Dear America:
I think you'll agree that Canada has been ridiculously tolerant of your exploits these past few years. We were irate, but patient, when you aired the initial episode of The Biggest Loser, and even when you let mormons write twinkle-porn about abstinent vampires. We've clucked indulgently for a very long time, but you have finally GONE TOO FAR!
(http://i.imgur.com/zj7Ez.jpg) (http://imgur.com/zj7Ez)
Look at that fruit! LOOK AT IT! Do bananas need plastic wrapping?
If you're actually taking the time to weigh the pros and cons, let this be your slap up back the head. The answer is NO. No they fucking well don't, and you know it, because they're ALREADY INDIVIDUALLY WRAPPED in that yellow thing called a PEEL!
goddamnit.
We will only warn you once. Either ban abstinence-only "sex education" in your schools, or ban pre-wrapped bananas! You CANNOT HAVE BOTH! The wages of your failure to bring either the board of education or Del Monte to heel will be the complete Canadianization of everything you hold dear.*
You have 2 days to comply.
Sincerely,
Hoser McRhizzy, Greater Barmping Despot
for the Glenuri Liberation Front, Hogtown div.
* Mexico is hereby cordially invited to join us, and Mexicanize the fuck out of the USofA until we meet in the middle, cross-pollinate, and all of North America is finally that great promised land we have dreamed of for so long - Mexicada!
What the fuck? :lulz:
Hold on, I gotta saran-wrap all my eggs.
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2011, 10:31:08 PM
What the fuck? :lulz:
Hold on, I gotta saran-wrap all my eggs.
There are prepackaged in plastic eggs in at the Shoppette on post.
Just saying.
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on April 26, 2011, 11:14:55 PM
in at the Shoppette on post.
in at the on what there?
But you cannot distract me with your unfinished sentences, murka. I see your game.
2 days. DNT.
\
(http://i.imgur.com/qJQx6.jpg) (http://imgur.com/qJQx6)
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2011, 10:31:08 PM
What the fuck? :lulz:
Hold on, I gotta saran-wrap all my eggs.
:lol: inorite?!
Or possibly not far enough!
http://blogs.forbes.com/csr/2011/03/15/del-monte-responds-to-daily-show-criticism-of-individually-wrapped-banana/
Bananas have to be wrapped, or some dickhead will weaponize them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:34:34 AM
Bananas have to be wrapped, or some dickhead will weaponize them.
Too late:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--qx76BQVg5E/Taaq5LBc1YI/AAAAAAAACEE/KWUY3DoqWis/s1600/banana+carving+2.jpg)
Huh. So, it's so that they can come out of a vending machine? Instead of a Snickers bar?
...interesting.
Quote from: Jenne on April 27, 2011, 12:43:35 AM
Huh. So, it's so that they can come out of a vending machine? Instead of a Snickers bar?
...interesting.
It's so they can sell you colored plastic with your banana. :lulz:
Only America would waste irreplaceable hydrocarbons to put a wrapper on a fruit that has a built in wrapper.
RETARDED. :lulz:
Yeah, I wasn't saying I thought it was necessary--I've seen apples and oranges displayed in vending machines, and they didn't have wrappers. This was the company's excuse--to make individual servings of the highly spoilable fruit accessible "in ways that they haven't been before" ...or something to that effect.
Because I REALLY couldn't fucking figure it out, before. Defied logic. Now, there's SOME logic to that, but well, not REALLY.
Quote from: Jenne on April 27, 2011, 12:51:56 AM
Yeah, I wasn't saying I thought it was necessary--I've seen apples and oranges displayed in vending machines, and they didn't have wrappers. This was the company's excuse--to make individual servings of the highly spoilable fruit accessible "in ways that they haven't been before" ...or something to that effect.
Because I REALLY couldn't fucking figure it out, before. Defied logic. Now, there's SOME logic to that, but well, not REALLY.
Oh, I get where you're coming from.
But America is still retodded.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:53:12 AM
Quote from: Jenne on April 27, 2011, 12:51:56 AM
Yeah, I wasn't saying I thought it was necessary--I've seen apples and oranges displayed in vending machines, and they didn't have wrappers. This was the company's excuse--to make individual servings of the highly spoilable fruit accessible "in ways that they haven't been before" ...or something to that effect.
Because I REALLY couldn't fucking figure it out, before. Defied logic. Now, there's SOME logic to that, but well, not REALLY.
Oh, I get where you're coming from.
But America is still retodded.
Retaaahded. Fo' sho. :lulz:
So... we are now able to get a prepackaged, mass produced pb and j, pre packaged banana and box of milk or other beverage related product straight from a vending machine? {ponders the laziness and ridiculousness of humanity}
Boxes of milk don't bother me, but the mass produced prepackaged sandwiches do. The whole idea of a sandwich is a quick snack or meal that is freshly made and can be transported or eaten quickly elsewhere. So mass producing something like a sandwich just seems wrong somehow--like spaghetti flavored ice cream or something.
Prepackaging fruit that has a package is also similar in feeling to me, though I realize that the particular properties of the banana might have caused this swing in logic--refrigeration makes bananas go bad. So sealing them off in plastic makes them stay fresher in a refrigerator longer.
