The Candidates on Technology

Comments

• 	None of the above zig158 on 05/06/2008 at 1:49 AM
  Posts: 34 Avg Rating:	I’m still hoping for a roof collapse during a debate that kills all three candidates. I know it is a long shot, but a man can dream cant he? Just imagine a candidate that cared more about the future of our country than increasing their personal power at any cost. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: None of the above stradric on 05/06/2008 at 10:44 AM
    Posts: 15 Avg Rating:	C'mon... Kill the candidates?  That's a tad bit morbid, don't you think?  You expect people to take you seriously when you wish death on those that you disagree with?  You act like they killed your puppy or something. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	not useful b_calder on 05/06/2008 at 5:50 AM
  Posts: 2 Avg Rating:	What we need is a science debate. The candidates need to realize that their science and education knowledge is stale and could produce harm. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: not useful jpontin on 05/06/2008 at 8:36 AM		TR Staff Editor in Chief and Publisher
    Posts: 9 Avg Rating:	Interestingly, there was to have been a science and technology debate between the Democratic candidates. It was even proposed that Technology Review should provide one of the moderators. But somehow, in 18 or so debates, no one could find the time to dedicate an entire debate to science and technology issues and policies. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Energy dependence and global warming Gary 7 on 05/06/2008 at 10:38 AM

  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:

  I note that none of the candidates has been asked to respond to the idea of the construction of solar power satellites constructed from lunar resources as a means of replacing bio generated energy of all kinds. Next to nuclear fission/fusion, it is the only provable zero carbon energy source. All construction and waste takes place beyond the bio sphere. Unlike ground based solar, it does not interfere with wind, wave, ocean currents or animal migratory patterns and it produces power 24/7, w/o interference from cloud cover or day night cycles. GAry 7 Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Energy dependence and global warming stradric on 05/06/2008 at 10:53 AM

    Posts: 15 Avg Rating:

    I consider myself pretty informed on new energy technologies compared to the average American, but I have never heard of such a proposal (as interesting as it is).  So while you and I might be interested in seeing the candidates answer such a question, the majority of the American people are still grappling with the fact that they need to switch to a more fuel efficient vehicle, and have not a clue about sustainability or carbon footprints. I mean, there is still a substantial portion of the population that not only supports George Bush, but also believes Global Warming is a myth.  I yearn for the day when the debate is as intellectual as we would like.  However, such a conversation now would be over people's heads.  Sad but true. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: Energy dependence and global warming RD on 05/06/2008 at 12:38 PM

      Posts: 47 Avg Rating:

      It's called "Climate Change". Global warming is an outdated term. The IPCC projections are completely wrong, and NASA now expects we're in for 10+ years of cooling. Yes CO2 is increasing and those of us with crops are glad for it. But that may be a result of environmentalist pushing for us to grow food for fuel that has released so much CO2 into the air. But it is the sun that determines global temps. I'm more worried about the 10 billion pounds of (non-CO2) pollutants being dumped on North America every year from East Asia. That's the real scandal but then the environmentalist always have had a US-first policy. Bankrupt the US first, then we'll work on China. Do you realize that by blocking drilling in ANWR you push the US into buying 1 million barrels more Canadian petroleum from oil sands? They burn about 2 barrels of oil to ship 1 barrel. Burning 2 million barrels/day is not a good environmental tradeoff. Alberta is gearing up to produce 5MBLs/day by 2012. That means 10MBLs/day are burned. Do you believe that is a good environmental tradeoff for not having oil derricks off shore? Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • Re: Energy dependence and global warming Scottar on 05/11/2008 at 3:32 PM

        Posts: 6 Avg Rating:

