Cold Fusion!

[ComradeRed]

Three Researchers anounce at UCLA to have achieved Cold Fusion!!! (http://economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3909490) :o

Impressive, comments?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'd still rather go with Hot Fusion. It seems a much better bet.

[Elect Marx]

Very interesting but like I have said before, this is scary shit.
If we have suitable fusion technology, much superior atoms bombs of all sorts might be producible IN MASS...

Super science + Capitalism = Death/Destruction; as we have seen.

Anyhow, I prefer the idea of nano-fusion, i have toyed with some macro models but hot continuous fusion or "pulse fusion" seem like the best options with our current technology; mostly we need better materials that capitalism simply WILL NOT offer us...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Very interesting but like I have said before, this is scary shit.
If we have suitable fusion technology, much superior atoms bombs of all sorts might be producible IN MASS...

Oh for the love of scientific understanding...

A fission/fusion reactor is not the same as a fission/fusion bomb. Right now weapons technology isn't aimed making bigger bombs, it's aimed at making better bombs.
Nowadays they don't want a bigger bang, they want to be able to land the bomb right between the eyes of an ant.

The largest nuclear device ever detonated was Tsar Bomba, at 50 megatons. It's far too big a bomb by western standards.


Super science + Capitalism = Death/Destruction; as we have seen MANY times.

Really? Just how many times? I can only think of two events, nagasaki and hiroshima.

Don't forget that dozens more nuclear bombs have been detonated for tests than used in warfare, and we're still here. MAD has ensured the survival of human civilisation so far.

In most respects this is a pretty useless discovery.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:57 AM
A fission/fusion reactor is not the same as a fission/fusion bomb.

The largest nuclear device ever detonated was Tsar Bomba, at 50 megatons. It's far too big a bomb by western standards.
Really? Thanks for stating the obvious for no reason.


Right now weapons technology isn't aimed making bigger bombs, it's aimed at making better bombs.
Nowadays they don't want a bigger bang, they want to be able to land the bomb right between the eyes of an ant.

Yes and fusion technology enables smaller and "better" weaponry.
Once you escape the limitations of detonation/sustainable requirements, you have a versatile and DEADLY force; hmmm, could that be made into a weapon?
With a micro-reactor/mass energy storage you could produce weapons unparalleled today, are you familiar with particle projection, anti-material and electron/neutron weapons?



Super science + Capitalism = Death/Destruction; as we have seen MANY times.

Really? Just how many times? I can only think of two events, nagasaki and hiroshima.

Don't forget that dozens more nuclear bombs have been detonated for tests than used in warfare, and we're still here. MAD has ensured the survival of human civilisation so far.

In most respects this is a pretty useless discovery.

Alright, so I may have exaggerated but it seems likely that other super-technology has been used to commit atrocities and my equation is still valid.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think your overreacting.

"omg a new inventions that makes fuzion reactions colder!!! US is T3h EEEeeeeevil!!!"

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:15 AM
I think your overreacting.

"omg a new inventions that makes fuzion reactions colder!!! US is T3h EEEeeeeevil!!!"
No, I think you are glorifying technology and avoiding the discussion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think you're putting your ideology before objective reality, which is never a good thing.

By the time we get around to creating micro-fusion power cells, terms like 'communism' and 'capitalism' may be meaningless.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 12:24 AM
I think you're putting your ideology before objective reality, which is never a good thing.
No, I am coming to a logical conclusion based on evidence.


By the time we get around to creating micro-fusion power cells, terms like 'communism' and 'capitalism' may be meaningless.

"terms like 'communism' and 'capitalism' may be meaningless!?" What a great way to determine the research of technology with the potential weapon capability to KILL US ALL.

This just has to go in my sig...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Quite the drama queen aren't we? According to people like you, we should have been wiped out decades ago by nuclear war. Surprisingly, we're still here.

The thing about superweapons is, they make genocidal conflict impossible; if it's possible to use them, then the other side has them as well, and will retaliate with full force, resulting in MAD.

That's why it always amuses me when people squeal over the potential of certain inventions to "kill us all!!!!!!! omg we're d00000med!!!!!"