*shakes head*
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
Only America would waste irreplaceable hydrocarbons to put a wrapper on a fruit that has a built in wrapper.
RETARDED. :lulz:
If it makes the last dregs of oil run out quicker then I'm all in favour. Can't wait to see the resulting shitstorm when it's all gone. I have a vision of a populace all running about screaming and eating each other in blind panic when their cars, tevees and microwaves stop working and then there's me, sitting atop a hill, laughing my fucking ass off and yelling "yo assholes, maybe fucking pre packaged bananas will save you?", at the top of my lungs :lulz:
:lulz: :x :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 27, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
Only America would waste irreplaceable hydrocarbons to put a wrapper on a fruit that has a built in wrapper.
RETARDED. :lulz:
If it makes the last dregs of oil run out quicker then I'm all in favour. Can't wait to see the resulting shitstorm when it's all gone. I have a vision of a populace all running about screaming and eating each other in blind panic when their cars, tevees and microwaves stop working and then there's me, sitting atop a hill, laughing my fucking ass off and yelling "yo assholes, maybe fucking pre packaged bananas will save you?", at the top of my lungs :lulz:
Thankfully we get most of our electricity from coal. Therefore TVs and microwaves should still work.
I have nothing to add other then Cyril Sneer rules and totally wanted to tap Sophia Tutu.
:fap:
Quote from: PopeTom on April 28, 2011, 03:58:21 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 27, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
Only America would waste irreplaceable hydrocarbons to put a wrapper on a fruit that has a built in wrapper.
RETARDED. :lulz:
If it makes the last dregs of oil run out quicker then I'm all in favour. Can't wait to see the resulting shitstorm when it's all gone. I have a vision of a populace all running about screaming and eating each other in blind panic when their cars, tevees and microwaves stop working and then there's me, sitting atop a hill, laughing my fucking ass off and yelling "yo assholes, maybe fucking pre packaged bananas will save you?", at the top of my lungs :lulz:
Thankfully we get most of our electricity from coal. Therefore TVs and microwaves should still work.
You talking about the kind of coal that just climbs out of the ground into the powerstation hoppers? That's the only kind of coal we'll be mining by then and if I get wind of a single lump of that shit, running in to save the day I'll set fire to the fucking thing myself. This technological apocalypse is way too important to me to let some self mining fuel stand in the way.
I thought they would take us seriously when we sent them the Bieber, but then they went and upped the ante with Rebecca Black. Should've known really... any country which could come up with Branson Missouri was not to be trifled with. But this... this is too far...
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 02:58:58 PM
I thought they would take us seriously when we sent them the Bieber, but then they went and upped the ante with Rebecca Black. Should've known really... any country which could come up with Branson Missouri was not to be trifled with. But this... this is too far...
Hey, I liked Branson. There's kid-friendly wineries there, and a place with butterflies, and a pretty lake with a catamaran ride, and YOU CAN DRIVE THE DUCKS!
Freeky,
hasn't been to Branson in YEARS.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Yes, I call a duck a duck because I'm an Xtian Wookie...
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Yes, I call a duck a duck because I'm an Xtian Wookie...
Say
what?
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Yes, I call a duck a duck because I'm an Xtian Wookie...
Say what?
Assburgers.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Yes, I call a duck a duck because I'm an Xtian Wookie...
Say what?
The Rev's insinuation was that my view is the result of Christian faith or hippie foolishness. It is not.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Yes, I call a duck a duck because I'm an Xtian Wookie...
Say what?
The Rev's insinuation was that my view is the result of Christian faith or hippie foolishness. It is not.
It certainly is.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Yes, I call a duck a duck because I'm an Xtian Wookie...
Say what?
The Rev's insinuation was that my view is the result of Christian faith or hippie foolishness. It is not.
Right, because surely whenever the Good Reverend references the
baby jesus, he means you are a christian.
Lurk more.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Yes, I call a duck a duck because I'm an Xtian Wookie...
Say what?
The Rev's insinuation was that my view is the result of Christian faith or hippie foolishness. It is not.
Right, because surely whenever the Good Reverend references the baby jesus, he means you are a christian.
Lurk more.
You know, at first I was thinking Poptard. But Poptard is actually fairly smart, if insane, and I don't think he could act down to this level.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 05:02:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 04:43:10 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
...irreplaceable hydrocarbons...
No such thing.
Yes, yes, we know. Baby Jesus puts more oil in the ground while we're sleeping. :lulz:
Silly hippie.
Yes, I call a duck a duck because I'm an Xtian Wookie...
Say what?
The Rev's insinuation was that my view is the result of Christian faith or hippie foolishness. It is not.
Right, because surely whenever the Good Reverend references the baby jesus, he means you are a christian.
Lurk more.
You know, at first I was thinking Poptard. But Poptard is actually fairly smart, if insane, and I don't think he could act down to this level.
Look back through this person's posts... the constant repetition is a famous Poptart mark of authenticity.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:01:44 PM
Right, because surely whenever the Good Reverend references the baby jesus, he means you are a christian.
Lurk more.
