Sunanta

$ilk: Ok, as a moderate (perhaps leaning left a bit), I feel compelled to respond to your rant about liberals. Liberalism is the reform mindset and conservatism is the mindset that resists change. Liberalism is not a certain set of views percieved to be liberal, because in 50 years they might be quite conservative. It is merely the position that we can change for the better. I agree that liberals often go too far (such as the ACLU) and often need conservatives to keep them in check, but progress would stop were it not for them. If there were no liberals, we would all probably be living under the dominion of Rome. No change can come about without liberals, for conservatism ideologically resists change. Again, I believe that we need conservatives to prevent the liberals from going too far, but liberals are an integral part of society. [ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Aww, shoot. A political thread. Now, so long as greed and entropy exist in any form, socialism will not work. Assume the US suddenly becomes socialist: Assuming there aren't widespread protests, riots, the like, (essentially, no one pays attention to the news), life would seem to go on as usual. Then people discover that they are no longer rewarded for overtime, so they don't show up for it anymore. The airlines find themselves in trouble, because there are not enough pilots to fly the planes. The government reasons that the pilots should be working extra, since they obviously were able to do it under the capitalist system, so they should continue to do so. As an incentive to get back to work, the government has the airlines cut the pilots pay since they are not working as hard as they can. The pilots, unaccustomed to such treatment, strike. Imagine similar occurances in other industries (including the bureaucracy of the government itself). Even the proletariat stop working- they go to their factories or their fields and find no one to work for. The real question now is who can last the longest. The government now has two options: A: Go back to capitalism, or B: Force everyone back to work. It ends there, for if A, socialism obviously ceases to exist, and if B, the same occurs, since public authority is no longer public. I do admit, however, that in a perfect world populated by perfect people, socialism would naturally come about. Otherwise, without popular support, it could never assert itself. People simply don't possess the omnibenevolence socialism requires to sustain itself. I am of the opinion that a little socialism is a good thing (i.e. welfare). I do not, however, believe that total socialism could work due to the aforementioned reasons.

Wow, just saw this thread- can't believe we nearly lost one of our favorite liberals! EDIT: Argh- ensign?! Member 2813?! lol, oh well- guess I better start rackin' up those posts [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

I have engineering 101 saved somewhere- if no one objects, I could repost it...

