Solar 40% conversion

[Beeazlebub]

From the good news department - Aussie researchers reach efficiency marks for conversion of solar energy.





http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141207091648.htm

 

[GMM]

Good

Now we can get rid of subsidies and mandates for solar power and let it compete on the open market. Right?

 

[BoilersRock]

Re: Good

Should all energy subsidies be removed, or just select ones?

 

[TheCainer]

Re: Good


Don't try and trick him or he'll most certainly think you have an agenda.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: Good

Originally posted by TheCainer:

Don't try and trick him or he'll most certainly think you have an agenda.

In GMM's world, the only bad thing about oil is the color.

 

[GMM]

Re: Good

Yes, all of them.

 

[GMM]

So, no response

Other than to bleat out "waaaacist!". Weak.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: So, no response

Originally posted by GMM:
Other than to bleat out "waaaacist!". Weak.

You have nothing of value to add to any discussion, but you are entertaining. Kudos for being a racist clown who thinks oil is a renewable resource.

 

[GMM]

Didn't think so*

*

 

[qazplm]

the only thing I'll say positive

about GMM, is that he, mostly, owns it. Several other posters on here just as blatantly racist who won't admit it other than a couple of posts saying attaboy or agreeing following a GMM post on the subject. GMM says it upfront.

As for entertaining? Eh.

 

[GMM]

Don't have much of a choice

I mean I can't stop being white and I don't think I'm gonna stop being normal anytime soon. So, being a "racist" is a given.

 

[atmafola]

Re: the only thing I'll say positive

Originally posted by qazplm:
about GMM, is that he, mostly, owns it. Several other posters on here just as blatantly racist who won't admit it other than a couple of posts saying attaboy or agreeing following a GMM post on the subject. GMM says it upfront.

As for entertaining? Eh.

true, I will give him credit for that. He doesn't shy away from spewing his racist crap that he clearly believes aren't racist but are just "facts". right?

 

[qazplm]

I think the normal ship

for you sailed a long time ago. Then it was boarded by pirates (no doubt black and hispanic pirates because there aren't any other kind amirite?), and then it was sunk to the bottom of the ocean. Finally, it was eaten by various sea creatures.

 

[GMM]

Wrong

Facts are some of the most "racist" things around.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: the only thing I'll say positive

Originally posted by qazplm:
about GMM, is that he, mostly, owns it. Several other posters on here just as blatantly racist who won't admit it other than a couple of posts saying attaboy or agreeing following a GMM post on the subject. GMM says it upfront.

As for entertaining? Eh.

*yawn*....

If you disagree with a few of the radical leftists on this forum you're a D@MN RACIST!

Really, the real racists are the people who all they see is race... and squeal "racist" at every turn.

 

[qazplm]

no

if you think black people are more prone to violence because they are black, or that asians are smarter than whites, or any of the other racist things GMM believes, then you are a racist. If you defend those positions you are as well.

 

[GMM]

You forgot something....

.....or that asians are smarter than whites......

What, no "white supremacist" blather?

But, as I said before, facts are some of the most "racist" things around.

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: no


Is one a racist is they believe blacks are faster, and able to jump higher than any other race? What about those who believe blacks are better dancers? What about those who believe Asians suck at driving? What about those who don't think gentle giants are really all that gentle? What about those who believe whites are better swimmers? Can I get in the same trouble for using the N word as I would calling someone a retard?

What differences amongst the races are OK to utter without the Rachel Maddow's's of the world screaming racist?

 

[GMM]

Simple

Whites are politically incorrect and non-whites are politically correct. There are good things and bad things that people can do. Therefore......

- Its always OK to notice that non-whites are better than whites at good things.

- Its always OK to notice that whites are better at bad things than non-whites.

- Its never OK to notice that non-whites are better at bad things than whites.

- Its never OK to notice that whites are better at good things than non-whites.

The same basic rules apply to other comparisons like men vs. women, rich vs. poor, progressives vs. conservatives, the West vs. other cultures, America vs. other countries, normal people vs. homosexuals, Christianity vs. other religions, humans vs. animals, etc. First determine who's politically incorrect and who's politically correct and then you'll know what you can and can't say.

 

[SCBoiler]

no

Originally posted by qazplm:
if you think black people are more prone to violence because they are black, or that asians are smarter than whites, or any of the other racist things GMM believes, then you are a racist. If you defend those positions you are as well.

If you think blacks in America aren't more prone to violence, you have your head in the sand. BUT, it's not because they're black. So, hmmmm, what could the answer be? Hint: it has nothing to do with race, yet all leftists want to talk about is race.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[qazplm]

yes

GMM hasn't said anything about blacks being more violent because they are black right? We "leftists" just made that part up. I mean it's not like he said it in this very thread or anything.