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:55 AM
Quite the drama queen aren't we?
Wow; now you are really making great points. I hope you don't run out and start making asinine statements.


According to people like you, we should have been wiped out decades ago by nuclear war. Surprisingly, we're still here.

I never said anything of the sort, so that is based on... your prejudicial veiw of me? Again, great rational points.


The thing about superweapons is, they make genocidal conflict impossible;

No; perhaps ones that kill entire populations of people but super-weapons could also just kill small groups of people very effectively or just target single people.


if it's possible to use them, then the other side has them as well, and will retaliate with full force, resulting in MAD.


What is this "sides" bullshit? The workers would not own these weapons and wont but they will be killed with them if they exist..


That's why it always amuses me when people squeal over the potential of certain inventions to "kill us all!!!!!!! omg we're d00000med!!!!!"

Ignorant ideas don't amuse me; perhaps you should be more critical of your dogma.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I never said anything of the sort, so that is based on... your prejudicial veiw of me? Again, great rational points.

Stop playing the victim. You said:


Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
What a great way to determine the research of technology with the potential weapon capability to KILL US ALL.

Emphasis added.



No; perhaps ones that kill entire populations of people but super-weapons could also just kill small groups of people very effectively or just target single people.

weapons that kill small groups of people or target only individuals are by definition NOT superweapons - stop playing semantic games.

We have weapons like that already - normal military hardware that is used daily.


What is this "sides" bullshit? The workers would not own these weapons and wont but they will be killed with them if they exist..

Right, so the first thing capitalists do when they get their hands on them is to eradicate the working class? You are truly an idiot. Who would do all their work? If the workers are getting out of line, they send in the cops (Or the Army in riot gear!) they don't nuke their own nations.
Capitalists use superweapons to threaten other nations with.

You seem to be under the wrong impression that capitalists use the latest and greatest in military hardware to threaten the working class. Wrong, they simply use plain old brute force, because it works practically every time.
The reason armies like the US army develop more and more advanced weapons is a form of willy-waving; they tell other nations as a whole not to fuck with them and their huge guns.

[Fixed quotes - Cthenthar]

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 11 2005, 02:59 AM--> (NoXion @ May 11 2005, 02:59 AM)
I never said anything of the sort, so that is based on... your prejudicial veiw of me? Again, great rational points.

Stop playing the victim. You said:


313C7 iVi4RX
What a great way to determine the research of technology with the potential weapon capability to KILL US ALL.

Emphasis added.[/b]
Nuclear weapons already exist, so you are assuming my position on nuclear weapons by pre-judging my argument on your lack of provided reason.. thanks for making my point.



No; perhaps ones that kill entire populations of people but super-weapons could also just kill small groups of people very effectively or just target single people.

weapons that kill small groups of people or target only individuals are by definition NOT superweapons - stop playing semantic games.

What about the other ones? Take a look:

A superweapon is a weapon that is extremely powerful by the standards of its time. Examples include nuclear weapons, superguns and other various weapons employed to give a decisive advantage over opposing countries.


We have weapons like that already - normal military hardware that is used daily.

Not by the definition, stop playing semantic games.



What is this "sides" bullshit? The workers would not own these weapons and wont but they will be killed with them if they exist..

Right, so the first thing capitalists do when they get their hands on them is to eradicate the working class? You are truly an idiot.

You are the one that made that statement up, so you deserve the credit. Are you saying the workers wont be the ones killed!?


Who would do all their work? If the workers are getting out of line, they send in the cops (Or the Army in riot gear!) they don't nuke their own nations.

You are the one talking about nukes... maybe you would like to get back into the discussion?


Capitalists use superweapons to threaten other nations with.

Ah; so they have NEVER used them?


You seem to be under the wrong impression that capitalists use the latest and greatest in military hardware to threaten the working class. Wrong, they simply use plain old brute force, because it works practically every time.

You are attacking the points YOU brought up.


The reason armies like the US army develop more and more advanced weapons is a form of willy-waving; they tell other nations as a whole not to fuck with them and their huge guns.

Yeah, and sometimes they use them.

