does this make it worthwhile? No. It has allowed the US to gain high achievement and authority in the world. Again, not worth it, but for those opposed to war to the extent where its unconceivable, and everyone should just go out and buy some flowers, my message is this. Not everyone is going to do it. I chose 1 group, only 1, dont waste your time extolling about its broader foundations with me, instead, hear what Im saying, and dont include where or who formed my thoughts while doing so


    You demonstrate a lack of understanding of the media. The days of Edward Murrow and Walter Cronkite are long gone. Honor in media passed long ago, with their passing. The media today is pure business based not on news, but that which sells the most advertising space/time regradless of its relevency or accuracy. "If it bleeds, it leads". Taking what the media literally sells without investigating is symptomatic of todays instant gratifictaion disease. The simple use of the word "jihadists" proves where you get your information from, the depth of that information and its accuracy. Zero.

    On the topic of war, again Jay, you need to stop. Catagorizing conlflict into the single catagory "war", and trying to lump the effects of conflict into a single group under the catagory war is another "instant gratification" failing. Jay, Im not going in to it with you, simply because you do not know where you are treading, and youve already demonstrated a lack of understanding about economics, sociology and geopolitcs....all of which are intrinsically releated to "war".

    But I will say that I do "hear" what you are saying Jay, and that what you are saying is simply media inspired regugitation. You are not presenting ideas that are your own, but merely those you have been fed by a media that wants you in front of your radio/TV/computer, consuming their product so they can sell their advertising time to a company based on exposure to you.

    The broader statement you are making Jay, is "I dont know what Im talking about, but Im going to talk about it anyway"


    Again I will say it. Go to a library.
  34. yipsl said:
    My wife's grandmother died a few years before I met her, but she was a shopaholic. One of the things that my wife inherited from her grandmother was a never used, still unopened in the box, Seventies era hotplate that's better made than modern day hotplates from China. We've been using it on and off for 10 years.

    Maybe American's have a genetic disposition for hoarding? My wife had to fight against being a shopaholic and I could easily click on computer parts at Newegg that I don't always need (same for books at Amazon).

    I still find it both sad and amusing that laid off Chinese factory workers blame their managers, but understand it's necessary and then turn around and blame America more. We can't win for losing in terms of world opinion. We have to be the police, the philanthropist and the consumer for the rest of the world.

    Still might build a Phenom II system next fall, since I talked to my manager, my job's moderately secure, but no way am I going out the day after Thanksgiving and spending more. Most of our gifts are bought.

    What is it with analysts and their fixation on one day of the year to decide if the consumer economy's going to tank or not? Buying year round doesn't rack up credit charges at usurious rates. That's the way a stable consumer economy can be managed.

    So far, there's a 5th way past agrarian, industrial, financial and consumer. It's intellectual property and as long as we can be on the forefront of research (or at least even with the other big research nations), then that can generate wealth and national income too. Manufactured products and entertainment can be pirated or copied without royalties paid, but other more innovative science and tech can't. That can keep us even, even if we lose being ahead of China in the mid to late 21st century.

    At least until the Singularity arrives, then it's everyone's guess as to where we'll be on the sentient being food chain. :lol:

    As far as biofuels go, sawgrass and algae instead of corn or rice. The world's poor need the grains for food. Though we should cut down on meat consumption, we need grains for both food and animal feed. If algae can be grown in tanks, and sawgrass on land not usually arable, then it's a great way to cut down on oil consumption without causing starvation and hunger in the Third World.


    Interesting. I hate to say this, only becuase its going to caase debate, but I wonder if women are more suseptable to being "shopaholics" than men. Not just the 'nesting instinct' thing, but the social and tactile aspects as well.

    Its always been my theory that one of the reasons for the dot com bust was a complete misunderstanding of one of the major market segements....women.

