iamshack

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 08:16 AM) No, you are missing my point (and I admit I was vague). I mean fully distributed. Kind of like distributed computing. I mean making sure that any grid is capable of net billing, and is efficient at net power production and distribution. You then target individual energy users (homeowners and businesses) via R+D funded tech and tax incentives to do what they can individually to reduce energy use (smarter or better equipment, insulation, etc.), and to produce their own (solar primarily for homes, but also wind or other methods for larger facilities). Don't focus solely on plant production (though you will still need some of that). Next level up from that, as well, is community-based energy. neighborhoods or associations build small cooperative plants, that just have a small field of solar panels or wind turbines or water mills or whatever is locally appropriate, going back into the grid, with either a localized billing net or an association set up to distribute the credit. I just think that the best way to stay agile and avoid the kind of behind-tech commitment you are fearing is to build a system that is smaller and more agile by nature. Well, there are programs like that in place. We have something called DSM, which stands for Demand Side Management. This focuses on programs which utilities can work with customers in order to reduce energy demands on the utility while saving money for the customer. One such program is called Cool Share, which allows the utility to control the compressor of the customer's central air conditioning system during particular hours on particular days (such as when the customer knows they will not be home). This reduces consumption, while at the same time saves the customer money. I know there are other programs under the DSM umbrella, I am just not certain of the particulars of all of them. In regards to the community-based energy you refer to, who is going to pay to maintain a community wind turbine? Who is going to pay to install the solar panels? While I appreciate the idea of staying agile, these are incredibly inefficient ways in which to provide alternative energy. You're talking about power that is going to cost 5 times or more what fossil fuels cost at a time when many consumers are complaining about the price of fossil fuels.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 07:39 AM) I have two words for you: distributed system. We already have that, as I understand it. We own, or contract for the rights to operate, several small renewable energy plants (I believe there are seventy or so in our system currently) which range from geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, hydro, etc. In the system I work in, we probably get 10-15 % of our capacity from sources such as these. To really make a dent, and to have any chance of coming anywhere near the cost of fossil fuel costs, you're going to eventually have to build larger plants with more capacity. Luckily, in Nevada, we have some real choices and possibilities because of the sheer quantities of land available to us (and the 300 days of sunlight a year). However, the majority of states don't have that luxury.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) And as long as people accept what people do while drunk as not their fault, or excuse them in some lesser way, we will continue to have these things happen. Perhaps, if the social stigma, punishment, and everything else was the same drunk or sober, people would think a bit more when drinking. But as it stands now, people will give someone a pass if they are drunk enough. Tex, I am not sure I understand how you are reaching this point. Someone who kills someone accidentally in a car accident, if proven that it was merely an accident, would have far less of a stigma attached to them than someone who killed someone in an accident while intoxicated. Your reasoning implies that Stallworth is being given a pass because he was intoxicated at the time of the accident, while the exact opposite is the case.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) To me they are not even comparable situations. The end result of what happened with the Stallworth incident is clearly worse than the Vick situation. I don't think anyone would argue that a dead human being is less tragic than dead dogs. But the actions can not be judged by the outcome. What Stallworth did was make a tragic mistake; a gross error in judgement; a poor, poor decision. What Stallworth did not do was go out that night with the intention of commiting an act in which someone would die as a result of. And let's not forget that it wasn't as if he swerved into a sidewalk, the man was jaywalking on a highway. What Vick did did have the intended consequences. What he did required forethought, premeditation, planning, money, effort, work, time etc...He bankrolled and participated in an illegal activity for years, for which the result was heinous and unbelievable cruelty and malice towards many dogs. He led and profited from an organization that tortured, beat, killed, and maimed these animals. Not to mention the theft of family pets to use as bait for the pitbulls. I really feel you have to separate two things here; intention and result. Clearly, the loss of a human was tragic, and was the result of an action by Stallworth. But who hasn't made mistakes under the influence before? Who hasn't done things they regret. It does not excuse it, but his character and person should not be judged on one, albeit egregious, mistake. What Vick did was not a mistake. Not even close. Thusly, the situations are hard to judge on the same level. What Vick did much more closely can be used to judge his character/person than what Stallworth did. Very solid post, and not simply because I agree with you for the most part, but because it is a well-reasoned and well-thought out response and conclusion. The one point I do question is the concluding statement of your first paragraph. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I am not sure why it is more of a tragedy for one human being to die than hundreds of dogs. I am not in the business of weighing the lives of one creature against another, or in this case, hundreds of creatures again one, but why is it such an easy conclusion for humans to judge the value of one species against another? What are the criterion for making such a judgment? Anyways, not looking to turn this into a philosophical bs discussion that gets us nowhere. It's just the idea that humans make the immediate assumption that a human's life is so much more valuable than the life of another creature seems arrogant to me.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 02:09 PM) Funny thing is.. I was thinking the same about yours and calling you delusional. To each his own I guess/agree to disagree. I usually don't agree on knight on alot of things, even though I love Jeremy as a poster, but I agree with him on this one and it's not even close. But I like the mixed agreement here on this topic. Hey, you have a right to your opinion. I'd love to see you cite some examples of hyperbole in my posts, however. My posts have been reasoned and explained. Knight's have been completely the opposite.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 03:51 AM) What do you mean? Giving out like $60-80M for 3 prospects is exactly how you build a team! Wasn't Neftali Feliz an under-the-radar signing for the Braves? How much would he get right now if he were able to negotiate a contract like Chapman will be able to? Giving that much money to 3 big name prospects is stupid when you could just do the scouting and sign a s***load of extremely talented players for the same amount. Strasburg is an exception because the Nats had #1 overall and it will send a bad message to their fans if they fail to sign their first rounders for two straight years, so they should try to get this done. But Strasburg is a PERFECT example of why MLB is all f***ed up. Teams should be able to trade draft picks and slots NEED to be raised across the board and then stuck to so this s*** doesn't happen. The MLB draft is a f***ing joke and has been for quite some time. The best players should go highest and they should be forced to sign at no more than slot. And all the loopholes that allow players to re-enter the draft looking for more money after playing for an independent league team or go overseas are also bulls***. The FA compensation system is bulls*** too, especially how it affects the draft. The whole thing needs to be overhauled because teams should be able to draft a player knowing he'll sign if the team offers the appropriate max slot bonus. I'll end the rant now. But the whole thing just pisses me off when teams like the Sox don't regularly go over slot because they respect the commissioner's office, but then the f***ing Royals and Pirates and Red Sox and Rangers and Yankees and Tigers etc. go way the f*** over on a bunch of players and nobody gets fined or otherwise penalized. If you're going to hold a kangaroo court at least f***ing enforce SOME of your rules. The amount of insane overslot signings is getting absolutely ridiculous, and it SHOULD piss off the Players Association at least as much if not more than it pisses off the owners, because unproven prospects are getting money that productive veterans are not getting in free agency. So anyway, Morgado better sign or I'm going to cast a voodoo curse on him that will make his left arm fall off and two more rights grow straight out his ass. Amen, brother!