[OleMarxco]

I fixed your post in my quote - Learn to use codes, comrade ;)


Originally posted by NoXion+May 11 2005, 08:59 AM--> (NoXion @ May 11 2005, 08:59 AM)
I never said anything of the sort, so that is based on... your prejudicial veiw of me? Again, great rational points.

Stop playing the victim. You said:


"313C7 iVi4RX"
What a great way to determine the research of technology with the potential weapon capability to KILL US ALL.

Emphasis added.


No; Perhaps ones that kill entire populations of people but super-weapons could also just kill small groups of people very effectively or just target single people.

Weapons that kill small groups of people or target only individuals are by definition NOT superweapons - Stop playing semantic games. We have weapons like that already - normal military hardware that is used daily.


What is this "sides" bullshit? The workers would not own these weapons and wont but they will be killed with them if they exist....

Right, so the first thing capitalists do when they get their hands on them is to eradicate the working class? You are truly an idiot. Who would do all their work? If the workers are getting out of line, they send in the cops (Or the Army in riot gear!) they don't nuke their own nations.

Capitalists use superweapons to threaten other nations with.

You seem to be under the wrong impression that capitalists use the latest and greatest in military hardware to threaten the working class. Wrong, they simply use plain old brute force, because it works practically every time.

The reason armies like the US army develop more and more advanced weapons is a form of willy-waving; they tell other nations as a whole not to fuck with them and their huge guns.
[/b]
*jumps into the fray*
Ooh, there suddently is something WRONG with playing an victim? Do you FROWN UPON acting skills!? Do you LOOK DOWN ON actors? What's wrong with acting as a victim, when it only helps further the skill of manipulate the truth with illusions of being a victim, and is very handy indeed! Could trick a capitalist or too with that, no, or perhaps set up a play promoting Communism, playing the worker "victim"? :lol:

As for that, you and your emphasis adding! Of course there will not be the question of Communism or Capitalism after a potentional nuclear war, it will be as Red Star says.... "the transition from savagery to barbarism, so we can forget about Communism".

Bah, then you run up against him with the faint argument BY DEFINITION! BY DEFINITION!! - You're HARDLY the one to speak of definitions, "you kids and your burgeouise contraptions", ripping of Novel Gentry here of course. That's what the CAPPIES want you to believe, yes! "Don't worry, even if we just use to kill SMALL groups or because we target inviduals, it's not a super-weapon, so don't worry!"

That is not what decides what makes a super-weapon, but how much mass of trust and anti-materie destruction that explodes etc. Such things. Hey - I can still target an INVIDUAL or kill only SMALL groups but it would still be a SUPER-WEAPON allright if it destroys envirnoment for the closest 100 miles or so. And gradually less outside that.

Although those heavy weapons are not used against WORKERS -directly-, it's when attacking those neighbouring nations who "just happen to disagree" a few shots or more gets dropped on the WORKERS, who take the HARDEST BLOWS, meanwhile the PRIVELIEGED, have large underground vaults to bask themselves in! "Ho ho hey, I'm the rich overseer of Vault 13, look how safe I am and how those workers at the surface CAN EAT SHIT and get nuked! HAHAHAHHAAH!" Of course, the cappie-bastard rather have their workers die than them of course, and then just find someone else to hire and outsource the industry to a foreign land.

That's all :che:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nuclear weapons already exist, so you are assuming my position on nuclear weapons by pre-judging my argument on your lack of provided reason.. thanks for making my point.


My point was that your arguments are parallel to those who said that research into atomic theory would kill us all, which it clearly hasn't.


You are the one that made that statement up, so you deserve the credit. Are you saying the workers wont be the ones killed!?

Again you misunderstand. Other nations as a whole are targeted by superweapons - this includes everybody. Superweapons are not class-specific.


You are the one talking about nukes... maybe you would like to get back into the discussion?


This is a thread about nuclear fusion. Learn to read.

The development of superweapons is irrelevant to class discussion - superweapons are by their very nature very powerful and wide-ranging and make unsuitable weapons for surpressing the working class. It is a phenomenon that affects international relations, of course, but since when have the working class had a nation?