    Looking at it from a purely supply & demand based perspective, e-tailing makes great sence:
    -A broader range of products
    -More easily accesable.
    -Eliminate the overhead of storefronts ---the of rent or taxes, bills (electricity, heat, incidentals, ) and wages sales people, shop dressers etc.
    -Function from nationally regionalized warehouses in areas of low desirability that have low tax/rent/ but still have decent access
    -Use the savings on physical stores to pay for shipping.
    -Reach a larger market--increase sales
    -Increased sales = increased volume purchasing power

    Really, a no brainer. But Ive always felt that they misread the reasons women go shopping, at several levels. Women like to touch, to feel, to see. They cant do that on a computer. The visual stimulation the computer can provide has improved greatly as graphics, digital camera/scanner resolution and connection speed have all improved. Additionally, high speed acces has and continues to expand rapidly while at the same time becoming more affordable. B

    But e-tailing still doesnt let a woman still cant "try on" a garment and see how it looks on them, feel the texture of its fabric, how soft or rough it is, or compare it side by side with a range of other similar garments. I think those things are far more improtant to women than to men.

    Then there is the social 'experianace'. While its true that an ever increasing number of woman have entered the workforce, there are many who dont, or who leave the workforce to raise children. Staying in a house all day raising children can isolate individuals from society. I beleive that the shopping center, mall, supermarket what have you, substitutes (or at least had substituded) for the social environment of the workplace. And while 'online' communities can provide some socialization, reading text and using web cams is still not the same as experiancing another humans physical presence.

    So, my theory is that women shop for more than the purpose of purchasing. That they shop for the social and inherently tactile experiences of shopping, as well as fulfilling both actual needs (material neccesities) and the 'nesting instinct', and that all these things make them more suceptable to becoming 'shopaholics' as well as working against the isolated, non-tactile convienience of the dot.com.


    On the hoarding, I think its more than just an american instinct, but a subconciuos human survival trait relating to the physiological needs as defined by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I think in america, we just have access to 'more' and more resources (cash) with which to obtain it. I look to the oppulence displyed by other cultures with access to 'more' as examples;




    Quote:
    I still find it both sad and amusing that laid off Chinese factory workers blame their managers, but understand it's necessary and then turn around and blame America more. We can't win for losing in terms of world opinion. We have to be the police, the philanthropist and the consumer for the rest of the world.


    Word

    (sorry for the plagiarism Spud....but if its any consolation, it is the sincerest form of flattery )


    Quote:
    As far as biofuels go, sawgrass and algae instead of corn or rice. The world's poor need the grains for food. Though we should cut down on meat consumption, we need grains for both food and animal feed. If algae can be grown in tanks, and sawgrass on land not usually arable, then it's a great way to cut down on oil consumption without causing starvation and hunger in the Third World


    Again, Word.

    That said, Im a big fan of the Kinison 'theory': We have deserts in America, we just dont live in them. Stop sending these people food. Send them U-Hauls. Move them to where the food is. Its sand. You cant eat it. A thousand years from now its still going to be sand. Move to where the food is.
  35. Zorg said:
    Based on your earlier posts I didn't think you embraced it fully, but I got an inkling that you weren't really against it either. Nice to see you condemn it, and to know that I didn't fully understand you earlier.

    Globalization or "consumerism" is being pushed by the same people that believe in, and are driving us to, a one world government. It's one step in the process. I believe it is specifically intended to destroy the US economy.

    Rather than pick a few links I figured I would leave you with many to choose from.

    "one world government" - Google Search
    bildeburgers - Google Search

    I don't know if you saw this insanity but it was/is an attempt to move solidly in that direction. It was pushed by Clinton and by Bush. I wonder what will happen with our new President and Congress. ;)

    Ah, the future. :lol:

    U.N. Law of Sea Treaty on Senate fast-track
    LOST - Source Document

    And here's a little video for the lazy among us, of which I am one. :lol:

    I switched the video to two others. They are a little dry and a little light IMO, but a better explanation.