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) Want to kill someone and stay out of prison long term? Get drunk and run them over. There's a lesson kids. Honestly, I am terribly sorry that you lost a close friend to a drunk driver, but your responses in this thread are purely hyperbolical and ridiculous.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) So is purposeful harm always worse than negligence no matter the end result? No, obviously not. It is also not always worse taking end result out of the equation. However, the question of intent is certainly a big factor in the equation.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) Diminished capacity is an interesting justification for something. If I drink enough, anything I do will not be purposeful. That's not what I am arguing, and that is a poor analogy. Not once has anyone in this thread argued that someone who has committed a harmful act should be held less responsible because their capacity has been diminished. Diminished capacity does not equal less responsibility or culpability, but it also does not equal, by default, a harmful purpose.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) He purposefully drove while intoxicated. Once again, I know this will be an unpopular statement, but I am going to say it anyways. Driving while intoxicated, as much as it is an unwise and unlawful decision, does not equate to purposeful acts of harm. They simply are not the same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) 2 points in reply. 1; we actually already know how to do the energy creation and storage. Seriously, we do. We just don't have the infrastructure set up to make it work; you have to be able to take the electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed in a timely fashion, and our current system has been built on the assumption of coal fired power plants. If you put a serious price on carbon emissions, you could quite readily have this country done using coal within 10 years; everything could be renewables and natural gas. Second; the way to make these technologies more efficient? Start building them. With Baseload solar (concentrated solar thermal with storage), solar cells, wind power, etc., for all of the renewables basically, the big costs are the startup costs to design the programs, build the factories, build the windmills, build the plants, etc. The costs of running the plants after they're started up are much smaller than the initial costs. The only way to bring those costs down is to be able to spread the development costs out; once you've built the factory, everything else you build in that factory helps pay for it. The more of it you use, the more efficient it becomes. Balta, I understand that you are the board scientist, so I won't attempt to get too deep into the science with you, but I will comment on things from the "Power Company" perspective, as I am currently working as a trader for one. I can tell you that the problem with building these large renewable plants now is that the technology is changing so rapidly (or at least there is the perception that it is, or will be) that there is a fear of committing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to an inferior technology or a technology that will be outdated in a decade. Secondly, in this current economic climate, it is extraordinarily difficult to raise rates to pay for such technology. My company recently invested several hundred million in a combined-cycle natural gas plant, in an effort to make us less vulnerable to rising coal prices as well as the power marketplace. Even though this plant will probably save our rate payers tens of millions of dollars over the next decade, they are furious that we raised their rates (very marginally) in order to pay for the plant. Obviously, natural gas is not a renewable technology, but it is far cleaner than coal, and yet, the rate payers do not take that into account when considering their bill. They want the cheapest energy they can get, bar none. While the public says it wants renewable energy, what it really means (at least in this economy) is that it wants renewable energy, and it wants it at a cheaper cost than what it is currently paying. There simply is no technology currently available that a) is a similar price per megawatt hour as fossil fuels; AND B) is not an intermittent resource; AND would work well in large volumes with our current electricity grid. In fact, there is nothing that is particularly close. While government mandates will push utilities and marketers to build projects which will satisfy minimum renewable energy requirements, these projects come at an increased cost over fossil fuels, especially when you consider the price certain states will have to pay in order to purchase credits because there is no economically feasible way for them to meet the government-imposed minimums themselves. Rather than squandering billions of dollars on artificial caps and credits and all the other legal fictions which really don't result in any sort of significant improvement, dump all the monies into R&D and actually figure out the technology to replace fossil fuels. Something competitive in price and reliability, so that the public will buy into it, even after it hits their pocketbook.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 10:43 AM) Insane. A man is dead because of Stallworth. I feel bad for those pooches, but where are the folks crying for the pigs who are hung upside down and gutted while still alive? Or the chickens whose beaks are ripped off? I love dogs, I love animals in fact, but doing what they did to those animals does not approach the killing of a human being. That's just the way the world is... That's why Stallworth getting 30 days and Vick getting 2 years is so insane. There is a difference between things done in a purposeful manner, and those done on accident.