Wouldn't faith in a baby Jesus with miraculous powers make a person a christian of sorts?
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:01:44 PM
Right, because surely whenever the Good Reverend references the baby jesus, he means you are a christian.
Lurk more.
Wouldn't faith in a baby Jesus with miraculous powers make a person a christian of sorts?
That would depend on
which Jesus you're talking about, wouldn't it?
So tell me, then...Where is the infinite supply of hydrocarbons?
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:01:44 PM
Right, because surely whenever the Good Reverend references the baby jesus, he means you are a christian.
Lurk more.
Wouldn't faith in a baby Jesus with miraculous powers make a person a christian of sorts?
Perhaps.
Or perhaps the person mentioning the Baby Jesus used it as an amusing placeholder for all fictional wish-granters.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:10:44 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:01:44 PM
Right, because surely whenever the Good Reverend references the baby jesus, he means you are a christian.
Lurk more.
Wouldn't faith in a baby Jesus with miraculous powers make a person a christian of sorts?
Perhaps.
Or perhaps the person mentioning the Baby Jesus used it as an amusing placeholder for all fictional wish-granters.
Actually, I was talking about the Pent version. You know, the one that will KILL YOU WITH ONE PUNCH.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 05:14:41 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:10:44 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 05:01:44 PM
Right, because surely whenever the Good Reverend references the baby jesus, he means you are a christian.
Lurk more.
Wouldn't faith in a baby Jesus with miraculous powers make a person a christian of sorts?
Perhaps.
Or perhaps the person mentioning the Baby Jesus used it as an amusing placeholder for all fictional wish-granters.
Actually, I was talking about the Pent version. You know, the one that will KILL YOU WITH ONE PUNCH.
That's why the Baby Jesus no crying he makes. It's a warning.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 05:10:32 PM
So tell me, then...Where is the infinite supply of hydrocarbons?
While there probably is an infinite supply of hydrocarbons, that's not what I said.
I said that there is no such thing as an irreplaceable hydrocarbon. And there isn't.
Hydrocarbons with a large degree of polymerization made from simpler hydrocarbons can be thermally depolymerized.
Simple hydrocarbons can be polymerized into larger hydrocarbons.
The combustion byproducts of hydrocarbons can be used as precursors for the synthesis of hydrocarbons.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 05:51:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 05:10:32 PM
So tell me, then...Where is the infinite supply of hydrocarbons?
While there probably is an infinite supply of hydrocarbons, that's not what I said.
I said that there is no such thing as an irreplaceable hydrocarbon. And there isn't.
Hydrocarbons with a large degree of polymerization made from simpler hydrocarbons can be thermally depolymerized.
Simple hydrocarbons can be polymerized into larger hydrocarbons.
The combustion byproducts of hydrocarbons can be used as precursors for the synthesis of hydrocarbons.
And the energy required to do all of this comes from where? Or do they just change in the full moon?
Jesus Christ, "Ch3mist", we already have two pedantic twats. Pull your head out of your arse.
TGRR,
Knows precisely how much energy that takes, as he runs the maintenance department for a chemical refinery.
:popcorn:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
And the energy required to do all of this comes from where? Or do they just change in the full moon?
Some day, some genius will come up with a generator that runs on stupid.
Quote from: Luna on April 28, 2011, 06:01:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
And the energy required to do all of this comes from where? Or do they just change in the full moon?
Some day, some genius will come up with a generator that runs on stupid.
Well, technically, he's right...In that some of our refineries turn coal into gasoline, or make pure alcohol using Aluminum (You also get a shit ton of alumina).
But saying that you can easily replace oil in quantity, for example, just by refining is utter shit. Our coal - gas plants can't actually turn a profit unless oil goes over $100/bbl...And it pollutes like a mad bastard.
So while it CAN be done to some scale, pretending that all the oil we're using is replaceable is either pedantry on the level of Requia, or rather lame trolling.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
And the energy required to do all of this comes from where? Or do they just change in the full moon?
Jesus Christ, "Ch3mist", we already have two pedantic twats. Pull your head out of your arse.
TGRR,
Knows precisely how much energy that takes, as he runs the maintenance department for a chemical refinery.
A discussion about the energy efficiency of these processes is confusing possibility with practicality.
Ideally, the energy comes from the sun. More realistically, but still beneficially, using acid dehydration and transition metal catalysts the transformation of CO2 to hydrocarbons would be powered with recycled waste heat from industrial processes.
So I guess now you have three of us, but as much as I'm a pedantic twat and you're a dismissive cunt.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:06:42 PM
A discussion about the energy efficiency of these processes is confusing possibility with practicality.
Right. So a pedantic fuckwit.
Has anyone seen Requia? I think chemist ate her.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
And the energy required to do all of this comes from where? Or do they just change in the full moon?
Jesus Christ, "Ch3mist", we already have two pedantic twats. Pull your head out of your arse.
TGRR,
Knows precisely how much energy that takes, as he runs the maintenance department for a chemical refinery.
A discussion about the energy efficiency of these processes is confusing possibility with practicality.