Ah; so they have NEVER used them?

I never said that; it takes special historical circumstances to use superweapons without fear of reprisals. The US could freely nuke Japan because Japan had no nukes of her own and the USSR hadn't quite developed them yet - after that the only nukes that were detonated were test bombs, at once a show of strength and a study of the effects of nuclear weapons, of which there around about a couple of dozen.


Yeah, and sometimes they use them.

Ah yes, Mike, the first true thermonuclear weapon to be detonated. It was a test.

And to OleMarxCo, minimalism is a true sign of eloquence

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:13 AM

Nuclear weapons already exist, so you are assuming my position on nuclear weapons by pre-judging my argument on your lack of provided reason.. thanks for making my point.


My point was that your arguments are parallel to those who said that research into atomic theory would kill us all, which it clearly hasn't.
My point was that you where making an ASSUMPTION. It could have killed us all but this new research can be utilized more readily for many reasons.



You are the one that made that statement up, so you deserve the credit. Are you saying the workers wont be the ones killed!?

Again you misunderstand. Other nations as a whole are targeted by superweapons - this includes everybody. Superweapons are not class-specific.

Bullshit, the workers will be the ones to die in mass; nice try at avoidence though.



You are the one talking about nukes... maybe you would like to get back into the discussion?


This is a thread about nuclear fusion. Learn to read.

I think the discussion has become about more than that, though you may have trouble following; at least your insulting attitude makes you feel smart.


The development of superweapons is irrelevant to class discussion - superweapons are by their very nature very powerful and wide-ranging and make unsuitable weapons for surpressing the working class. It is a phenomenon that affects international relations, of course, but since when have the working class had a nation?

Hey; it does help to avoid the definition I posted when you want to BS, doesn’t it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My point was that you where making an ASSUMPTION. It could have killed us all but this new research can be utilized more readily for many reasons.

Really? what weapons applications could this new discovery have? Would the resulting weapon even be practical? Is there any sign that the observed reaction in this experiment is even capable of reaching break-even point? Can any of the by-products (If any) be used for practical martial purposes?

What of your biggest assumption; that this invention is injurious to human life?

Why the fuck am I getting worked up over this?

BTW, I did a google for 'nano-fusion' and turned up this (http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html); it seems a highly wasteful way of attaining fusion reactions, as most likely the nano-machines would be consumed by the energy released in the fusion reaction.

It also turns out the appartus used to carry out pulse fusion was originally developed for weapons research. Interesting the paths developing weapons can lead you down eh?

The 'Z-Reactor' itself:
http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/photos/sandi_zreactor.jpg

What reason have I believe that pulse fusion or nanofusion that you mentioned earlier would be any less dangerous? The capability to build nanomachines alone would be a tremendous leap forward.

It's obvious that you're just shitting yourself over this because it has the dreaded 'nuclear' label on it. I don't see you worrying over the possibility of developing bioweapons when scientists attempt to recreate the conditions that spawned life on the planet.

[Artkill]

Don't always assume that militaristic technology has ill intent. A lot of wartime research benefits our standard of living. Radar, for example, was invented in the 30s to help aid in the war. If we had researched at a normal pace and discovered radar a decade or two after, we'd still be in the 80s, technologically.

As long as we keep reasonable restrictions on military development of such weapons, revolutionizing nuclear fusion benefits the human race as a whole.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:24 AM

My point was that you where making an ASSUMPTION. It could have killed us all but this new research can be utilized more readily for many reasons.

Really? what weapons applications could this new discovery have?
Think nuclear submarines on a lesser scale and bigger number.
Fusion technology allows for much greater energy production from abundant fuel and eventually less processing.
So this would allow people to power weapons that we currently cannot get enough energy for. EXAMPLE: take a mini-gun; most of the ammunition mass is propellant and with fusion power, you wouldn't need that, in fact, if you had a proper accelerator, you could just use simple particles, so having almost infinite ammo/energy... MANY more people would die simply by the ease of killing. Hurray for super-tech!


Would the resulting weapon even be practical?