Logic, in the sense of the formal study of it, deals more so in absolutes than in probabilities. You guys are talking about two different things here. Greg is discussing formal logic, the rest of the board is using the word logic more in every day usage of the word. Either way, it's not worth getting nasty about.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Aug 15, 2009 -> 08:22 PM) Maybe this is me, but did you just contradict yourself here? First you said certain players are clutch, then you said that due to more opportunities over a career, some players can appear to be clutch. No, I said "I think people think certain players are clutch..."

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Aug 15, 2009 -> 08:12 PM) For hitters, there is something called LIPS. It stands for Late Inning Pressure Situations, and it's basically the splits of the player from the 7th, 8th, or 9th inning in any game in which the margin between the leading team and trailing team is 3 or fewer runs. What studies of LIPS over the years have found is that the term "clutch" is a myth, as no player's LIPS stats have a large margin of difference from their career stats overall. I think people think certain players are clutch because they have succeeded in a larger number of situations in high leverage situations than other players simply because they had more opportunities to do so...so even though a player's percentage of success in those situations may be similar to their career numbers, the sheer number of opportunities they have experienced, and the corresponding number of times they have succeeded, presents the illusion that they have been "clutch," even though it is more likely that they simply have had more opportunities. Case in point is Mr. Jeter.

I think people forget that Freddy is only 33...He's not 43. It is possible he could have a few more years ahead of him...

QUOTE (The Bones @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) I understand that what Vick did was wrong, sickening, despicable, heinous, stupid, whatever else you want to say about it and I could never in a million years even be capable of being a part of something like that. What I don't get is how people are so angry at him for this. He's done his time. He pretty much lost everything. Now, he has a chance to move on with his life in a positive way. Anyways, I'm done arguing his case. People who want to boo him can and will. I don't know what exactly they're trying to accomplish because I think everyone, including Mike Vick, knows what he did was wrong. I agree it is time to let the man move on and to resume his career. That doesn't mean I cannot be angry with him.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:26 PM) No, but I'm trying to reason with the people who believe stealing and killing a dog is much worse than driving drunk and high and speeding to only hit and kill a human pedestrian. It may not be murder, but it is killing. Well, that is a personal decision you make, and I won't attempt to change your opinion. I guess I am only arguing my point of view because I feel strongly about it, but I don't think I am doing so in the hopes of making you see my point of view. To me, it comes down to intent, and in Michael Vick's case, there was a clear intent to accomplish the end result of his actions - killing dogs for entertainment and monetary gain. In the case of a drunk driver, for the very vast majority of them, they are intending to get to a destination. They are not intending to injure or kill anyone. Certainly it is not a wise decision to attempt to drive a dangerous vehicle in an impaired state in order to get to their destination, but in my opinion, they should be punished for that unwise decision, not for some end result of their actions. That being said, there is enormous social pressure on the legal system to punish those drunk drivers who are unlucky enough (or inebriated enough) to actually injure or kill someone, as opposed to those who are actually caught by the police operating a vehicle under the influence, and that is where you see a difference in the punishment handed out. This is a difficult topic and that is why you see the vast divide in peoples' opinions and strongly-worded responses. Personally, I find the venom spewed to be excessive and also that a large amount of hypocrisy exists with regards to drunk drivers considering the society we live in, but I know that is an unpopular and minority opinion. As for Michael Vick, to me, it is the intention and premeditation of pure and certain cruelty involved in his actions that outrages me, far more so than the actions of a drunk driver. Just my humble opinion, however.