Oh, so we're not talking about
real life. :lulz:
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 28, 2011, 06:10:21 PM
Has anyone seen Requia? I think chemist ate her.
What we have here, I am guessing, is someone in 2d year chemistry, with precisely jack and shit for industrial/refining experience.
I love that shit. It's like listening to a 2d year econ student tell you all about the glories of the Laffer curve.
:lulz:
I was just going to suggest that chemist here, having chosen his name as such, knew just enough to think he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and wasn't expecting any resistance in the form of ACTUAL knowledge and first hand experience. :lulz:
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:06:42 PM
So I guess now you have three of us, but as much as I'm a pedantic twat and you're a dismissive cunt.
Noticed that, did ya?
Lesson the First: Calling someone a "cunt" around here is pretty much a recognition that they've owned your ass (or someone else's) in a spectacular fashion. The shock value of the word is pretty much nil.
Lesson the Second: Trolling here? Gotta be one of the larger wastes of time I can imagine. The place is filled with pros. It's kinda like watching an excited yorkie trying to hump a great dane's leg. Cute, briefly, but gets old, right up 'til the dane decides to step on the little shit.
Lesson the Third: Nobody is impressed by pedants. Not here. There are far too many brilliant folks who are happy to talk on just about any subject, shed knowledge like the village whore sheds herpes, and do it without talking down to anybody or showing off in the slightest.
Good luck, kid.
He's used up his luck. I'm waiting for the Royal Wedding of chemist's ass and someone's BOOT.
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 28, 2011, 06:15:37 PM
He's used up his luck. I'm waiting for the Royal Wedding of chemist's ass and someone's BOOT.
DIBS ON THE MATRON OF HONOR SPOT!
HOODY HOO!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 28, 2011, 06:15:37 PM
He's used up his luck. I'm waiting for the Royal Wedding of chemist's ass and someone's BOOT.
DIBS ON THE MATRON OF HONOR SPOT!
HOODY HOO!
I would never dare THINK of stealing that honor from you, sir. :lol:
Quote from: Luna on April 28, 2011, 06:13:51 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:06:42 PM
So I guess now you have three of us, but as much as I'm a pedantic twat and you're a dismissive cunt.
Noticed that, did ya?
Lesson the First: Calling someone a "cunt" around here is pretty much a recognition that they've owned your ass (or someone else's) in a spectacular fashion. The shock value of the word is pretty much nil.
Lesson the Second: Trolling here? Gotta be one of the larger wastes of time I can imagine. The place is filled with pros. It's kinda like watching an excited yorkie trying to hump a great dane's leg. Cute, briefly, but gets old, right up 'til the dane decides to step on the little shit.
Lesson the Third: Nobody is impressed by pedants. Not here. There are far too many brilliant folks who are happy to talk on just about any subject, shed knowledge like the village whore sheds herpes, and do it without talking down to anybody or showing off in the slightest.
Good luck, kid.
It never fails to give me a boot when someone tells me what a horrible cunt I am, online or IRL. I walk around smiling for the rest of the day.
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 28, 2011, 06:15:37 PM
He's used up his luck. I'm waiting for the Royal Wedding of chemist's ass and someone's BOOT.
I hadn't done my One Nice Thing
TM today. Had to get it out of the way before fencing practice tonight so I wouldn't have to do something like stop throwing a perfectly decent cup shot.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 06:12:24 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 28, 2011, 06:10:21 PM
Has anyone seen Requia? I think chemist ate her.
What we have here, I am guessing, is someone in 2d year chemistry, with precisely jack and shit for industrial/refining experience.
I love that shit. It's like listening to a 2d year econ student tell you all about the glories of the Laffer curve.
:lulz:
You are correct that I have little industrial chemical experience... aside from a brief stint in a corn mill I really have zero.
What I do have experience with that's relevant to the conversation is inorganic catalysis, a field which often produces radical changes in what is industrially feasible and what is not.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:22:34 PM
What I do have experience with that's relevant to the conversation is inorganic catalysis, a field which often produces radical changes in what is industrially feasible and what is not.
Yeah, that's the field I work in.
So, without industrial or refining experience, from what experience DO you draw these wonderful ideas about generating enough power to reliably run a refinery given a shortage of available fuel that is somehow also infinite in quantity?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:22:34 PM
What I do have experience with that's relevant to the conversation is inorganic catalysis, a field which often produces radical changes in what is industrially feasible and what is not.
Yeah, that's the field I work in.
So, without industrial or refining experience, from what experience DO you draw these wonderful ideas about generating enough power to reliably run a refinery given a shortage of available fuel that is somehow also infinite in quantity?
You already said where you work, and it was noted.
You may be using the term in a more general sense, but I'm not talking about refining hydrocarbons. I'm talking about synthetic generation of them. The idea comes from the goal of creating catalysts that convert combustion byproducts (CO and CO2) to hydrocarbons at temperatures < 300 C and pressures < 100 atm, reaction conditions that I hope we can both agree could be produced from industrial waste heat. I know Yamasaki has stated the goal, but I'm not sure if he originally set it. He's working on Manganese nanotunnel catalysts that could serve this purpose and while the approach is unique he certainly isn't alone in his goal.