Hi Joel. Yep, I really like this sort of discussion. Now, on imaginary mass: Tachyons- ftl particles, must have imaginary mass. They are, like negative matter, seemingly impossibe oddities allowed by relativity. Since there is nothing other than the common sense I blasted a few posts ago preventing their existence, tachyons are possible, though no evidence of them has been found yet. [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:Which agrees with the postulation that gravity is resultive rather than causal. That makes sense, though if gravity were causal, there would be little difference. quote:His equations work so long as you do not calculate negative mass. If you WERE to calculate negative mass, it may not invalidate the equation, however, there is no way that we can equate whether or not a negative mass would exert negative gravity, due to a lack of understanding of the reason mass exerts gravity. It would only be logical to assume that if greater mass is accompanied by stronger gravity and less mass is accompanied by weaker gravity, negative mass would be accompanied by negative gravity. quote:The theory of relativity. Essentially, it states that gravity pulls inward at c, effecting all mass and energy. However, for curved space to exist in tandem with gravitational effects, there would have to be pockets where space has zero volume, and as such, does not exist. Also, gravity would have to require a limiter that causes its effects to die out. The curve in space would be that limiter, so the question is akin to "what came first, the chicken or the egg?". Also, what perpetuates gravitational force is not understood. Curved space is a gravitational effect, just as a gravitational effect is curved space. I would assume that Plank length would be the "limiter" you speak of, since that is the smallest meaningful unit of measure. quote:As far as we know, we can only say that time stops at the event horizon. Hawking suggests a more quantum explanation. In either case, singularity is the result of entering into such gravitational distortions. Singularity is the result of these distortions. Time stops only for the observer outside the event horizon. Since all frames of reference are valid (time is relative- theory of relativity), this statement is valid only so long as you do not consider the observer inside the event horizon. For this person, everything would seem normal, since their thought processes would be slowed down (or the universe sped up) accordingly. [ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:That puts forth two ideas which we do not know are fact: 1: Space is flexible. 2: Gravity is what bends space. Gravity exerts itself on objects of mass and information, or all particles of the universe, possibly. Space, however, is not made up of particles. Gravity is a force much like light, in the manner that it always is singularly directional. Gravity always pulls in to the source, light always travel from the source. In order to gravity to exist negatively, it would have to travel from the source. But before it COULD exist negatively, the median would have to exist (i.e., and object with mass which exerts zero gravitational pull). Ok, I'll try again: The term "force" when referring to the four fundamental forces of nature is just a word that describes an effect which we cannot otherwise explain. Gravity can, however, be explained as geometric distortions in spacetime. I am not saying space is made up of particles (just as a geometric plane is not made of particles). I am speaking in terms of pure geometry. Space is a geometric term described by volume, just as a plane is a term described by area. Space itself is not matter or energy- it is a geometric construct. The very best and most workable theories regarding gravity say that it is the result of 4 dimensional indentations in space. This is a far better explanation than gravity simply being a "force" for which there is no explanation. Gravity does not exert itself on space, it is simply a property thereof in the presence of matter or energy. quote:Furthermore, the idea that gravity effects the contours of space itself is highly flawed. In fact, it may be the opposite: the contours of space is quite possibly what causes matter to attract itself. Therefore, in order for an antigravity device to work, it would be forced to exist in an oppositely contoured area of space AND in our space at the exact same time, which is impossible. The description of space being distorted explains the effects of gravity very well. Einstein himself pioneered this approach by using Riemannian geometry in his theories, which allow for curved space. His theories say that where there's gravity, there's a spacetime distortion. As far as I know, this idea has yet to be refuted, and is taught and honored in scientific circles worldwide. quote:Mathematically speaking, negative gravity is impossible due to the fact that we can't mathematically DEFINE gravity yet. We can only measure it and its effects. And considering that its effects are always inward, there is no way one could postulate an equation for it to travel outward. We do have the field equations of gravity. They do not disallow negative gravity. quote:Negative matter = antimatter, and observed phenomena. Negative mass, is the question, and is impossible. How can an object have mass less than zero? Negative matter is not antimatter. Negative matter is matter with negative mass. Please do not confuse the two, for they are separate concepts. The term for antimatter is antimatter, and the term for matter with negative mass is negative matter. This site (which, not surprisingly, cites people that pioneered the idea) explains in detail the math regarding negative matter. No, there is nothing preventing something from having negative mass. The math allows it, I assure you. Despite Salisbury's excellent post, you will see that at the bottom he realizes that those efforts were to no avail. I applaud him for the attempt, but otherwise it makes little difference. As for gravity and time, it's influence is unmistakable. A black hole is nothing more than an extreme example of this. Gravity warps space to such a degree that when you enter the event horizon (the are where light itself cannot escape), space and time switch roles. You no longer have control over where you are going, though you do have some control over when you get there, just as in normal space, you can, to some extent control where you are going, but you are always advancing in time. In a black hole, you are always advancing in space. This is because gravity warps spacetime to the extent where it is almost "perpendicular" to normal spacetime, so space and time reverse roles. [ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Negative gravity is indeed mathematically possible. Despite salisbury's impressive attempt to refute the idea, it nonetheless is at the very least a mathematical curiosity. It may be nothing more than that, but other ideas brushed off as such are now pretty much accepted. When you get right down to it, it's a simple matter of geometry. Space is flexible, therefore there is no reason why it cannot bend in a manner opposite to that caused by gravity. The possibility of negative matter has been put forth previously.