    The problem with a global economy and a global political system is that the concept does have some merit. Enough merit to "sell" or promote based soley on the positive aspects, but the implimentation is destined to fail. The concepts do not succesfully address how to succesfully resolve the issues of cultural conflict/hatred. Instead they rely on cooperative economic pressures to force compliance with regulation. Regulation does not resolve issues, it only 'contains' them. Conflict and hatred will still exist, and containement would eventually fail. The potential for one entity to gain power and exercise influnce to put pressure on their 'enemies' is too great, and given current geopolitics, impossible to conclusively avoid. The concept that an economy can bind everyone to everyone else by the promise of mutual prosperity or individual porverty(as a punishment to those who do not comply) is fallacy as prosperity is a word open to indivdual interpretation, and for many it goes beyond 'having enough'. Functioning on the princple of prosparity ignores greed, which is ironic as those who tend to push the hardest for a globalized ecomony are those who are the greediest and stand to benfit/profit the most for said global economy. And they would be the ones running the global economy. As such, even setting aside the insumountable problems, the concept is fundemantally flawed since those who are least suited would be the ones supervising.....the inmates would be running the assylum
  36. Im just wondering one thing here, are you so decidedly intent on taking 1 comment on many and ignoring the rest? Have you read my other posts on the media in other thrweads? Like Ive said, Ive known this the minute Dan Rather attacked Pres. Bush No.1 , as I was watching it on the tube. Im guessing you wont remember that, Im also guessing youre somehow going to find fault with something in these comments now. What you dont understand is, your beliefs mimick mine when it comes to the media, but youre too obtuse to even see it.

    About my comment, using words I chose dont have to be defended to get my point accross, which I did. If you didnt see it, thats your problem , not mine, as Im sure eberyone got what I said, as well as you, just that youre pickin bones.
    I knew about the media bias as far back as the mid 80s, can you make the same claim? At that time, it was 75% liberal/democrat, later, in the 90s, it was as high as 96% in one focus group findings. Now, like Ive said, tell me something I dont know. You expound about Islam. Did you know that Jesus in the Koran brought a bird back to life? I knew this in the early 80s, as it was important to me for certain reasons at the time.

    Time to quite squinting at 1 sentence, and open up your eyes a lil
  37. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Im just wondering one thing here, are you so decidedly intent on taking 1 comment on many and ignoring the rest? Have you read my other posts on the media in other thrweads? Like Ive said, Ive known this the minute Dan Rather attacked Pres. Bush No.1 , as I was watching it on the tube. Im guessing you wont remember that, Im also guessing youre somehow going to find fault with something in these comments now. What you dont understand is, your beliefs mimick mine when it comes to the media, but youre too obtuse to even see it.

    About my comment, using words I chose dont have to be defended to get my point accross, which I did. If you didnt see it, thats your problem , not mine, as Im sure eberyone got what I said, as well as you, just that youre pickin bones.
    I knew about the media bias as far back as the mid 80s, can you make the same claim? At that time, it was 75% liberal/democrat, later, in the 90s, it was as high as 96% in one focus group findings. Now, like Ive said, tell me something I dont know. You expound about Islam. Did you know that Jesus in the Koran brought a bird back to life? I knew this in the early 80s, as it was important to me for certain reasons at the time.

    Time to quite squinting at 1 sentence, and open up your eyes a lil


    No, Jay, you said "the Jihadists are closest to the oil"

    This is not the single, tiny, meaningless sentence you are suddenly trying to make it out to be. Your statement is that terrorists have the most influence over a major portion of the worlds oil supply. NOT a 'little' sentence. It is a bold, broad statment, which, were it true would have global repercussions. And it is completely and totally false.

    Now, what you are doing at the moment, trying to minimize error, is akin to saying that running into a crowded movie theatre and yelling "fire" is an insignificant action as "fire" is only one word.

    Once again, "Jihadists" are not "closest to the oil". You cannot defend this statement as it is indefensible. It is indefensible as it is wrong. It is a persception presented by the media, not by the facts. Facts which the media does not present as they are uninteresing. Now, you say you "understand" the media, and how they work. Fine, prove it by ceasing to defend to this media inspired notion and admit the statement is wrong. Just as wrong as when you misquoted the old saying "... only as good as their last success" into "...only as good as their next 'success'(CPU) " to bolster AMD.

    The problem here Jay, is that if you admit you are wrong about that (which is simple fact, contrary to your media fed perception) then that means your whole premise as well as your other media 'facts' are also quite possibly if not probably wrong.