QUOTE (The Bones @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:18 PM) Someone is arguing this. Ahh, I didn't realize when you said "murder," you meant in regards to the pit bulls.

QUOTE (The Bones @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:08 PM) So now kidnapping is a bigger crime than murder. Please continue because I'm really interested in this new line of thinking. I had a dog from the time I was two years old until I was in high school and yes I was sad when she died but it is not comparable to a human being in the least. No one has argued that. Dante Stallworth did not commit murder.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:07 PM) It was a stupid decision to have a dog fighting ring knowingly. It was a stupid decision to knowingly drive drunk, high, and speed. Great comparison. So according to you, all stupid decisions are equal?

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:59 PM) So if they are not trained to love us and be our slaves, fk them it's okay to kill them? Hah, I was thinking as I was writing that post that that would be your response. I am not saying it is ok to kill anyone or anything. Personally, that is for yourself to reconcile. What I am saying is that if you train and breed an animal for thousands of years to be your companion, that is, man's closest non-human companion, yes, there is going to be a large percentage of the population who finds what Michael Vick did to be entirely horrendous. Humans are emotional creatures who develop bonds to those beings that take part in their every day lives. Dogs are one of those beings. For the most part, cows and pigs are not. Thus, the outrage you see.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:28 PM) Bring back my church youth leader and tell her that the guy who got drunk and hit her didn't mean it. That's a bs response, and you know it. I'm terribly sorry that people die. And by no means am I excusing what Stallworth or any other drunk driver does or has done. But the fact remains that our society celebrates alcohol and the mass consumption of it. We are also a society that revolves around transportation in large, dangerous, fast-moving hunks of steel. As long as we are going to mix the two, bad things are going to happen and people are going to die. It's a compromise we make in order to live as we do. We can all refer to tragedies that have occurred to someone we know, someone in our family, or perhaps, even ourselves. And while I respect the fact that you have lost someone close to you because of a very poor decision someone else made, and an accident that occurred because of that poor decision, that doesn't make the point moot, nor does it change how human beings live. The only thing we can do is seek the best way in which to deal with these things, and punish those who make stupid decisions. However, the end result of a poor decision often does not equal the intent that caused that result to occur. To simply consider the end result, as opposed to the intent, as well as the other circumstances involved, is in my opinion the incorrect manner in which to punish that person or to rectify the situation. People drive vehicles in an unsafe manner all the time. Until we figure out a better way to solve that problem, we'll be dealing with injuries and deaths which occur because of that.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:25 PM) I'm sure the guy he hit felt better at that last second that his death wasn't meant as malicious. Honestly, I am sorry the guy bit it, but he was running into the middle of the street at 2 am. For all we know, he might have been killed anyways. It's terrible that he got killed, but he would probably feel better if he had been more careful, too.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:39 PM) Really? Because there are farmers who we buy our meat from which raise cows and other animals just to kill them for food. And the slaughtering of these pigs, cows, etc are not the prettiest site. And as far as one is for food, Vick did it for sport, I don't know if I could completely buy it. There are people who hunt just so they could put their head on the wall to show what they killed. This guy on RealGM who is having the same discussion said it best: If you review the definition of domesticated, you'll notice that it states humans adapt animals to life in intimate association with humans and to the advantage of humans. The distinction lies in the purpose the animal has been domesticated. I am not even certain if cows bred to slaughter are considered "domesticated." However, it is quite clear that cows are not trained to obey commands so that they can live amongst humans. They are not invited into their homes. They are not trained to protect their homes or their families. They do not interact with their family members. They are not trained to help the blind. They have not been trained and bred for hundreds of years to be eaten by men, but rather to be a companion to men. The reason people are outraged by what Vick has done is because dogs have been trained and bred to be such an intimate companion of humans. As for this RealGM character, his logic seems extremely flawed to me. First of all, I won't disagree that there is all kinds of crazy s*** that goes on in the rural areas of this country. Because those things do occur does not make what Michael Vick did any more or less horrendous. Secondly, I have already addressed his hunting analogy, so I won't go any further there. As for this argument people make in regards to human rights, I just don't understand it. Why does it seem logical to people that for some reason humans must reach the pinnacle of their existence before they can concern themselves with the rights of some other animal? Why must we live in a utopia before we might expend one ounce of energy on anything other than ourselves? It just doesn't follow logically to me that because we still have problems in human society that we must ignore all else until those problems are eliminated. Senseless argument in my opinion.