 

[qazplm]

yes

if you believe that blacks "jump higher" simply by virtue of being black then you are a racist. If you think they are faster simply by virtue of being black you are a racist. If you recognize that athletics and entertainment are two areas where lower socioeconomic groups use to advance, then you are not a racist, unless you believe that Jews early in the last century were better athletes because they for a time dominated many sports. Of course they aren't but they were one of the lower socioeconomic groups.

There aren't differences among the races because of race. There are differences among socioeconomic groups. Of course we know which one you believe in don't we?

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: yes

Originally posted by qazplm:
There aren't differences among the races because of race. There are differences among socioeconomic groups. Of course we know which one you believe in don't we?

So the poorer you are the faster you can run and the higher you can jump?

 

[db]

Good news bub, thanks for posting.

 

[qazplm]

the poorer you are

the less access you have to traditional means of advancement because of a variety of factors including educational opportunities. Thus, you turn to less traditional means of advancement that are either legitimate (sports, entertainment) or illegitimate (crime). This is well-established in the social sciences, not something I just came up with on my own.

Why were Jews big into sports and crime in the first half of the last century and now they aren't in either? And no it's not because "blacks came in" because the decline of Jews in both areas was happening well before AA's became primary in sports, and really before the demographic changes in crimes happened as well.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: yes

Originally posted by qazplm:
if you believe that blacks "jump higher" simply by virtue of being black then you are a racist. If you think they are faster simply by virtue of being black you are a racist. If you recognize that athletics and entertainment are two areas where lower socioeconomic groups use to advance, then you are not a racist, unless you believe that Jews early in the last century were better athletes because they for a time dominated many sports. Of course they aren't but they were one of the lower socioeconomic groups.

There aren't differences among the races because of race. There are differences among socioeconomic groups. Of course we know which one you believe in don't we?

I would add that there may be differences between groups of people based upon more than socioeconomic status (diet, societal norms, environmental influences, etc). We tend to use "race" to explain differences because it is something we can see, i.e. someone with dark skin must be different than my own white skin.

The fact of the matter is that "race" is a social construct originally used to separate the "pure" humans (white) from those who were deemed less (non-white savages), and the term has no definition in biological anthropology.

 

[qazplm]

yes

I didn't mean to imply that socioeconomic status was the only difference between groups.

 

[BoilersRock]

Re: So, no response

> who thinks oil is a renewable resource.

I remember GMM posted this before, and he mentioned that the long process of coalification/catagenesis has never stopped. I don't think there's any arguing that point, although he has misused the term "renewable". "Replaceable" would be more apropos.

So the question is have we reached the point of consuming more than the Earth replaces? For every one barrel we pull up, does the Earth just finish producing 5? We can gauge rates based on current consumption, current production and proven reserves of course but we still continue to locate new sources all of the time.

 

[qazplm]

different questions

1. Does the Earth produce new oil faster than we use it? Patently not.

2. Have we found all deposits of oil? I would assume again no we haven't



Of course there are other questions like, have we found all economically feasible deposits of oil? Or, at what point does the cost of oil exceed the cost of development of alternative fuels? Or, at what point does the development and refinement of alternative fuel processes become more economically advantageous to fossil fuels?

This is completely ignoring environmental issues and focusing only on economic questions.

 

[Purdue85]

newsflash....

Originally posted by qazplm:
if you think black people are more prone to violence because they are black, or that asians are smarter than whites, or any of the other racist things GMM believes, then you are a racist. If you defend those positions you are as well.

You're not the arbiter of what is racist and what isn't.

That's a d@mn good thing, too.

 

[qazplm]

lol

thinking someone is something because of their race is pretty much the definition of racism. I'm not an arbiter, I just have access to a dictionary.

 

[Purdue85]

LOLOL

Originally posted by qazplm:
thinking someone is something because of their race is pretty much the definition of racism. I'm not an arbiter, I just have access to a dictionary.

B-S.

You've been called on it and failed. It's not a dictionary, it's your rules. And people aren't required to play by them. Thank goodness.

 

[qazplm]

from the dictionary


"the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others"

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: LOLOL

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Originally posted by qazplm:
thinking someone is something because of their race is pretty much the definition of racism. I'm not an arbiter, I just have access to a dictionary.

B-S.

You've been called on it and failed. It's not a dictionary, it's your rules. And people aren't required to play by them. Thank goodness.

Qaz wrote the dictionary? Who knew!