Hmm, let us see... you would point your weapons at who you want to die... nope, I doubt the ruling class would have any interest in those.

That fact is that the ruling class is generally conservative and so will not risk advancing "too much", mostly non-medical technology and still, that is slow.

The rulers need the compliance of the workers to develop technology and we should develop productive-non-weapons technology or nothing at all.


Is there any sign that the observed reaction in this experiment is even capable of reaching break-even point?

No but we where talking about fusion in general, or at least that was the point I have been making.


Can any of the by-products (If any) be used for practical martial purposes?

Yes but I wouldn't say "maybe" developing productive technology is a good reason to advance what would very likely be weapons applications that increase the human death toll.


What of your biggest assumption; that this invention is injurious to human life?

No, I would say that is YOUR biggest assumption; unless you would point out where I specified "this invention is injurious to human life."


Why the fuck am I getting worked up over this?

Because I am challenging your dogmatic view that TECHNOLOY = GOOD?
Perhaps you have other motivations but that is the impression I get...


BTW, I did a google for 'nano-fusion' and turned up this (http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html); it seems a highly wasteful way of attaining fusion reactions, as most likely the nano-machines would be consumed by the energy released in the fusion reaction.

I don't see why as the heat only comes from the neutrons colliding with the helium or hydrogen particles. If you had a way of collecting/displacing the energy (like on the nano scale) you wouldn't have to worry about overheating.


It also turns out the appartus used to carry out pulse fusion was originally developed for weapons research. Interesting the paths developing weapons can lead you down eh?

Yup and sometimes people die... *flips a coin.


What reason have I believe that pulse fusion or nanofusion that you mentioned earlier would be any less dangerous? The capability to build nanomachines alone would be a tremendous leap forward.

I agree, you are assuming my intentions once again; in fact those are likely MORE DANGEROUS and I was simply saying those are more useful.


It's obvious that you're just shitting yourself over this because it has the dreaded 'nuclear' label on it.

It is obvious that you are drawing baseless assumptions because I oppose ALL SUPER_TECHNOLOGY under capitalism.


I don't see you worrying over the possibility of developing bioweapons when scientists attempt to recreate the conditions that spawned life on the planet.

Was that the fucking topic? Perhaps you should stop making irrational assumptions?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Think nuclear submarines on a lesser scale and bigger number.

A transportation revolution! personal subs would become practical just as the private car did. What an amazing thought!


Fusion technology allows for much greater energy production from abundant fuel and eventually less processing.

Cool! This means that communism becomes a more viable form of society.


So this would allow people to power weapons that we currently cannot get enough energy for. EXAMPLE: take a mini-gun; most of the ammunition mass is propellant and with fusion power, you wouldn't need that, in fact, if you had a proper accelerator, you could just use simple particles, so having almost infinite ammo/energy... MANY more people would die simply by the ease of killing. Hurray for super-tech!

I think you'll find that most military hardware is used by soldiers against soldiers - this weapon you described would most likely be used against infantry and light vehicles.
Workers are more usually killed by ballistic weaponry that, minus a few refinements such as rifling and the cartridge case, predate capitalism itself.
Unless you consider capitalist mercenaries to be workers, what cause have you to worry?


The rulers need the compliance of the workers to develop technology and we should develop productive-non-weapons technology or nothing at all.

I'm sorry, but such a stance would stagnate us technologically as there is practically no field of technology which cannot be used to serve violent purposes.
Short of a revolution, it won't happen, and by that time capitalism will be on it's way out anyway.


Yes but I wouldn't say "maybe" developing productive technology is a good reason to advance what would very likely be weapons applications that increase the human death toll.

Unfortunately, it seems the natural human tendency throughout history has been in favour of technogical development, with a few, usually religion-aided lapses such as the dark ages. It's a trade-off, but I think it's better than being stuck in superstitious ignorance.


No, I would say that is YOUR biggest assumption; unless you would point out where I specified "this invention is injurious to human life."

You said this:


Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
Super science + Capitalism = Death/Destruction; as we have seen.