quote:Negative matter would simply be matter not only without mass, but less than without mass. Which is mathematically impossible. The point is that negative matter is mathematically possible. www.concentric.net/~Pvb/negmass.html Though it seems absurd, there is little more than common sense that denies its possibility. If we were to trust our common sense, we would still be in the stone age. If we can trust to any degree the proposition that time itself can slow as we approach light speed and that subatomic particles routinely appear and disappear in different locations without transversing the distance between, then 'negative' matter is not much of a stretch. It is in fact possible to sum up science as "anything not prohibited is compulsory." The concept of negative matter is not prohibited, and though I won't go so far as to say that it therefore must exist, I think it's fair to state that it can. Even basic causality of "this, this, therefore that" or "cause then effect" is not immutable. In the quantum world, effects can precede their cause. To me, that in itself is the most absurd thing of all, yet it happens. quote:We DO now how to replicate gravity, but we don't know why these processes work. We don't know why mass exerts a pull on other objects with mass. Current (and not so current, such as those proposed by Einstein) theories say that mass and energy are/cause a geometric distortion in spacetime. I'm sure most of you are familiar with a picture of a star distorting a sheet. This is gravity. It is simply a geometric anomaly in five dimensional spacetime (4 for space, one for time). [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

The thing about this sort of discussion is that it can go on forever- games like BCM generally don't have to have a firm grounding in science to be enjoyable. Idle speculation is another thing, though, and there used to be a thread a while ago about the theoretical aspects of technologies depicted in the BC series. It seems to have been deleted, for reasons unknown up to this point (accident? hack? so ludicrous that it was beginning to annoy an admin?). I would have reposted it, since I have it saved, but since it may have been deleted for a very good reason, I've been keeping it to myself.

Heh, I love this type of thread. Here it goes: The only problem is that for an object to exert negative gravity, it must have negative mass (or you would have to generate an extremely powerful "negative energy" field). Though negative mass is theoretically possible (read- allowed by the mathematics of relativity), it would be even harder to find or create than antimatter, which in itself is quite rare. It is, however, theorized that stable wormholes would exist only because of negative gravity holding them open anyway, so the idea is not without merit (indeed, it has been proposed before in this capacity). Wormholes would otherwise collapse shut before anything could traverse them. This is the main problem with wormholes- not the gravity of the component singularities. [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

For all of you who seem all too quick to bash Intel: Intel's design philosophy simply emphasizes clock speed. For example, having advanced (read- very fast) clock speeds is just as valid a way of speeding up a cpu as having a more efficient pipeline/cache/you name it. The fact that a 1.7 Ghz P4 may be roughly equivilant 1.4 T-Bird in benchmarks does not make the T-Bird more advanced. Intel simply chose to emphasize clock speed, whereas AMD focused on streamlning their microarchitecture. [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

1: I tried it in the demo ep2- a launched shuttle will indeed tractor you even if you are in the water, but it cannot leave ground level- so you are actually pushed under water by the tractor beam and held there, and all the shuttle seems to do is move sideways, regardless of the orders you give it. I also tried to rescue the battlecruiser myself (in a new game where I had let the ship fall into the water after launching myself away in a shuttle), but the same thing happened- I found that though I could tractor the Battlecruiser, it was pushed under water and my shuttle was stuck at the surface, unable to rise.

quote: 1. Will there be FPS enemy bots to face on ground missions? Well, there will be NPC marines, if that's what you're talking about. quote: 1. What kind of play will multiplayer be like? fighter dogfights?, BattleCruiser to Battlecruiser? FPS V.s. FPS? I believe so. quote: 2. Will things like a bases being defended by a team of players from another team using simultanious Air, Ground, and foot assult happen? I'm quite sure that you can do that. quote: 3. will teams and fleets be able to coordinate manuvers, and attacks on enemy posts, cities, stations ect.... Assuming there are in-game chat features (and what self-respecting multiplayer game doesn't have them) I forsee all the huge battlecruiser/fighter/fps/vehicle etc. assaults you could ever desire. [ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:Is the end result going to have a bridge that looks cool like the screenshot I saw in the manual? I was under the impression that BCM would have a HUD only view- just think of the time it would take to create a bridge or cockpit for every ship/fighter/land vehicle. [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Berman has said that the Klingons will have nextgen era foreheads.

