Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/28/11 05:22 PM, SundownCabinRentals wrote: I think folks need to take a deep breath and put themselves in the President's shoes. They say never judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

I say you should walk a mile in someone else's shoes just so you're a mile away from them when they realize you've got their shoes, but that's a different matter.

Obama wear's some nice shoes, mind you.

The President is only one person and let us not forget that he inherited 8 years of previous debt. He cannot fix all of these things in one 4 year term; it is imperative that we give him another 4 years to even have a record pattern of the changes; good or bad!

Only if he runs under his real name; George Walker Bush Jr. Because that's what his presidency has been an extension of.

---

At 6/28/11 07:16 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

:I'm not a fucking crystal ball, but I can say with 100% certainty that it's one of those two, because once those patents expire, the technology may as well be public domain.

I think you may be underestimating the perniciousness of patents, they appear to be used more often to stall the progress of technological developement rather than advance it.

But that is the only [negative] criticism of what i said.

---

I remember when people were saying over and over to use our oil reserves rather than oversea oil.

---

At 6/28/11 09:08 PM, psycho-squirrel wrote: I remember when people were saying over and over to use our oil reserves rather than oversea oil.

As do I, but the way it was handled in this instance, he might as well not have tapped them at all.

This was a move to pacify anybody incapable of doing simple math, and nothing more.

---

i guess if you like confusing "emergency reserves" with "resources in territory that are untapped" unless it's for your 'stragetic' or 'enviromental' ideals

if oil can get used up then how did it come into being in the first place, and i hope an asteroid strikes a nuclear plant or a waste site. maybe some solar flares will cause a power outage, while subscribing to some 'economist' fairy tale that these rare-earth elements will outlast 'peak oil' usage

---

At 6/28/11 09:20 PM, Proteas wrote: This was a move to pacify anybody incapable of doing simple math, and nothing more.

The Republican based has thus been appeased.

But seriously, most Americans are too stupid/distracted/aloof/apathetic to realize it.

---

forgot to mention its usage in your little eichmann 'standard' of living... which requires third world suffering and labor, not everyone can be entitled to that standard.
https://rdnaidoo.files.wordpress.com/201 1/01/eb5pm.jpg
refine that waste! oh right, we will have explored new prospects by then

---

and i'm sure the powers that be have this considered, so your 'calls' for them to realize this aren't really new. the solution could be to lower the population drastically
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Z n7I&feature=related

---

At 6/28/11 09:38 PM, afuckingname wrote: i guess if you like confusing "emergency reserves" with "resources in territory that are untapped" unless it's for your 'stragetic' or 'enviromental' ideals

if oil can get used up then how did it come into being in the first place, and i hope an asteroid strikes a nuclear plant or a waste site. maybe some solar flares will cause a power outage, while subscribing to some 'economist' fairy tale that these rare-earth elements will outlast 'peak oil' usage

Actually thorium is very plentiful and can be used for fission reactors allowing nuclear to vastly outlast any kind of fossil fuel, but even fission won't be needed for too long as fusion reactors are the next step in nuclear power.

---

At 6/28/11 09:38 PM, afuckingname wrote: if oil can get used up then how did it come into being in the first place,

Dead organic matter liquified by heat and pressure over the course of millions of years. Link.

---

At 6/28/11 07:16 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: And I can list 1,000s of problems with automobiles, airplanes, microwave ovens and televisions, that doesn't mean we should outlaw them.

No, but this is where I said you have to look at a "risk vs. reward" ratio. Is the risk acceptable to the potential reward? Oil spills are not really comparable to the impacts of the things you've mentioned since they create problems in the short and long term in the area they occur that the other things don't.

No, I meant no one is in charge since now the parties actually have to work things out democratically instead of ramming them through without popular approval.