The invention of fusion (Hot and cold) occurred under capitalism, with the distinct possibility that break-even point would be achieved under capitalism as well (In about 20-30 years)


I don't see why as the heat only comes from the neutrons colliding with the helium or hydrogen particles. If you had a way of collecting/displacing the energy (like on the nano scale) you wouldn't have to worry about overheating.

By the time we can build nanomachines that can withstand neutron bombardment* we'll most likely be able to cheaply produce anti-matter, a much more plentiful energy source than fusion. Hell, we may even be able to utilise vacuum energy by then, if we neglect nanotech^.
(*nanomachines are VERY fragile - their size means they heat up and cool down very quickly, causing stress, and can be damaged by electromagnetic bombardment and radiation in a similar way that such things damage our DNA)
(^Nanotech ain't the magic bullet that nanowankers would have you believe)


Yup and sometimes people die... *flips a coin.

Risk-taking is a part of life. By crossing a road you have to accept the possibility that some idiot will run you over. Sucks but that's the way it is.


Was that the fucking topic? Perhaps you should stop making irrational assumptions?

I wasn't saying it was the topic. I'm merely raising the point that nuclear science has been the subject of an environmentalist smear campaign for decades*, and that the resultant media bias may have coloured your opinion.

(*While nuclear science is not the only field to have suffered this, it has been under attack for a lot longer then the other contraversial sciences)

Artkill


Don't always assume that militaristic technology has ill intent. A lot of wartime research benefits our standard of living. Radar, for example, was invented in the 30s to help aid in the war. If we had researched at a normal pace and discovered radar a decade or two after, we'd still be in the 80s, technologically.

Don't forget that an offshoot of radar technology is the microwave oven, thus making baked potatoes so much easier to make. Mmmm.

[Elect Marx]

Yeah dude, it would be totally awesome, only we would all have super-tech weaponry and we would kill each other; it'd be like boom boom boom, argggh! Like a fucking videogame; YEEEHAAA!



Fusion technology allows for much greater energy production from abundant fuel and eventually less processing.

Cool! This means that communism becomes a more viable form of society.

YES! because when super powerful weapons are developed (as they almost always are in capitalism), the only result can be liberation, as we HAVE SEEN SO MANY FUCKING TIMES! Jump technology lemming jump!



So this would allow people to power weapons that we currently cannot get enough energy for. EXAMPLE: take a mini-gun; most of the ammunition mass is propellant and with fusion power, you wouldn't need that, in fact, if you had a proper accelerator, you could just use simple particles, so having almost infinite ammo/energy... MANY more people would die simply by the ease of killing. Hurray for super-tech!

I think you'll find that most military hardware is used by soldiers against soldiers - this weapon you described would most likely be used against infantry and light vehicles.

Whoa, okay; thanks for explaining why civilians don't die in battle and are not EVER targeted.


Workers are more usually killed by ballistic weaponry that, minus a few refinements such as rifling and the cartridge case, predate capitalism itself.

Oh, good thing we know exactly how people will use these super powerful weapons and also that capitalism’s increased production will help...


Unless you consider capitalist mercenaries to be workers, what cause have you to worry?

Yeah, I guess you are right; everyone that dies in battle deserves it... those children where looking for trouble.



The rulers need the compliance of the workers to develop technology and we should develop productive-non-weapons technology or nothing at all.

I'm sorry, but such a stance would stagnate us technologically as there is practically no field of technology which cannot be used to serve violent purposes.

How about your example: "radar technology," does it directly hurt anyone? I was saying technology we know to have HORRIBLE weapons applications but go on and develop weapons; we can only hope you get injured in the weapons test so you can eat crow through a tube for the rest of your life; time to think, I guess.


Short of a revolution, it won't happen, and by that time capitalism will be on it's way out anyway.

Right, capitalism is afraid of progress, so super-technology will scare it off.



Yes but I wouldn't say "maybe" developing productive technology is a good reason to advance what would very likely be weapons applications that increase the human death toll.

Unfortunately, it seems the natural human tendency throughout history has been in favour of technogical development, with a few, usually religion-aided lapses such as the dark ages. It's a trade-off, but I think it's better than being stuck in superstitious ignorance.