First, Gomez, I used the word 'decay' because it means, when referring to entropy, an increase in disorder or an increase in homogeny, rather than 'deteriorate.' This is not necessarily bad thing, just as an increase in disorder in a system of subatomic particles is not necessarily bad. Menchise, that's an intruiging point that I never bothered to think about. Perhaps one could consider socialism and modern democracies to be equally as liberal. Now that I think about it, individualism seems more and more to be a logical element of liberalism. Social Democracy probably assumes a more proper place after a purely capitalist democracy as a stage in political entropy than Communism or plain old Socialism. Social Democracy seems to balance the idea of political equality and socioeconomic equality, rather than taking the latter element of equality to extremes at the expense of other liberal concepts (such as individualism).

Interesting, Menchise. You're absolutely right, so I'll try to add some depth to my arguments here. One of the elements that you have listed confuses me a bit. For example, under liberalism, you listed 'individuality.' Does the radical left really emphasize individuality? It always seemed to me that socialism and communism are more about the good of the whole, rather than the good of the one. Equality, reason, and freedom I can certainly see, since many, many liberal reforms have had to do with the application of reason (such as Galileo vs the accepted principles of Aristotle). Communism advocates class equality, so equality certainly is an aspect of liberalism, and, in my opinion, since liberalism is about freedom, then freedom certainly is in. All the other elements you listed in liberalism I can certainly see. I was saying that liberalism is movement away from the status quo, and this seems to be the case with the concepts you listed, for they are (not surprisingly) diametrically opposed to the ideas of the opposing ideology. It is interesting that as history has played out, you will see that out of anarchy, the powerful emerge on top and the average people on the bottom in a well defined order, which you made reference to in the conservative concepts of hierarchy and organicism. Eventually, as civilizations inevitably liberalize, the lower classes demand more and more of the liberal concept of equality that you mentioned. In fact, the more liberal the system of government, the more politically and socioeconomically uniform the population, until we have anarchy. Then, of course, structure begins to form again at the conservative extreme. This is fascinating, and what I realize is that it's all entropy. You have order, in extreme conservatism (such as feudalism), which eventually 'decays' into more and more liberal political systems (like a republic, then a democracy), until you have chaos- anarchy, when the cycle can start again. All this supports my argument that time causes everything- people, governments, ideas etc. to liberalize. For the opposite to happen would simply be impossible, since entropy always increases until it cannot increase any further. You couldn't have communism, for example, which 'orders' itself into American-style democracy, which slowly 'evolves' into fascism, which becomes a theocracy, then feudalism, and finally anarchy. It couldn't happen. Any period of anarchy that isn't a natural decay of the most liberal government requires revolution, and for the revoluionaries to willingly choose anarchy as the end result of their efforts is absolutely ridiculous. If we just look at entropy in itself, we see that it simply is a measurement of disorder. The more entropy, the greater homogeny. Therefore, you could say that ultimately, liberalism strives for greater homogeny in a system (in this case, society), whereas conservatism strives for greater heterogeneity. [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:I would say that America has obviously become more permissive. That would still be liberal. If you're too permissive- you allow anything- you allow excessive freedom, and anarchy (in the long run) ensues, and if you're not permissive enough, we get theocracy (again, in the long run). As people become more liberal, they generally become more permissive. Essentially, what liberal means is free. Again, too much freedom is bad, but so is too little. quote:Initially, we had direct elections for the House, and the House elected the Senate. The Senate is now elected directly by the people. Also, we had State elections for the Electoral College and the College elected the president. Direct presidential elections began in 1820. I was referring to the senate. We have never had direct presidential elections, however, since members of the electoral college are not (in the vast majority of states) legally required to vote for the more popular candidate. quote:Abortion was always legal, but it was a State's rights issue. Individual states decided whether to allow abortion. Roe v. Wade came about because Texas did not allow abortion and Louisiana did, but Roe was too poor to travel to Lousiana and sued Texas for the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court said that there was a Federal right to abortion throughout the entire country, but there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to make this decree. That is the crux of the argument. If Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court, it would not ban abortion, but only revert it back to the states. I can't think of any state (other than Utah, maybe) that would ban abortion these days. Abortion was always federally legal, since it was considered a state issue. I was referring to the nation as a whole, not the federal government. Were it not for Roe vs Wade, most states would still have had their antiabortion laws in place, and as a nation, abortion might still be illegal in the majority of states today. I say this because Roe vs Wade was the catalyst for change in this issue- such reform would have taken much longer otherwise. Besides, the fact that the Warren court was liberal enough to allow abortion reflected on the changing attitudes of America. Had there been a more conservative court, this wouldn't have happened. quote:Conservatism is about individual responsibility and accountability. It is about creating an environment where people have incentives to improve themselves to the point where they become self-sufficient, while providing government safety-nets for those who stumble onto hard time. It is not about creating a welfare state as a way of life and ensaring people into a life of dependency on government programs and handouts. That is what today's liberal left agenda is all about. I disagree. Conservatism is merely resistance to change, whether for the good or bad. Liberalism is simply willingness to change, whether for the better or the worse. Though it is true that the form of socialism you discribed in your 'welfare state' is radical liberalism, I would argue that equally radical conservatism is equally as bad, just as extreme liberalism- communism, has the same disastrous results as extreme conservatism- fascism. Fascism is indeed radical conservatism- conservatism is bad, bad, bad when carried to extremes, just as liberalism is when incorporated absolutely. Conservatism isn't about anything but satisfaction with the status quo, however good or bad it is, just as liberalism is nothing but a mindset to change it, regardless of whether such change is needed. [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