So...if the two parties pass something, that automatically means there's "popular" approval? Also name me one thing the Dems rammed through that the Republicans had NO input on? I can't think of a single thing since they've continously been reaching across that aisle and as Proteas pointed out the Obama administration has largely been an extension of the prior administration.

Off shore drilling.

Gotcha.

The current release was little more than a drip.

True, but they knew even this little bit would cause a shit storm. So could you really expect them to release larger amounts? It would have been political suicide.

Because a day-and-a-half worth of oil is gonna scare anyone.

It just might. Because it (at least I'm sure this is the hope) sends the message that when prices get to a level the buyer no longer thinks is acceptable, the buyer will simply tap into what they already have until the seller brings prices into a more acceptable realm. Whether this will work or not is up for debate (and I imagine it shall be heavy and furious over the next several weeks), but all I'm saying is what I would think they're goal and hope is. Not taking a stance to say they'll achieve it :)

Patents only mean that you have exclusive rights to the technology for a limited time.

Right.

If you don't develop said technology, then the patent is wasted and once it expires it's anyone's game.

Also true. But if somebody doesn't want you to even give it a TRY, why not just buy your patent? Again, companies do this all the time. It happens, it's documented.

Oil companies buying patents is merely a stall tactic.

I agree. I think it absolutely is.

Either that, or they actually ARE developing the patented technology and plan to release it once their profits start to fall.

I kind of doubt it. I mean, it's possible, and in fact probable that some portion of their budgets go to R & D on alternative sources. But considering how much they're making off oil right now, I fail to see the motivation they have to rush to market with any sort of "alternative". I've never known a corporation to not be a profit driven animal.

Remember, once we run out of oil, the oil companies are fucked unless they can develop something better to replace it, which might be why they're buying the patents.

I'm sure it is. But I imagine another reason is to ensure that THEY are the ones coming out with and controlling the release of such alternatives. It's all about control.

I'm not a fucking crystal ball, but I can say with 100% certainty that it's one of those two, because once those patents expire, the technology may as well be public domain.

Not necessarily. Because unlike, say, a copyright, a technology or a patent is more difficult to develop. If Superman lapses into the public domain, all I need is a the supplies to create and market a Superman story. That would be a much easier task then say, developing, and marketing a way for cars to run on cow flop for instance.

---

At 6/28/11 05:22 PM, SundownCabinRentals wrote: I think folks need to take a deep breath and put themselves in the President's shoes. They say never judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. The President is only one person and let us not forget that he inherited 8 years of previous debt. He cannot fix all of these things in one 4 year term; it is imperative that we give him another 4 years to even have a record pattern of the changes; good or bad!

That's a very nice speech there but according to your logic we shouldn't judge Osama or Hitler or anyone.
We all understand that President Obama inherited tons of debt. He's also almost doubled it. And I think you're probably kidding when you say it's imperative that we give him another term to repeat the mistakes he's made this term.

I would consider giving Obama a second term if he was making the hard decisions that will actually benefit us in the long run. He's not; this move is a short-term jerry rigged fix that is purely for political gain.

---

At 6/29/11 12:03 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: And that's HUMAN LIFE, not just environmental impact. Yet none of those things are illegal.

And "environmental" which sometimes can also translate to "economic" impact is where oil spills become different from those other things. As I alluded to.

They shouldn't have to release it. Just let us drill.

That would be a shit storm of a different color and really, much worse for re-election chances then this will be. This at least has the slim chance of helping that. Off shore drilling slams the door on that for Obama almost completely.

Again, if they bought the patent and it expired, there can be no future patents on the same technology.

Are you really missing the very simple reasoning I laid out for why companies buy these things?

If I were to invent an energy drink that also acted as an aphrodisiac and patent it as "Energy & Spontaneity", then after the patent expires, you were to come out with "Spontaneity & Energy" which does the same thing, you would still be able to sell your product, just not patent it.