Given that the problem is one of efficiency rather than possibility, the notion that we'll run out of biologically derived hydrocarbons before being able to supplant them commercially with synthetic hydrocarbons seems little more than a fanciful disaster scenario on par with Y2K or 2012.
:popcorn:
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:54:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:22:34 PM
What I do have experience with that's relevant to the conversation is inorganic catalysis, a field which often produces radical changes in what is industrially feasible and what is not.
Yeah, that's the field I work in.
So, without industrial or refining experience, from what experience DO you draw these wonderful ideas about generating enough power to reliably run a refinery given a shortage of available fuel that is somehow also infinite in quantity?
You already said where you work, and it was noted.
You may be using the term in a more general sense, but I'm not talking about refining hydrocarbons. I'm talking about synthetic generation of them. The idea comes from the goal of creating catalysts that convert combustion byproducts (CO and CO2) to hydrocarbons at temperatures < 300 C and pressures < 100 atm, reaction conditions that I hope we can both agree could be produced from industrial waste heat. I know Yamasaki has stated the goal, but I'm not sure if he originally set it. He's working on Manganese nanotunnel catalysts that could serve this purpose and while the approach is unique he certainly isn't alone in his goal.
Given that the problem is one of efficiency rather than possibility, the notion that we'll run out of biologically derived hydrocarbons before being able to supplant them commercially with synthetic hydrocarbons seems little more than a fanciful disaster scenario on par with Y2K or 2012.
Okay, so tell me...How are we going to conduct the industrial waste heat to our refineries and/or production facilities? Also, we've found that creating a slurry and then subjecting it to 1420C temperatures removes the need for 100atm. It's not elegant, but we make a shitpile of product. Our alcohol facility uses lower temperatures, but higher pressures.
And I don't see a lot of work being put into this sort of thing. There is precisely one (1) aluminum - alcohol plant in the world (ours), and it requires natural gas by the shit-ton, three (3) coal - gas plants, and damn near no CO/CO
2 - hydrocarbon work being done in anything approaching actual production in quantity. You can't just build these plants on demand, either, as there are long lead times on things like karbate block heat exchangers, and FFAs.
So sitting back and saying it will all work out because it can be done in theory is like listening to the outsourcing gurus explain that "new technology" would replace manufacturing jobs. Someone has to be actively DOING it, and damn few are, for blatantly obvious political reasons.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:54:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 06:22:34 PM
What I do have experience with that's relevant to the conversation is inorganic catalysis, a field which often produces radical changes in what is industrially feasible and what is not.
Yeah, that's the field I work in.
So, without industrial or refining experience, from what experience DO you draw these wonderful ideas about generating enough power to reliably run a refinery given a shortage of available fuel that is somehow also infinite in quantity?
You already said where you work, and it was noted.
You may be using the term in a more general sense, but I'm not talking about refining hydrocarbons. I'm talking about synthetic generation of them. The idea comes from the goal of creating catalysts that convert combustion byproducts (CO and CO2) to hydrocarbons at temperatures < 300 C and pressures < 100 atm, reaction conditions that I hope we can both agree could be produced from industrial waste heat. I know Yamasaki has stated the goal, but I'm not sure if he originally set it. He's working on Manganese nanotunnel catalysts that could serve this purpose and while the approach is unique he certainly isn't alone in his goal.
Given that the problem is one of efficiency rather than possibility, the notion that we'll run out of biologically derived hydrocarbons before being able to supplant them commercially with synthetic hydrocarbons seems little more than a fanciful disaster scenario on par with Y2K or 2012.
Without getting into the practicalities of this, to which my initial feelings are that of Roger, I have heard about this, but know next to nothing. Can you link up some research journals? I can get access to a good portion through the university.
:drama1:
Perhaps it's time we get back to the important topic...
cellophane wrapped bananas!
dAMN YOU SPAGS AND YOUR HIGH FALOOTIN' SCIENCE TALK!! OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO PUT A STOP TO THIS SHIT
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 07:28:17 PM
Without getting into the practicalities of this, to which my initial feelings are that of Roger, I have heard about this, but know next to nothing. Can you link up some research journals? I can get access to a good portion through the university.
NP. I have pdfs of most of these if you don't have access. I tried to grab a decently diverse number of approaches to the problem with these but stuck with ACS publications since they tend to be both well respected and commonly available.