The US would not set the precedent for the use of nuclear weapons. Ever. That is why Truman didn't let MacArthur nuke the Chinese army in Korea. If the pressures of war could not induce a nuclear strike, then the relatively insignificant touch of economics certainly would not. OK, Gomez, I think I see what you're saying. Your underlying concern is that we are slowly but surely moving to the right, and that we will eventually become a fascist police state. I heartily disagree. Just like everything else, time has caused our nation to liberalize. All peoples and nations inevitably become more liberal with time. For example, look at history: The Roman empire: Originally an Estrucan territory, then revolting and establishing a conservative (but highly liberal by ancient standards) republic, where power was concentrated primarily in the hands of the rich. Eventually, this changed, and even the poorest had a voice in government. It began to rot from corruption, until it was granted a reprieve by the Caesar and the imperial period, until the fabric of its government became so corrupt that it dissolved from within, while its subjects became more and more liberal. Eventually, a conservative order was reconstructed in the form of the major European powers of medieval times. As people became more liberal (religion played less and less of a role, government became more democratic), we see America colonized. Soon, it rebelled against its British overlords, just as the ancient Romans did. The founding fathers, who were determined to succeed where the Romans failed, incorporated a similar government, which has worked to this day. America itself has obviously become more liberal: The requirement of owning land to vote was dropped in favor of the poor, there was the abolition of slavery, then women's suffrage, then direct congressional elections, and legalized abortion. Attempts throughout history to forcibly reestablish conservativism have always and always will be doomed to failure. For example, the Catholic church failed to stop the Protestant reformation. Adolf Hitler failed to forcibly institute his 'thousand year Reich' throughout Europe. Gomez, if there is one thing you don't have to worry about, it's reversion to fascism. It simply won't happen any time soon, since historically, liberalism prevails. I consider myself a centrist, since the radical left is just as bad (and remarkably similar, actually) as the far right. Political and socioeconomic stasis is impossible to attain, so I accept (though not necessarily approve of) the inexorable leftward movement of the US. The reason I am not a diehard conservative or liberal is because movement in either direction too quickly is always catastrophic. The Nazis learned that the hard way when rushing to the right in WW2, just as the Roman empire collapsed when hastily sliding to the left. The USSR fell into the same trap Rome did when trying to liberalize too quickly. Socialism gave way to oligarchy, just as the the Roman republic did, then, like ancient Rome, the USSR collapsed. [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

He will repeat this incident unless it is dealt with swiftly and firmly. He must not go unpunished.