I could, but you've already had all that time to market "Energy and Spontaneity" you have a name brand, you have a whole system in place for producing, marketing, and have made yourself the industry king in that market. I now have to play catch up, starting from behind the 8 ball, and odds are I'll never get out from under it. That's why they buy this stuff at the patent stage and stop the tech from ever going to market, unless it goes to market under their name.

Ergo, the oil companies owning patents that they're never going to use is only a temporary setback at worst.

But it is still a set back to the process. A set back that I don't think we should have to endure, do you? I'd much rather get off oil completely, cripple the foreign producers who hate us and cause us so many headaches since we're always running off over there to assert our will to protect the oil and what not...and no longer have to worry about the nastier effects of oil, including the cancer risks to those who work on cars.

Of course it's a profit-driven animal, but there's no profit to be made on oil if it's all gone.

But until it's all gone, there is. Thus there is no real rush or extreme profit motive to them to release something that makes oil obsolete before it's "all gone". Get what I'm saying now?

I literally do not see the problem with the oil companies making (and therefore controlling) alternative energy. If it gets done, it gets done, and we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

It's only however going to get done at their pleasure and leisure. I dunno, I trust corporations not a jot (I work for one after all) and historically they don't have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Hell, they're playing ridiculous games now with oil, what makes us think they won't do so with alternative energy? I don't think they're a "gift horse" at all. More like a venemous serpent if anything.

With oil running out (eventually), there's alot of money to be made with alternative energy.

Without a doubt.

Once those patents expire, what's stopping the original owners from finishing their work and swimming in the money?

Loss of interest, inability to get investment (investors are interested in being FIRST to market, not second or any number further down that chain), etc. There are really any number of factors that stop it. The corporations know that, if they didn't believe that, why would they spend the money buying the patents to begin with? Also, patents ARE renewable things as I'm sure you're well aware. Not easy, but possible.

---

I don't care if he taps into oil or not. Really doesn't change things in my life so why give a fuck. Only thing I look out for is numero uno, me.

---

I hope one day we make and provide an energy source that is free and can last for everyone longer than their lifespans. It wont happen any time soon even if we found it because the way thing work is people put how they can market something over its effectiveness. The system we have works because it drives people to make better things, but it also hinders because they dont want to make it too good so that people will always have to come back for more.

---

At 6/29/11 01:04 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Environmental and economical impact means jack shit next to human life.

Huh? Those things actually AFFECT human life as well. They sometimes indirectly end it. So um...yeah, weird stance to take there I think.

And if you were to put EVERY oil spill in the history of the planet all together, you'd get (rough estimate) maybe a hundred human casualties.

What are you basing that on? Do you have figures on the casualties of every oil spill in history? I'm doubting it, but I'm prepared to be shut up. Please provide some evidence to back it up.

A good president would put the good of his country ahead of the good of his campaign.

Tend to agree. But how many presidents, or politicians in general do you really know of that do that? I can only think of one politician right now off the top of my head who seems to be doing that in most cases (but even he plays political and partisan games when it suits him).

(Besides, he stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning as is. What's he got to lose?)

I love how everybody is such a political expert and can predict an election a year in advance, while we don't even know who his main opposition is yet. I know, I know, I risk going off topic, but I just wanted to point that out.

I know, stall tactics. So what?

Uh, no. I suggested stall tactics, but I also pointed out that it gives THEM the ability to be the ones to release the technology and have their brand name applied to it.

You would have a point were it not for the fact that these are UNUSED PATENTS!

You sure they aren't being researched?

They aren't being sold or marketed or any shit like that!

I was responding to the analogy you made. In that response, I was trying to point out the reasoning companies have for buying patents as a means to make sure that if anything comes of those patents, they are the ones who profit. Was this somehow unclear? Did that fly over anybody else's head?

If they were, then we'd already have alternative energy right now!

I thought we established that any sort of situation like this takes time? Ok, so I can produce one car that runs on cow flop (as a for instance) but there's still a ton of work I need to do to get that technology to become a "standard" and for it to compete with gasoline. Making the technology work is only half the fight.