The first couple are chapters from books presented at ACS symposium, that provides a decent general background:
CO2 Conversion and Utilization: An Overview
Chunshan Song
Chapter DOI: 10.1021/bk-2002-0809.ch001
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2002-0809.ch001 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2002-0809.ch001)
Effective Conversion of CO2 to Valuable Compounds by Using Multifunctional Catalysts
Tomoyuki Inui
Chapter 9, pp 130–152
Chapter DOI: 10.1021/bk-2002-0809.ch009
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bk-2002-0809.ch009 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bk-2002-0809.ch009)
Formation of Hydrocarbons from the Reduction of Aqueous CO2 by Zero-Valent Iron
Leslie I. Hardy and Robert W. Gillham
Environ. Sci. Technol., 1995, 30 (1), pp 57–65
DOI: 10.1021/es950054m
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es950054m (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es950054m)
Chemical Recycling of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol and Dimethyl Ether: From Greenhouse Gas to Renewable, Environmentally Carbon Neutral Fuels and Synthetic Hydrocarbons
George A. Olah, Alain Goeppert and G. K. Surya Prakash
J. Org. Chem., 2009, 74 (2), pp 487–498
DOI: 10.1021/jo801260f
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo801260f (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo801260f)
Conversion of Greenhouse Gases to Synthesis Gas and Higher Hydrocarbons
Kui Zhang, Ulrich Kogelschatz, and Baldur Eliasson
Energy Fuels, 2001, 15 (2), pp 395–402
DOI: 10.1021/ef000161o
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef000161o (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef000161o)
Direct Conversion of Greenhouse Gases to Synthesis Gas and C4 Hydrocarbons over Zeolite HY Promoted by a Dielectric-Barrier Discharge
Kui Zhang, Baldur Eliasson, and Ulrich Kogelschatz
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2002, 41 (6), pp 1462–1468
DOI: 10.1021/ie0105021
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie0105021 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie0105021)
He posted links?
This one might actually be a biped. Maybe.
People... really...
(http://i.imgur.com/zj7Ez.jpg) (http://imgur.com/zj7Ez)
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 07:53:18 PM
People... really...
(http://i.imgur.com/zj7Ez.jpg) (http://imgur.com/zj7Ez)
QUIT JAMMING YOUR BANANA DOWN MY THROAT!
Um.
Wait.
Ritzibottom Salazar's famous last words.
He truly was a poet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 07:53:18 PM
People... really...
(http://i.imgur.com/zj7Ez.jpg) (http://imgur.com/zj7Ez)
QUIT JAMMING YOUR BANANA DOWN MY THROAT!
Um.
Wait.
I'LL TAKE IT IF HE DOESN'T WANT IT
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 28, 2011, 07:53:18 PM
People... really...
(http://i.imgur.com/zj7Ez.jpg) (http://imgur.com/zj7Ez)
QUIT JAMMING YOUR BANANA DOWN MY THROAT!
Um.
Wait.
:spittake:
Quote from: PopeTom on April 27, 2011, 12:29:13 AM
Or possibly not far enough!
http://blogs.forbes.com/csr/2011/03/15/del-monte-responds-to-daily-show-criticism-of-individually-wrapped-banana/
:argh!:
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 27, 2011, 05:11:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:53:12 AM
Quote from: Jenne on April 27, 2011, 12:51:56 AM
Yeah, I wasn't saying I thought it was necessary--I've seen apples and oranges displayed in vending machines, and they didn't have wrappers. This was the company's excuse--to make individual servings of the highly spoilable fruit accessible "in ways that they haven't been before" ...or something to that effect.
Because I REALLY couldn't fucking figure it out, before. Defied logic. Now, there's SOME logic to that, but well, not REALLY.
Oh, I get where you're coming from.
But America is still retodded.
Retaaahded. Fo' sho. :lulz:
That is no excuse! You see this guy right here????
(http://i.imgur.com/twqS6.png) (http://imgur.com/twqS6)
THAT'S MY PRIME MINISTER!
retrod is not a valid defense. We make em in bulk! Our Walmart shoppers aspire to be as rolly as yours, our corporations are as sneaky and no one can explain the voting system. One of our national symbols is a cop, another is a leaf, and we decided these things because we had to celebrate Canadianness with the Queen during a party back in the 60s! It doesn't get more retarded than Canada.
But we have not yet put individual bananas into special "green" biodegradable plastic baggies to fight obesity.
And that is why you must stop Del Monte or endure the WHOLESOMIZING Canadianization of your Americana!
Don't you see? It's the only way...
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...
isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.
My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.
also hoser sorry about the hijack...
Quote from: Hoser McRhizzy on April 28, 2011, 08:16:47 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/twqS6.png) (http://imgur.com/twqS6)
THAT'S MY PRIME MINISTER!
LOL, Canada, doing Bush 2 years too late.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 08:19:10 PM
Quote from: Hoser McRhizzy on April 28, 2011, 08:16:47 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/twqS6.png) (http://imgur.com/twqS6)
THAT'S MY PRIME MINISTER!
LOL, Canada, doing Bush 2 years too late.
and badly might I add.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...
isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.
My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.
Funny thing: Most of our alcohol production goes into fast food & prepackaged junk food (it's not methanol, obviously).
YOU FORGOT PREPACKAGED BANANAS
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...
isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.
My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.
also hoser sorry about the hijack...
The goal (as stated here) isn't transforming combustion gases into methanol, but into hydrocarbons such as methane. Of course, an efficient means of converting CO2 into CH3OH would also be damn useful.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...
isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.
My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.
also hoser sorry about the hijack...
The goal (as stated here) isn't transforming combustion gases into methanol, but into hydrocarbons such as methane. Of course, an efficient means of converting CO2 into CH3OH would also be damn useful.
Well, you're full of easy answers, so let's get cracking, shall we?