What!? You have a fucking choice; whether or not to aid super-technology.



No, I would say that is YOUR biggest assumption; unless you would point out where I specified "this invention is injurious to human life."

You said this:


Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
Super science + Capitalism = Death/Destruction; as we have seen.

The invention of fusion (Hot and cold) occurred under capitalism, with the distinct possibility that break-even point would be achieved under capitalism as well (In about 20-30 years)

Right; and so I never singled out that invention. Thank you for proving my point.



I don't see why as the heat only comes from the neutrons colliding with the helium or hydrogen particles. If you had a way of collecting/displacing the energy (like on the nano scale) you wouldn't have to worry about overheating.

By the time we can build nanomachines that can withstand neutron bombardment* we'll most likely be able to cheaply produce anti-matter, a much more plentiful energy source than fusion. Hell, we may even be able to utilise vacuum energy by then, if we neglect nanotech^.

Right, good to see you know how exactly how technological development will occer; seeing as antimatter takes more energy to produce than we can currently gather in any significant amount for these purposes.


(*nanomachines are VERY fragile - their size means they heat up and cool down very quickly, causing stress, and can be damaged by electromagnetic bombardment and radiation in a similar way that such things damage our DNA)

It depends on the structure of the machine.


(^Nanotech ain't the magic bullet that nanowankers would have you believe)

Are you calling me a "nanowanker?" Okay but you are a technology lemming :P



Yup and sometimes people die... *flips a coin.

Risk-taking is a part of life. By crossing a road you have to accept the possibility that some idiot will run you over. Sucks but that's the way it is.

Risk-taking is a part of being a fucking moronic reactionary if you KNOW there is a large possibility that you are just endangering everyone for ruling class gain.



Was that the fucking topic? Perhaps you should stop making irrational assumptions?

I wasn't saying it was the topic. I'm merely raising the point that nuclear science has been the subject of an environmentalist smear campaign for decades*, and that the resultant media bias may have coloured your opinion.

So what? Feel free to start disproving my points.


(*While nuclear science is not the only field to have suffered this, it has been under attack for a lot longer then the other contraversial sciences)

Longer than astronomy?


Don't forget that an offshoot of radar technology is the microwave oven, thus making baked potatoes so much easier to make. Mmmm.

Radar doesn't kill people very often; does it? I would gladly un-invent microwave technology to rid the world of say... biological weapons.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah dude, it would be totally awesome, only we would all have super-tech weaponry and we would kill each other; it'd be like boom boom boom, argggh! Like a fucking videogame; YEEEHAAA!


You get more and more ridiculous every time you post. War isn't unique to capitalism.
Communism won't be a 'heaven' inhabited by 'angels'. It will be a social reality inhabited by humans. Flawed humans who if they don't get their way through diplomatic channels have a good chance of trying to get their way violently.
If you think after a violent revolution that we'll all suddenly become pacifists, you are an idealist.


YES! because when super powerful weapons are developed (as they almost always are in capitalism), the only result can be liberation, as we HAVE SEEN SO MANY FUCKING TIMES! Jump technology lemming jump!

I was thinking actually about the ability to produce large amounts of goods in the shortest time using the least amount of energy and human labour, thus making the operation of a moneyless communist economy more viable.


Whoa, okay; thanks for explaining why civilians don't die in battle and are not EVER targeted.

Collateral damage is a real and unfortunate side-effect of battle. I never claimed that civilians never got hurt or targetted. Even when civilians are deliberately targetted, it's not out of spite; it's to damage the enemy's infrastructure, such as transport or manufacturing.


Yeah, I guess you are right; everyone that dies in battle deserves it... those children where looking for trouble.

Collateral damage isn't limited to high-tech weaponry either - consider the medieval townsman whose house is crushed by a stray boulder because the local lord's castle is under siege.


How about your example: "radar technology," does it directly hurt anyone? I was saying technology we know to have HORRIBLE weapons applications but go on and develop weapons; we can only hope you get injured in the weapons test so you can eat crow through a tube for the rest of your life; time to think, I guess.