Gomez, you are certainly an extreme liberal. I suppose that your degree of lefward persuasion might allow the label 'radical.' Your fear of the far right- fascism, rather than the far left- communism, is also a giveaway. Anyway, you have some interesting ideas. I'd like to differ on many, however. China is not a superpower, in my opinion, and will not be able to challenge the United States militarily or economically for a long, long time. They have around twenty nuclear missles capable of striking the US. We could survive a chinese first strike to obliterate their country. Therefore, they cannot challenge us in the nuclear arena. Though they certainly have huge numbers of troops, our technology is several generations ahead of theirs. A ground conflict between our armies would probably be of great cost to both sides- to the Chinese due to our technological advantage, and to us because of their sheer numbers. We would eventually prevail, however, since they would lose control of their own skies and waters very quickly. So, China would probably not be able to challenge us in a conventional conflict. Economically, china has a long way to go. The only reason china is now enacting capitalist reforms is because capitalism is, on a large scale, far more workable than communism (not to mention more profitable for all). Had china remained true to Maoism, it would have probably fragmented into pieces by now. OK, now in defense of the US government: The media likes nothing better than to pounce on our own government. It destroyed Nixon, denounced the Vietnam War, marred Clinton, criticized the policies (such as campaign finance) of many, and would like nothing better than to expose some grand government plot to exploit the American people for its own profit. This story would really sell. The free press (trust me, it's quite free) is our single most effective tool against corruption. They are the ones who are driven by cold, hard cash. Therefore, they are relatively difficult to corrupt. As for government officials: Bush (or any other president) could be making hundreds of millions rather than 'mere' hundred-thousands if he worked in the private sector. The salary (and even other benefits on the side, legal or not) probably isn't driving him, or any other high-ranking government employee. Politicians have little to gain by inflaming the general populace by blatantly capitalizing on them. In order for the whole of our nation to be decieved, they would have to be working in concert with the press, which as I have shown, is probably not the most willing partner. If it were forced- well, we might as well start up a conspiracy theory thread if I were to go on. Socialism and communism, both theoretical alternatives to capitalism, are doomed to failure on the large scale, since they require absolute consensus to function without eventually resorting to widespread oppresion, which inevitably leads to the downfall of government.

Ahh, a political 'right vs left' thread. Interesting... OK... Pyros, by bringing religion into this thread, I hereby nominate you for your 'most controversial post award.' We seem to be rather excited by the whole 'liberalism vs conservatism' debate already- discussion of religion may just cause this heated debate to explode. Due to the deliberately obscure and often abstract nature of most religions, reason can, without extreme care, degenerate into baseless ad hominem attacks. Post regarding this at your own peril. Otherwise, I agree with pyros. Might makes right is not sound argument. I refer you to books one and two of The Republic, available for download free at netlibrary.com (you still have to get an account, but that's free too). In there, it is argued quite soundly that the sophist principle of 'might makes right' is invalid when referring to the individual. There is little reason why the state would not be bound by similar logic. Just as society mandates the individual to have a relatively stable ethical base (in response to Pyros's point about the inquisition, the Roman Catholic religion has obviously stabilized over the centuries), I put forth that government should have a similar (though not necessarily identical- removing the religious tilt to an ethical system is certainly one such exception) foundations. Therefore, unilateralism, which, in essence, is sophism on a grand scale, would not be good.