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
quick question chem and Im willing to be wrong on this...
isn't the energy density of Methanol only around 22 mj/kg, which would mean very higher energy costs needed to synthesize? Not to mention our existing petroleum structure could not be used due to Methanol being corrosive. This would force huge costs in new infrastructure, or worse transportation.
Not to mention Oil is relatively slow in contaminating ground water compared to liquid Methanol, and though Methanol dilutes easier and burns easier and biodegerates it all requires a much quicker response to ground water safety then is in place.
My initial feelings are it could be feasible (I haven't read the articles yet, but will within the next few weeks, I'm only going off of textbook knowledge) on a small local scale, but as energy requirements go up I can't see how with such a low energy density Methanol could be anything more then support to a petroleum based economy. At least in the near future.
also hoser sorry about the hijack...
The goal (as stated here) isn't transforming combustion gases into methanol, but into hydrocarbons such as methane. Of course, an efficient means of converting CO2 into CH3OH would also be damn useful.
STOP TALKING SHIT ABOUT CHLOE KARDASHIAN
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 28, 2011, 08:33:24 PM
STOP TALKING SHIT ABOUT CHLOE KARDASHIAN
:lol:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 28, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
also hoser sorry about the hijack...
don't be! It's interesting to see the new chemistry person figuring out that 'arguing on the internet' happens a little differently here. Linking to studies (i'm assuming they're actually studies - I don't have the time or care enough to click and read) is a good sign. I also like that there's a SRS! hydrocarbon-methane-sciency discussion going on while I bitch about individually wrapped bananas.
More importantly, yes: Sophia Tutu was a hottie. :fap:
Quote from: Hoser McRhizzy on April 28, 2011, 08:38:57 PM
don't be! It's interesting to see the new chemistry person figuring out that 'arguing on the internet' happens a little differently here. Linking to studies (i'm assuming they're actually studies - I don't have the time or care enough to click and read) is a good sign.
Unfortunately, he is also utterly lacking in social skills. For example, he believes that being passed over in one thread is a good reason to trash someone else's thread, "because I can".
He is my new chew toy. :)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 08:29:28 PM
Well, you're full of easy answers, so let's get cracking, shall we?
As someone if your field should well know, cracking is the opposite process of what is being discussed.
:)
Give me a job, and I run with it.
Quote from: ch3mist on April 28, 2011, 08:42:25 PM
As someone if your field should well know, cracking is the opposite process of what is being discussed.
:)
Give me a job, and I run with it.
Bullshit, we're now talking about Chloe Kardashian, and I'd crack that shit like the skin of a Hawaiian Airlines 737.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 28, 2011, 08:43:46 PM
Bullshit, we're now talking about Chloe Kardashian, and I'd crack that shit like the skin of a Hawaiian Airlines 737.
Nice. :lulz:
OMG DID yU HEAR THAT KHLOE'S MOM CALLED HER FAT?! I MEAN, THAT BITCH Can'T TAKE A HINT! SHE NEEDS TO LOSE SOME WEIGHT!
Chloe's the one that looks like Bigfoot, right?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 28, 2011, 08:49:36 PM
Chloe's the one that looks like Bigfoot, right?
I WOULD PUT MY PETER IN IT.
(http://cdn4.khloekcdn.celebuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Khloe-Kardashian-Malika-Haqq-Dress-As-Twins-04261151.jpg)
OMG THEY'RE TWINS!!!! HOW CUUUUTE!!!! <3
This thread is now about a sustainable fuel industry, Chloe Kardashian, all-caps, n00bs who must always step, plastic-wrapped "banana fingers" and America's failure to HEED MY WARNING!!!
LET ME HELP YOU WITH THAT!
\
(http://i.imgur.com/wauiE.jpg) (http://imgur.com/wauiE)
I think Hoops understands why this needs to happen.
(http://i.imgur.com/RBmNw.png) (http://imgur.com/RBmNw)
The wonder... The majesty! But it's missing something. What could it be?
It's missing WHOLESOME!
The kind of wholesome you can only get from a beaver!
(http://i.imgur.com/6tKnK.png) (http://imgur.com/6tKnK)
Can you see the little rascal?
But why does that innocent little beaver need to dam the Grand Canyon?
(no mercy... think of the bananas...)
Why, to contain all of that thick, nutrient-rich Quebecois sustainably-harvested maple syrup, of course!
(http://i.imgur.com/g0fz9.png) (http://imgur.com/g0fz9)
Could anything be more Canadian than your Grand Canyon full of beavers swimming in the maple syrup river they just made? Could anything by more WHOLESOME?
Continue to tolerate the travesty of individually packaged bananas and find out!!!
I have no idea why I find that funny. You're a little weird. :?
Quote from: Khara on April 28, 2011, 10:48:50 PM
I have no idea why I find that funny. You're a little weird. :?
thankee
:kiss:
This thread?
Amuses me.
Just when you thought it was safely buried.
NOTHING IS SAFE FROM THE WHOLESODOMIZING!
(http://i.imgur.com/Tk0SD.png) (http://imgur.com/Tk0SD)
Yes! That is Trudeau carrying Canadian Bacon to feed all the hungry migrant workers, and holding aloft the Chickadee of Freedom!