        RD You are absolutely right. Go to sites like- adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com, and you will see how the science has been hijacked by Envirocrats and scientists on the grant gravy train, they play upon the publics ignorance of long term climate trends vers short climate burps of cooling and warming. Al Gore is a prime example who the socialist MSM fawns over and gives undue credence. People put to much emphasis on big government to solve problems instead of themselves who can solve their own problems. There's a big grain of truth to what Reagan said that government is the problem. McCain has good ideas mixed in with some very bad ideas like carbon capping/trading. Most every country that has pursued that avenue has ended up with more carbon emissions and a more crippled economy. It's just another failed socialist program. The other two candidates are mostly the same on their programs, more big government programs that have never really worked in other countries. They just appear to as MSM does not report the drawbacks of socialized programs and their red tape. Social Security and Medicare are two prime examples. Our capitalist society has flaws but it also has socialist anarchists who exaggerate those shortcomings. The worst shortcoming of America is it's education system that has been hijacked by socialists where emphasis on the three R's and science has waned for feel good, social conscious programs that neuter real progress. The result is that people are intellectually handicapped to make sound choices. Reverend Wright would be a good model for that. There is no one energy solution that will replace fossil fuels. The world will be dependent on fossil fuels for decades until viable alternatives are discovered and improved. It will endup being a mix of bio, hydrogen, solar, wind and nuclear. For now, more efficient methods can be developed to utilize coal, gas and oil. People can make choices with the assistance of consumer groups. For example, people in Northern climate would opt for nuclear and clean coal with some wind as opposed to solar energy that would predominate in sunny southern locations. City dwellers would opt for an electrical vehicle with urban and rural dwellers would opt for bio and electrical. And those choices could likely change as technology brings forth new alternatives. New advances in battery technology is making the electric vehicle more viable. But the government has chosen to put our money on corn based ethanol due to corn lobbyist pressure groups. The problem is some people make bad choices due to a lack of science education or are not technically competent to make sound choices in this increasingly technical complex world. They would prefer that someone or something make choices for them. They have not been taught how to think for themselves. I have made bad choices in the past due to lack of education and ignorance. If I had in the past access to the right education resources I could have avoided those bad choices, but I would still rather have a choice as opposed to stupid government mandates that led to the gas crunch of the 70's and has crippled the nuclear program over fear mongering. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Questions are too nuanced... stradric on 05/06/2008 at 11:01 AM

  Posts: 15 Avg Rating:

  Now, it says that McCain voted against ethanol subsidies and both Clinton and Obama voted for it.  In hindsight, a vote against that bill was probably the right choice.  We don't need ethanol subsides.  They're causing food prices to go up.  Plus, ethanol production results in more carbon emissions than we save.  That money would be better served in solar panel or wind subsidies for homeowners and businesses. As much as I am against McCain, I have to give him credit for his vote there -- though I question whether it was inspired by such forethought and not some other private interests. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Broadband, energy Independence and Global Warming mkogrady on 05/06/2008 at 1:27 PM
  Posts: 64 Avg Rating:	How about having the candidates use that big ol Internet to allow millions of people in the US to Telecommute to reduce our dependency on Foreign Oil, Ethanol AND Reduce Green House Gas emissions? www.digitalfuel.org/Presentations/National-Telecommuting-Program.ppt Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Broadband, energy Independence and Global Warming mkogrady on 05/06/2008 at 1:32 PM
    Posts: 64 Avg Rating:	The candidates wanted to tap the Strategic Oil Reserve as an Economic Stimulus Package - they're not thinking about anyone future except the ones that get them votes this November.... Reuters had an artical about Super-Spike today too that indicated we could see crude jump over $200/barrel.... Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: Broadband, energy Independence and Global Warming zig158 on 05/09/2008 at 2:26 AM
      Posts: 34 Avg Rating:	Politicians only thinking about getting elected and not the long-term consequences of their actions? You can’t be serous! Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Why no discussion ferrisvalyn on 05/07/2008 at 2:59 AM
  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	about space technology?  That is, IMHO, just as important, especially with the rise of private spaceflight. Rate this comment: (Reply)