    That, Jay is why the scrutiny over the one sentence. Its not one particluar sentence, just the one I happened to choose to demonstrate the fallacies your overall argument are premised on. Its quite amusing that you talk about 'opening your eyes' yet your knowldge is so limited, that you dont know what to look at in order to 'open your eyes'. In short Jay, you havent a clue.
  38. Oh man, youre still not getting it. I didnt read your post, as I got to the nit pickin and stopped to say this

    The previous post, yours? About the heart of man, and his desire for power, even when he has a huge chunk already? All those observances, and comments? THEYRE EXACTLY AS I FEEL. Now, I may have used different words, but thats about it. Realise this, what you say is nothing new, nothing that hasnt been said, thought or improved upon, and Ive seen it, thought it, and read it, and no, it wasnt at the library, but in magazines i used to have subs to, books Ive bought etc, oh yes, even on a few tv shows, tho those are harder to find than a decentr book, now chill, and except this ok?
  39. Here.

    "Until the government fixes this, the medias going to be playing it up. A Lot of what weve seen was going to happen anyways. Unfortunately, the media finds this as newsworthy, and itll be hyped by them. I believe once the government comes to terms with how its all going to happen, youll then see the media back off. Just like when we werent in recession before, there were no signs of it, but the media insisted, and it helped their man get elected"

    " But as long as people are mortified about all this, and listen to the CNNs or worse, the MSNBCs of the world, itll take just that much longer. Ive been saying for over a decade, we need to quit listening to those people, which isnt only exclusive to the media, but those that use the media, thatre in bed with them "

    Now, those are my recent comments concerning the media and the economy, but it says alot. Id prefer you to pick at these statements of you will, then youll get a response. I dont watch the news all that much, and watch 1 show besides sports. If you still think Ive been impressed by the media other than in a negative way, please explain, and knowing that people are taught to hate others that arent the same, and knowing where they live, and even having a school or a few schools here teaching this type of thing in the US, and mentioning it in 1 form shouldnt bring alot of bone picking, as it had much broader meaning, wasnt only about 1 group, and wasnt uninformed either. People in certain countries are teaching alot of people to hate, and some of them are near the oil. Maybe certain terms, terms I only used to differentiate between the vast majority of good people of the same sect or belief or whatever, shouldnt be the point. Its a waste of time
  40. Concerning the term jihadist, it concerns a small amount of people thatll actually act upon their beliefs, which in turn, a larger amount of people support them, which in turn, a larger amount of people will sit on their hands and do nothing to stop them, but thankfully an even larger amount hates what theyre doing to their beliefs, and the image thats being portrayed. Thats my perspective. If I need to define every word I use, Ill never say anything
  41. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Oh man, youre still not getting it. I didnt read your post, as I got to the nit pickin and stopped to say this

    The previous post, yours? About the heart of man, and his desire for power, even when he has a huge chunk already? All those observances, and comments? THEYRE EXACTLY AS I FEEL. Now, I may have used different words, but thats about it. Realise this, what you say is nothing new, nothing that hasnt been said, thought or improved upon, and Ive seen it, thought it, and read it, and no, it wasnt at the library, but in magazines i used to have subs to, books Ive bought etc, oh yes, even on a few tv shows, tho those are harder to find than a decentr book, now chill, and except this ok?



    Bingo:


    Quote:
    I didnt read your post

    which translates to
    Quote:
    "Im not going to read what you say, but Im going to make another post for you to read!"


    Yes, Jay, you did read the post. You read it as there were only three possibles reponses, and this post indicates :
    1) Im wrong.
    2) No, Im right, and heres another long response explaining why
    3) no response.

    You choose option 3. No response.:

    You are wrong, and you know it, but you can not admit it as it calls into question your whole argument, therefore you choose not to respond. But no response is a response in and of itself, a response which quietly says "im wrong" or "i have no defense" So, you cant save face by making no response. In short, you have to say something. So what you say is equates to a frustrated "you dont understand me, so Im not reading what you write, instead Im going to write some more" This tactic side steps the topic in an attempt to confuse it by not addressing your actual error, while at the same time attempting to minimize or discredit the points of my argument, again without actually adressing them which would lend them credence


    Sorry Jay, but the tactic fails.