I cannot stop until the last banana is liberated!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 28, 2011, 12:29:20 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on April 28, 2011, 03:58:21 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 27, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 27, 2011, 12:48:53 AM
Only America would waste irreplaceable hydrocarbons to put a wrapper on a fruit that has a built in wrapper.
RETARDED. :lulz:
If it makes the last dregs of oil run out quicker then I'm all in favour. Can't wait to see the resulting shitstorm when it's all gone. I have a vision of a populace all running about screaming and eating each other in blind panic when their cars, tevees and microwaves stop working and then there's me, sitting atop a hill, laughing my fucking ass off and yelling "yo assholes, maybe fucking pre packaged bananas will save you?", at the top of my lungs :lulz:
Thankfully we get most of our electricity from coal. Therefore TVs and microwaves should still work.
You talking about the kind of coal that just climbs out of the ground into the powerstation hoppers? That's the only kind of coal we'll be mining by then and if I get wind of a single lump of that shit, running in to save the day I'll set fire to the fucking thing myself. This technological apocalypse is way too important to me to let some self mining fuel stand in the way.
No, I'm talking about the kind of coal we get by blowing the tops off of mountains.
Because, you know, fuck mountains.
Quote from: PopeTom on May 01, 2011, 02:39:58 PM
Because, you know, fuck mountains.
Hey, that's what those mountains get for not burying their precious resources deeper in the first place. Just leaving that wonderful shit right under the surface of the ground for any prying excavation equipment to come across. How could they resist?
Think of a couple hundred feet of bedrock as a Burqa for the mountain. It's just a matter of time before someone rapes it if it goes into public without one.
By the way, did the quoted comment make anyone else think of Blackzilla screwing Mt. Fuji on Chappelle Show?
Blowing the top off mountains using what fuel? Oh wait.
Quote from: Nigel on May 01, 2011, 06:27:03 PM
Blowing the top off mountains using what fuel? Oh wait.
HS
As for FUGI 20141001-7 TBc { 1st Wk October When Moon aproaches Perigee / FuLL
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21174.msg1040128#msg1040128
Quote from: Nigel on May 01, 2011, 06:27:03 PM
Blowing the top off mountains using what fuel? Oh wait.
I can not quickly look up the kinds of explosives used to blow the fuck out of mountains for their coal.
While yes some oil is certainly required in the whole process much of that can be replaced by slave labor.
Seriously why do you think the Republicans are so gung-ho on poor women giving birth to babies that no one will pay to educate?
Quote from: PopeTom on May 01, 2011, 07:49:11 PM
I can not quickly look up the kinds of explosives used to blow the fuck out of mountains for their coal.
It's normally ANFO (ammonium nitrate/fuel oil) mixtures, as in the OKC bombing.
:lulz: Popetom
Slave labor solves everything, because my next question was how we're going to move all that coal from point A to point B.
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2011, 01:47:11 AM
:lulz: Popetom
Slave labor solves everything, because my next question was how we're going to move all that coal from point A to point B.
That's my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
The Republicans are anti-choice and anit-education because the rich fuckers think it's the quickest way back to feudalism.
Feudalism just isn't as efficient as what we have now. If you run some numbers, you'll find that wage slavery is much more profitable than real outright slavery.
Yeah, because you have to buy the damn things (and I'll be fucked if they aren't an arm and a leg), and then there's upkeep and maintenance. I mean, even if you kept maintenance below OSHA standards, you'd end up putting out more money buying new ones all the time, because the damn things keep breaking. And your managers never seem to grasp the idea of "gently used", and let's face it, nothing gets good bang for your buck, so why NOT just use em all up in a few goes?
The way it is now, you don't have to pay for maintenance, insurance, upkeep, replacements. You just have to buy them on the installment plan and they're yours until they break themselves.
But once you get rid of abortion and contraception they MAKE THEMSELVES!!! :fap:
Also to be fair to the Democrats their part in the conspiracy theory is that they want to return to a palace economy.
Yes, but that's even more upkeep and maintenance.
If you want my opinion, the real money is in an agrarian society/goods trade system. Chickens for doctor visits, things like that.
Plus giving people a little money and then tempting them with a bunch of expensive bullshit they can only afford if they sign away their income means not only do you get free labor, they end up paying you for the privilege.
THE PLAN is...
1. Do away with bartering so people must rely on your artificial tokens of wealth. [done]
2. Do away with cash, so people must have good reputation according to you in order to do anything. [mostly done]
3. Do away with ownership altogether, so people can work themselves to death but it's inherently impossible to ever get ahead. [see: leases, 30-year mortgages, interest traps, short-term loans, etc. etc.]
In the end, slavery hasn't gone anywhere, it's just been upgraded.
Vex is on the money.
Ah hem. As it were. :x
the Emancipation Proclamation, in effect, said, "WAIT WAIT .... WHY ONLY HAVE BLACK SLAVES? WE'RE MISSING OUT ON ENTIRE RACES FULL OF PRIME SLAVE MATERIAL!"
I wouldn't go so far, myself.
well yeah, but it did do absolutely no good for anyone.