Radar technology allows us to develop Masers (Microwave lasers) as well as microwave ovens.
I wouldn't wish harm on you, so why the bad vibes? is it because unlike you I face up to reality and realise humans aren't perfect?


What!? You have a fucking choice; whether or not to aid super-technology.

And it's in your own interest to develop it. What you fail to realise is that technology is a nuetral force; you can use it for good or ill. There are no 'good' and 'bad' technologies apart from the labels we humans arbitrarily stick on them.


Right; and so I never singled out that invention. Thank you for proving my point.


Then what the hell is your point? apart from anti-technology rantings that would put a primitivist to shame, of course. You've been doing nothing but focusing on the death and destruction aspects of technology.


Right, good to see you know how exactly how technological development will occer; seeing as antimatter takes more energy to produce than we can currently gather in any significant amount for these purposes.

I didn't say I knew exactly how technology would progress; I was speculating (Look the word up if you don't know what it means) on a possible path that technology may take.
Antimatter only takes a stupid amount of energy currently to produce; it might (I am bolding the word so you don't miss it out, knowing your reading comprehension) be possible to make it cheaper (In terms of energy, in case you were wondering) in the future.


Risk-taking is a part of being a fucking moronic reactionary if you KNOW there is a large possibility that you are just endangering everyone for ruling class gain.

But we don't don't know what technologies could further the bourgeouis cause, so that's a useless guide to action.

If a technology is physically possible, then somebody somewhere, sometime will develop it.

EDIT: Damn, quotes aren't working.

EDIT: redstar2000 -- fixed quotes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, excepting nuclear weaponry, can you name me any EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE™ weapons developed under capitalism?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:36 PM
You get more and more ridiculous every time you post. War isn't unique to capitalism.
Communism won't be a 'heaven' inhabited by 'angels'. It will be a social reality inhabited by humans. Flawed humans who if they don't get their way through diplomatic channels have a good chance of trying to get their way violently.
If you think after a violent revolution that we'll all suddenly become pacifists, you are an idealist.
Blah Blah Blah; you aren't addressing my points or even staying on topic.
More than half of your "points" are baseless assumptions that you never even try to back up even when questioned.

I may make my point over again later to see if you will decide to address it but I am taking a break... I sick of this shit; just play with your dogma while I am gone.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Blah Blah Blah; you aren't addressing my points or even staying on topic.
More than half of your "points" are baseless assumptions that you never even try to back up even when questioned.

On the contrary; is has been you that has been constantly shifting points and making baseless assumptions: You have provided no reason to be scared of this recent development. I have asked you to provide evidence of current superweapons beside nukes, and you have failed to provide anything.
It is in fact YOUR dogmatism that is blinding you!




I may make my point over again later to see if you will decide to address it but I am taking a break... I sick of this shit; just play with your dogma while I am gone.

You have made no points, only repeated your own dogma. The fact you are being purposefully vague is evidence of your dogma. You have also, for some unknown reason, seperated technology from SUPERTECHNOLOGY™, despite the fact their is no difference between the two

You are the one being the reactionary idiot here.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:23 AM
You are the one being the reactionary idiot here.
You should have put your most valid point first.


On the contrary; is has been you that has been constantly shifting points and making baseless assumptions: You have provided no reason to be scared of this recent development...
It is in fact YOUR dogmatism that is blinding you!

Nice big lie but the thread is enough proof that you are making up stories, not to mention that you have provided no proof in this entire post.


I have asked you to provide evidence of current superweapons beside nukes, and you have failed to provide anything.

I already provided you a definition of super-weapons that contradicted your statement and you ignored it, there is your proof; you are a liar.





I may make my point over again later to see if you will decide to address it but I am taking a break... I sick of this shit; just play with your dogma while I am gone.

You have made no points, only repeated your own dogma. The fact you are being purposefully vague is evidence of your dogma.

I have been making clear points all through this thread you fucking liar.


You have also, for some unknown reason, separated technology from SUPERTECHNOLOGY™, despite the fact their is no difference between the two

If you don't count the definition, you are right; just as a sub-forum is exactly the same as a forum.