Why the hell does that matter?

Cause they want to make all the money they can off the product they have now? Cause that's SOP for any business?

The whole point of alternative energy is that we have something to switch to once we run out of oil. Not to make the switch on the fucking dot.

Right...but what I'm saying is why would they want that alternative out there while they still have plenty of oil? Then you can't charge mark ups on oil as it gets scarcer and all those other lovely "supply and demand" tactics that consumer economics are based off of! Seriously...is this really so difficult to understand?

Let them play their games. So long as our oil supply lasts longer than the patents do, we've got nothing to worry about.

Sure, just sky rocketing prices and pain at the pump until they do. Are you personally an oil consumer? I have the feeling this issue doesn't really effect you on a very immediate and personal level.

How can the oil companies be first to market if they're not even IN the market?

But by holding the patent, they theoretically ARE. Because they hold that patent as a way INTO that market, and potentially to control and dominate that market. Let's also remember that alternative energy isn't really a "market" just yet. I mean, I know how many electric recharge stations are currently available in my state (1, and I believe that it's more along the lines of a thing that is definitely being built vs. truly operational) how many does your state have? How many etheonol stations or others? That's the thing. You have to have infrastructure and a way to distribute and what not.

Besides, since there is so much money in the alternative energy business, finding investors shouldn't be as difficult as you say it is.

There's "so much money" really? Right now it seems more like there's a lot of potential money...but that window slams closed the minute we find the thing that replaces oil (because make no mistake, I don't see this being a business with a lot of competition, I see us jumping from oil to whatever the new thing is, and the new thing being as dominate and uncontested as oil was for so many years). I also didn't say finding investors would be difficult, the end. I clearly said finding investors if you are SECOND or further down, in entering the market with the same tech as someone else, would be difficult. If you aren't finding a particular niche and filling that need, it's a lot harder to convince people to part with their cash. The corporations know that, that's why they want to buy these patents and stop as many small time competitors as they can at stage 1 before they can truly get in there and compete.

Yeah, like the government would let them renew an UNUSED patent. Get with reality.

Yeah, cause the oil companies are these itty bitty things that have no say in Congress or other levels of government and certainly no influence or ability to shift policy favorably towards them...the fuck was I thinking?

---

At 6/29/11 01:12 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Look, AVA, we could argue 'till the cows come home.

We could indeed. Also, the predominate (and hell, I've kind of grown attached to it) nick name is "avie". Just an FYI :)

But the point remains that alternative energy is a product, and no matter how much the oil companies try to swerve around that fact, eventually it's going to come out and replace oil.

I'm sorry...at what point did I dispute that? I thought that was one of the things we most definitely agreed on when this whole conversation started. It's just common sense to say that when you have high consumption of a finite resource, eventually you will have to find a replacement resource because the original resource is...well...finite.

Whether it takes 10 years or 20 years, eventually some slick businessman is going to release the solution to the energy crisis and make enough money to buy his own continent.

What I'm saying is it's probably going to be the exact same people that are running the oil companies now. Because they are the ones with the power, the set up, and the expertise to get it done. I highly highly doubt that developing a solution to oil is going to to turn some Jed Clampet into a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

That's how capitalism works. So long as there is demand for any product, someone is always willing to cash in on that demand.

Yeah, but how AMERICAN capitilism tends to work is some big corporation is the "someone" who gets to cash in through advantages they have to be the one to cash in on that demand.

Basically, you and I agree on the fundamentals, it just seems like we're a little far apart on the particulars.

---

At 6/29/11 01:04 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Environmental and economical impact means jack shit next to human life. And if you were to put EVERY oil spill in the history of the planet all together, you'd get (rough estimate) maybe a hundred human casualties.

Does this figure include food and water poisoning, medical complications from breathing toxic fumes, and suicides resultant from ruined livelihoods?