    You are wrong. Your statement is wrong. The premise is wrong and defending it is wrong. All you are doing now is digging a deeper hole.
  42. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Here.

    "Until the government fixes this, the medias going to be playing it up. A Lot of what weve seen was going to happen anyways. Unfortunately, the media finds this as newsworthy, and itll be hyped by them. I believe once the government comes to terms with how its all going to happen, youll then see the media back off. Just like when we werent in recession before, there were no signs of it, but the media insisted, and it helped their man get elected"

    " But as long as people are mortified about all this, and listen to the CNNs or worse, the MSNBCs of the world, itll take just that much longer. Ive been saying for over a decade, we need to quit listening to those people, which isnt only exclusive to the media, but those that use the media, thatre in bed with them "

    Now, those are my recent comments concerning the media and the economy, but it says alot. Id prefer you to pick at these statements of you will, then youll get a response. I dont watch the news all that much, and watch 1 show besides sports. If you still think Ive been impressed by the media other than in a negative way, please explain, and knowing that people are taught to hate others that arent the same, and knowing where they live, and even having a school or a few schools here teaching this type of thing in the US, and mentioning it in 1 form shouldnt bring alot of bone picking, as it had much broader meaning, wasnt only about 1 group, and wasnt uninformed either. People in certain countries are teaching alot of people to hate, and some of them are near the oil. Maybe certain terms, terms I only used to differentiate between the vast majority of good people of the same sect or belief or whatever, shouldnt be the point. Its a waste of time



    Meaniningless. Like the cop who shoots an inocent person, but tries to gloss over the error by saying "yeah, but look how many traffic tickets Ive written" Just another attempt to walk the argument away from its foundation. The foundation of your argument is wrong
  43. When your talking physics, do you spend hours on addition and subtration first?
  44. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Concerning the term jihadist, it concerns a small amount of people thatll actually act upon their beliefs, which in turn, a larger amount of people support them, which in turn, a larger amount of people will sit on their hands and do nothing to stop them, but thankfully an even larger amount hates what theyre doing to their beliefs, and the image thats being portrayed. Thats my perspective. If I need to define every word I use, Ill never say anything


    And it is a made up word , taken from the root word jihad, used by the media catagorize individuals into a group, and latched onto by people who arent intersted in the problem, but what to talk about it.

    Let me kae up a word. Ive done it before. Jaydeepoopookitty: Shall I give you my definition of my word based on my perspective?
  45. I am understanding you, and in the way you term it, and see it, then yes, Im wrong, but its not what I was trying to really say, nor was it really all that pertinent anyways. Like I said, you dont see our similarities, and thats not good. Knowledge is one thing, been there done that. Wisdom AND experience are a different dog in every fight.
  46. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    When your talking physics, do you spend hours on addition and subtration first?


    Caefurl, youre wading deeper into territory previously occupied by a former notorius forum member. Territory where attention to detail was not important, but unrealistic fanciful notion was. That person was silly-slapped daily by people with facts and the evidence/links/information to back them.
  47. Again, I dont disagree with the way youre saying the term jihadist. I think you know what I meant. Its not the words we say, its how we say then. Ever been married? heheh
  48. Did you get what I said? Want me to explain? Assuming someone doesnt know what theyre talking about, its easy to miscomprehend whats being said. Knowing this person already has a stable amount of knowledge and experience in them, then thats when you dispense with trivial things, and move to the main course
  49. In essence, things can always be put in better terms, but wasting time on such trivialities gets us nowhere. Having to limit my terms or usage of the english language, is more akin to using terms made by the media than actually contributing something useful
  50. Zorg said:
    That usually creates problems.

    Not major problems though, just the occasional spun rod/main bearing.

    Nothing an engine overhaul won't take care of. :lol:


    The guy had some pretty damn bad problems. He ended up with copper shavings in the cylinders. Thats not good when metal is setting where the gas combusts.

    As I have come to learn no car is perfect. Not honds, Not Ford none. Its all how you take care of the car in the end.

    I have seen brand new Hondas in the shop as well as any other car or on the side of the road. It just aggrivates me when ppl who are so uneducated who have never driven a certain brand sya they are bad cars because of what people tell them.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs