GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Automated Spam Shredder
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Will it be before or after a real-life Waterworld?
Either way, I'm not drinking pee.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
I certainly hope this is sarcasm.
Will it be before or after a real-life Waterworld?
I love boating, so this would be okay for me.
I just need to make sure I can get the biggest boat around before that happens chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
Wait, wait, wait...
So this guy prints out stuff that nobody wants, using paper, ink, and electricity, and then destroys it immediately? To what end? To be thrown out physically instead of simply clicking "delete" after receiving the crap? How is this a good invention?
Umm, dude, save a tree.
all Q'd FT!
This guy is an idiot. I get at mad stores using massive amounts of paper for receipts...this tops even that.
what a tard
Q'd F MF'ing Truth!
Seriously this is so freaking retarded.
A way smarter invention would be a smart fax machine that would only print non-spam faxes. I get 2-5 spam faxes a day, which I'd love to stop. I call up the phone #'s to request to be taken off, then I just get on some other fax list.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
I'd rather have a phone system that detects machines calling.
QFT.
I could supply the entire east coast with hamster bedding if I did this on my mail server.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
The "I'm just one guy, and my change of habit won't make any difference" argument is invalid, and can be used to forgive any number of crimes. Yes, maybe 10,000,000 suv's need to go off the road to make any SIGNIFICANT impact, but that doesn't make the impact of ONE suv any less bad. If everyone thinks they dont matter, then everyone is right. One person making a difference leads to two. which leads to 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024...
An avalanche can start with a single snowflake, and sometimes with a big sliding snowbank, but if every snowflake just "conformed" then it'd never change.
I know you think I'm preachy, but, you CAN make a difference. I've reduced MY pollution levels in the atmosphere by TONS per year. I drive a car that runs mainly on used vegetable oil. I do own a "gashog suv" because I DO need to tow, carry, etc sometimes, but that SUV went from doing ~40K miles a year to ~5K. I am also "suping up" my fuel miser in such a way that my "sports car" is being sold (anyone want to buy a viper that's had ~200K in improvements? - yeah, didn't think so) because I find the fuel-miser more fun to drive @ 80 than the sportscar is @ 150.
Every person that decides to go paperless, (and really goes paperless) reduces, fuel usage (3 TIMES), (that paper has to get delivered to office depot for you to buy it, you know), and even if the "paper industry" really DOES plant all their own trees, they still have to run machinery to turn that tree into paper. Pre-recycle. Buy only products that are recycled, don't get a bag when you go to the grocery store and only bought ice cream and milk. Combine your trips when you go out so that you don't consume as much fuel.
There are THOUSANDS of changes you can make. It boggles the mind to consider all of them. USE LCDs instead of CRT's. Get a toaster oven for basic cooking instead of that giant thing in the kitchen, use a forman grill instead of an electric stovetop grill. Cook more food at once if you are going to fire up that oven, throw in 2 meat-loafs, not one. I live in florida, and I usually just run fans instead of A/C (i'm running a fan right now, AC is off, windows are open.)
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
That's all good and everything, but it's assuming one person does lead to two and so on. Doing my part doesn't have to lead to others following my example. My company doesn't have recycling bins for our huge amounts of wasted paper. I use one of my desk drawers to keep papers and empty water bottles to take home to recycle.
I don't think your chain reaction theory is as plausible as you think or hope. We need a big shift in our effort to find alternative fuels and cleaner ways of running everyday life. It'll happen as soon as the oil companies replace their dollar signs with eyeballs.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
I think that's a confucius reference, so, it's pretty old.
The alternative fuels are already here. Forces stronger than us don't want you to know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
Now, scroll down. You've heard about corn being used as a source for fuel production.
Why, may I ask, is it that CORN, the LEAST efficient source of these fuels is the most popular.. because, our GOVERNMENT WANTS IT TO FAIL.
Rice produces almost 5 TIMES the source material than corn.
The chinese tallow tree (florida aspen) is 38x more productive.
Ethanol from corn or biodiesel from corn is a very similar processor (but not identical), so why is the E85 market so corn based?
Personally, I think jathropa is the answer. It grows very vivaciously, is fairly pretty, very easy to harvest, and is very productive, and it's inedible, so we aren't growing something that would otherwise be used as food.
I've converted 11 people over to alternative fuel. I know for a fact that at least 3 of those people have become "advocates" of alternative fuels. I supply alternative fuel @ 200 gallons per week (or, what's left-over from my own usage) to my friends. I don't have the time to produce more than that (my rig can do 50 gallons at once, and it takes ~1 hour to start each time, and about 36 hours to make, so, I can only pump out those 200 gallons a week. I could do more if I built additional systems, but I'm out of space in my shed as it is. I am personally responsible for ~6000-9000 miles a week being driven on a fuel that does NOT pollute anywhere even close to what gasoline does.
I am trying to get others in my collective to build their own rigs, but most are waiting until they can offset the purchase with the savings, and there's the fact that they'd also have to get their own supply of source material.
I haven't bought GASOLINE for my own vehicles in over a month. I haven't bought petroleum based diesel in 6 months, and I've driven 17,000 miles in that car.
One of my side jobs, is, however, to deliver vehicles, so they do need to be gassed up once in a while, in the past week I've been to atlanta, bradenton, miami, jacksonville, and tampa (from daytona)
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
I know. Oil company lobbyists are significantly hindering the research. Once they realize that their cash crop is limited, hopefully they'll convert themselves into alternative fuel behemoths and help fund the research. There's no reason they can't stay rich and greedy. We just have to get them to change their source.
mason.kramer
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 64
This is installment art. It's not a real invention. Don't take it too seriously.
This invalidates your whole argument. Nothing beats the FW900.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
if people stopped buying their product, then they'd probably change their product to something people would buy, don't you think?
90% of diesel vehicles on the road can run on non petroleum products.
Every 18-wheeler you see could run on WASTE vegetable oil with minor modification.
(Extra filter for catching "dirt" and a fuel heater)
the US navy is the worlds largest single user of biodiesel.
100% of gasoline cars BEING BUILT today could run on a non petroleum product.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Xilikon
[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,011
Yes, I see it as art as well... It's a good visual representation of the "waste" that spam generated
Great. Ethanol. Nothing like more carcinogens than regular gasoline, less food to feed the world, and higher prices for corn because of the new burden. Hey folks! We've got petroleum and corn! We can only eat one! Which one should we burn???
CORN!!!
mason.kramer
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 64
Great. Ethanol. Nothing like more carcinogens than regular gasoline, less food to feed the world, and higher prices for corn because of the new burden. Hey folks! We've got petroleum and corn! We can only eat one! Which one should we burn???
CORN!!!
idiot
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
Great. Ethanol. Nothing like more carcinogens than regular gasoline, less food to feed the world, and higher prices for corn because of the new burden. Hey folks! We've got petroleum and corn! We can only eat one! Which one should we burn???
CORN!!!
The hell? Corn is unlimited. Less food to feed the world? Just need a few more farms. Much better than one day having no more petroleum. We can grow a lot of other crops to make food with, ones that are also unlimited. Oil is going to run out someday, and right now it's the only large-scale fuel that can support our needs.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
?
1) Reduce dependency on foreign oil
2) Reduce my fuel bill
3) Reduce global contribution to pollution
4) Reduce personal contribution to pollution.
5) Fuck over the countries that attack us, fight us, go to war with us.
6) Stop using a resource that will be depleted, and use a renewable, infinite resource, that can be created and implemented locally.
We have TONS of "empty land" in this country, other than "defense systems" our country has no exports. We don't MAKE anything. We, with as large as we are, could CREATE a fuel making economy. India is dedicating 7 MILLION ACRES of land to power their needs. We aren't doing jack.
A new business of "fuel farms" would employ millions in this country, would make use of all that empty space, AND it would be good for the environment, as we'd be creating MORE plant life. Jathropa, which i mentioned before, is a highly efficient plant for "atmospheric scrubbing" and you don't use the entire plant to make the materials.
What positive effects , do you think, would there be on the environment, if.. say.. 100 million acres of new plant life were created?
Our country is comprised of somewhere north of 2 BILLION ACRES of land
(1 sq mile = 640 acres, country is roughly 3.5million square miles of land)
if less than 5% of our country was dedicated to this "new crop" (100,000,000 acres) we could produce over 20 BILLION us gallons of fuel oils.
How many people do you think it would take to farm this much land?
Millions of unemployed, but non disabled people could be employed for this industry. Industry creates jobs, income, wealth, taxes, revenue. How hard is it to pick berries?
Can we plant 100 million acres tomorrow? No. The infrastructure would have to be grown of course. But, could our government go an make a couple hundred square miles of this in a MOMENTS NOTICE? Hell yes. Could a farmer who has a "fuel" corn field plow that down and grow this new crop which produces in one YEAR what it would take him a DECADE to produce otherwise? Yep.
Or, we could use a edible fuel source, and multi-purpose the land.. so, if we make too much fuel (say, 20 billion us gallons every year) we can feed the all the starving people with part of that land by growing
macadamia nuts, Brazil nuts, avocado, coconut, pecans, olives, peanuts, rice, etc.. all of which produce 500-1500% more fuel oil than corn.
And..peanut oil isn't toxic. Nor is olive oil. Coconut oil. Dead dinosaurs are.
Hell.. you can COOK with the peanut, olive oil, or coconut oil (try it, it makes some foods really interesting.. like coconut oil fried chicken!) then, take that oil and put it in your tank!
I don't recommend doing that with petroleum oil from saudi arabia.
Which do you think is better for the environment? Something the environment currently MAKES itself, or the dead remains of reptiles?
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
I meant with me, aside from blindsiding me with your noble life.
I stand corrected.
I love how we say that a crop is unlimited. I bet they were saying that right before the dust bowl, the drought, the tornadoes, etc. Land is not unlimited. Hunger is. We feed 2/3 of the damn world. I don't think they're interested in starving so we can feel better about ourselves while China, more than 3 times our size, is suddenly putting a huge pinch on the world's oil supply with their own influx of automobiles. Regardless, ethanol is also more carcinogenic, and is also worse for your engine than properly refined gasoline. But hey, once we have no cars, problem solved, right? Then we have to look at all the CO2 producing cows...mooing bastards!
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
I love how we say that a crop is unlimited. I bet they were saying that right before the dust bowl, the drought, the tornadoes, etc. Land is not unlimited. Hunger is. We feed 2/3 of the damn world. I don't think they're interested in starving so we can feel better about ourselves while China, more than 3 times our size, is suddenly putting a huge pinch on the world's oil supply with their own influx of automobiles. Regardless, ethanol is also more carcinogenic, and is also worse for your engine than properly refined gasoline. But hey, once we have no cars, problem solved, right? Then we have to look at all the CO2 producing cows...mooing bastards!
Seems you're the only one who thinks corn byproducts are the next gasoline. Corn is only a step on the way to finding a healthy, clean alternative fuel. Corn could theoretically become extinct, but we have plenty of crops to fall back on. At this rate, when oil runs out, we're completely screwed. I'm betting oil will run out long before our global corn crop risks extinction. I'm also betting we'd recover faster without corn than without oil.
These smilies are fun, aren't they? Remind me of christmas.
...except for all the spending bills both state and federal that want to take large corn reserves currently slated for feeding people and put them aside for synthesis to fuel. And if corn is a step, it's a step to a fuel that is more harmful to humans, and to the cars they power. I call that a step down.
And about oil running out? I guess you've never heard of Shale Oil, which we have in the US alone many times more than Saudi Arabia has crude. If anything, that is a step.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
It's a step because we got it to run a car. Even if corn became a popular fuel, look at how long we've been using gas. We wouldn't even come close to harming the environment and people as much by the time we found a better alternative than corn. We need more support and money for research.
I guess you've never heard of bringing up relevant points. Oil will run out, period. Long before corn, solar energy, hydrogen, etc. Doesn't matter who has it or how much there is. It's not being renewed or replenished.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
Seems you're the only one who thinks corn byproducts are the next gasoline. Corn is only a step on the way to finding a healthy, clean alternative fuel. Corn could theoretically become extinct, but we have plenty of crops to fall back on. At this rate, when oil runs out, we're completely screwed. I'm betting oil will run out long before our global corn crop risks extinction. I'm also betting we'd recover faster without corn than without oil.
These smilies are fun, aren't they? Remind me of christmas.
I think my entire point is that corn is NOT a good choice, and that there are alternative fuels which can be made that aren't greater polluters, and are much cleaner. Until everyone walks everywhere, there will always be tradeoffs, but the cleaner, nature based fuels are, overall, much better.
BTW, GJS, corn is not unlimited.
Jesus christ help you if you truly believe that.Aelfgeft
Burning petroleum is far worse than burning peanut oil. I choose to burn peanut, soy, canola, etc in my car instead of dinosaurs. I say let the dino oil stay where it is.
We can make our fuels here, from nature. The only way we are going to reduce carcinogens being released into the atmosphere is BURN LESS STUFF.
That will only be accomplished by improving efficiencies.
My diesel car produces ~50% less pollution (except for one pollutant) than it used to.
Some pollutants my car used to put out have completely disappeared from it's exhaust.
NOx has increased a "LITTLE" (~10%), but that's basically because I am using either "refried oil" or because my 2nd fuel has a little methanol in it
(homebrew biodiesel)
The fact that the CO2 emissions of my car don't even REGISTER (at idle, anyhow) makes it all worth it.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
All this over an automated spam shredder?
I think the guy was just trying to make a statement, not incite debate over the environment. I want his spam blacklist.
I think the guy was just trying to make a statement, not incite debate over the environment. I want his spam blacklist.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
I'm not saying corn is a good choice either. Still, what are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to rally us? Impress us with your life? Are you bragging or informing? Preachy might be an understatement.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
You're absolutely right. If there are 500,000,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil, it's absolutely stupid to use it. Let's use corn, even if the recent harvest was dismal and produced barely any. After all, it's "renewable" (within conditions, of course, and the limited amount of land we have to grow it on).
Ummmm...you do know that the number of carcinogens produced in a combustion reaction is relative to the temperature and types of materials involved, do you not? Therefore, you can reduce carcinogens by NOT BURNING the materials that produce higher carcinogen counts when you have materials that produce less. Like, for example, not burning ethanol that produces a higher carcinogen count than gasoline. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Baby steps to a healthier world. Trying to get everyone to change all of a sudden is, and always has been, an exercise in futility. Human nature won't have it. Make plans that work within that paradigm, and fucking close greenpeace.org.
Technically oil can replenish and also with improved techniques you can re-harvest what used to be dry wells. Also we have a lot of under water oil pockets but lack the technology to effectivley extract it for the same costs as we can obtain oil from the mideast.
Problem is with todays industry is that they don't want to spend the money, also as for the old oil wells re-harvesting, they have damaged them really bad from earlier operations; and from that action, they can't reuse them effectivley.
If Oil Shale and alternative oil production meassures were used, then we would have a incredible amount of resource left... the problem is that it wont happen until the mideast runs out as no one wants to use thier own reserves or pockets first.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
Cool the synapses. I didn't say not to use the oil. We use the oil while spending a great deal of time researching alternative fuels. Right now the research is limited because the oil companies don't want us to change. If corn is our best alternative so far, don't you think we need to vastly accelerate our efforts? I'd rather find the revolutionary alternative with 500,000,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil left than with 500.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
Apparently you guys are more concerned about continuing to use oil than finding something better for the environment. Oil or corn, it's still detrimental.
RoffleCopter
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,910
This is America, we don't seem to have any problems feeding people if you catch my drift.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
The question is.. which is worse. I say petroleum. Use corn (no), or jathropa, or algae now, while we figure out how to run cars on stupidity, sunlight, urine, greed, and political hot air.. all of which are abundant, and will NEVER run out.
That's the thing. You keep saying corn is our best alternative. It isn't. The money we are using to fund ethanol research and synthesis could quite easily go into the research to open an oil reserve the likes of which nobody in Texas could have dreamed of. So far, ethanol's only benefit is that it comes from renewable vegetable matter. Past that, it's a damaging, harmful substance that makes oil seem desirable. We know there are other alternatives, and corn is only popular because it's easy to make. Easy does not mean best, especially when the agricultural lobby has a huge influence over lawmakers (And you thought only the big bad oil people did that!)
This is America, we don't seem to have any problems feeding people if you catch my drift.
Yeah, and then the other, oh, hundred or so countries we send food to every day.