The government actually looked into collecting solar power in space. There was a research project that dealt with it, but it was nixed when projected costs for such a system spiraled up towards a trillion dollars. The only environmental impact I've heard of here might be caused by (as Menchise pointed out) the microwave radiation used to transmit the energy back to earth. There is little information that says how, exactly, this would affect the ecology (not to mention the people) near a recieving station. This is a fair objection, and in my opinion, research should be done to determine the effects of prolonged exposure to microwave radiation before any such system was built. For fission reactors: Meltdowns are always a possibility. Even today's reactors run the risk (however infintesimally tiny) of irradiating the surrounding area. Of course, talk of a nuclear accident in a modern plant is not realistic at all, and you'd probably have a better chance of getting a kidney stolen in Las Vegas than hearing of a meltdown. Waste, as I mentioned earlier, is always a problem. Currently, the only real option is to bury it in underground caverns and leave it there for 10,000 years. Of course, in who's backyard would you build such tombs? Well, we have remote locales such as the deserts of Nevada, but look at the fuss people are making about even that place. Let's not give up on fusion yet. It is getting closer and closer to reality. Fusion power has nearly boundless possibilities once harnessed. [ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Let's drop the 'definition of debate' thing. It's utterly irrelevant to this discussion, and as I said before, arguing over semantics will only serve to inflame tempers. Now, on to business. There is only one way America could ever become self-sufficient- use resources that cannot be depleted. Hydroelectric power is a good example. The main reason why some environmentalists are against them is because they interfere with salmon migration. There are devices which remedy this problem, undermining the validity of this objection. Other problems are generally countered by the benefit in air quality we would gainl. This form of power will probably never be able to make the US completely self-sufficient, though. Then, of course, there is nuclear fission. Because nuclear fission reactors do not require huge amounts of fuel (unlike coal, natural gas, and oil power plants), import of uranium would probably not be terribly expensive (compared to the vast amounts of oil we currently purchase), should we run out. It is also relatively clean. Its only problems are radioactive waste and accidents. Now, to deal with waste. First, Jaguar, imagine dumping one kilogram of nuclear waste per kiloton of concrete into the ocean. The concrete would probably dissolve under pressure by the time it reached the ocean ridges (not counting the cost and ecological impact a kiloton of concrete would have before it sufficiently dispersed), allowing the waste, which would also undoubtable dissolve, to float freely throughout the ocean. Now imagine all the nuclear waste we would produce if the US was powered solely by nuclear powerplants. Of course, you probably meant a gram of waste per ton of concrete. That's still a lot, if you consider how many grams of nuclear waste you'd have to dispose of. That surely isn't practical. It is almost rediculous to talk about the possibility of a major accident at a nuclear powerplant these days, but if it happens, we'll all pay dearly. That is why many people say (and they have a point, though I happen to disagree with them on this particular issue) that it simply isn't worth the risk, however small. Nuclear power, in my opinion, is an adequate, if controversial short-term solution, though only as a last resort. Now what's left? You've got windmills, solar power, geothermal energy, and some theoretical stuff (such as nuclear fusion). All of this is clean. Eventually, solar technology would have advanced to the point where it will be cheap enough to enter the mainstream. Windmills and geothermal plants require special locations, so I doubt that they will become a major source of power. Then you have nuclear fusion. This would be a dream come true. It's clean, uses hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, doesn't produce dangerous radiation or radioactive waste, and is more powerful than fission. Expect scientists to make it cost-effective sometime in this geologic period. Solar power is a good alternative, as it is becoming more and more cost-effective everyday. If weather becomse a problem, we would eventually be able to put large satellites into orbit and have them do the collecting. They could beam the energy back to earth as microwaves (something the government looked into 10 or 20 years ago, though it was too expensive at the time). There you have it- everything has advantages and disadvantages. Refusing to embrace the future of clean power, however, is not a sound plan. Just as coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power had its day, we must give newer technologies a chance to thrive, instead of looking to solutions of yesteryear for tomorrow's problems. [ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]