PDA

View Full Version : Five Corporation(PTB)-Crushing Disruptive Technologies That Will Empower the Masses



TargeT
24th July 2013, 18:41
Graphene and 3D printing have such great potential... if the two can be combined in an effective mannor things will greatly change.


Everyone knows we are at the mercy of huge corporations in multitude of ways. Just look at Big Oil. We are wildly dependent on them as not only individuals, but as a nation and a world. Though Exxon stands atop the global economic podium, the technology sector isnít far behind. Apple made nearly as much in profits in 2012ís fourth quarter as Exxon (a ridiculous $8.2 billion). Letís bring that number down to Earth a bit. Americans are spending an average of $444 per household per year on Apple products alone. For further evidence, just look around your living room, or better yet, consider the origin of the screen youíre currently staring at. Chances are, one swollen oligopoly or another made all the pieces of technology youíve surveyed in the last few seconds.

However, chinks in the armor of these untouchable behemoths are beginning to take shape, leading some, like MITís Neil Gershenfeld to question the sustainability of todayís techno giants. (more on that later).

It wouldnít be the first time an unforeseen corporation-crushing power shift occurred. Unpredictable ďBlack SwanĒ events like the advent of the PC and the emergence of MP3 left the music and computing industries confronted with a sea change that was impossible for them to adapt to.

This next wave of disruptive tech will decentralize power, putting it back into the hands of the people. It will usher in a time where we will make our own belongings, fund our own ventures and master our own bodies and consciousnesses. What makes this all the sweeter is that huge corporations and governments are either ignorant to it, or powerless to stop the radical change thatís coming.

5- Decentralized Currencies (Bitcoin)


http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/article2-300x169.jpg

As Henry Ford once said, people would revolt if they knew how the banking system worked. He was right on the money (no pun intended). Many say the millions of protestors from Wall Street to Brazil to Europe have no cohesive message, but one thing is for sure, they hold similar philosophical gripes toward the worldís increasingly esoteric and sluggish financial systems.

As impossible as it may seem to circumvent the worldís financial oligarchy , some ingenious, irony-loving programmer(s) (they likely came from the very community of counter-culture that openly ridicules the system) are trying. At the very least, theyíve managed to insert a pesky thorn in the side of governments and banks a like. I am of course, referring to Bitcoin.

If youíre reading this, youíve probably heard a great deal of buzz surrounding this particular crypto-currency, especially in the last few months. Bitcoin experienced a meteoric rise along with an equally spectacular crash in a matter of weeks, leading many to jump on and off the bandwagon. However, at the time this article is being written, a Bitcoin is still worth a far from paltry 90 dollars. A simple Google search will yield a variety of opinions concerning the longevity of Bitcoin. In fact, thereís plenty of speculation as to the next big digital currency will be.

Regardless, the fame gained by Bitcoin proves that many are willing to entertain the idea of using and investing in a digital currency, and thatís a regulatory headache for governments and big banks alike. Retailers have also shown a willingness to play ball with Bitcoin, which only exacerbates the problem for those who consider it and other decentralized currencies to be pesky. Another popular hypothesis is that itís just a matter of time until a big online retailer like Amazon begins accepting a digital currency like Bitcoin and once that happens, expect other big players to follow suit.

4- Crowd Funding


http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/article3-300x225.jpg

The general idea behind crowdfunding is so simple in principle that itís a wonder no one thought of it sooner. What it lacks in complication, it makes up for in practicality, and creative people have taken advantage in a big way. How big you ask? About 2.7 billion dollars big. Thatís how much money was raised via the digital medium in 2012. That number may not be shaking up the conventional economy much at this stage in the game, but it certainly gives scores of worthy people the funds they need.

Pretend for a moment youíre in a band with a bit of a following. A successful crowdfunding campaign would basically enable you to completely circumvent the need for a record label. That means you donít need to miss out on the lionís share of the profit from your record sales and you donít need to justify the marketability of your music, or compromise your vision; pretty attractive, right?

To be fair, crowdfunding isnít always cash conjuring magic wand. The vast majority of campaigns fail to meet their goals. In other words, if youíre just starting a project and you donít have a way to get the word out, youíre pretty much doomed from the start. Still, this is an extraordinarily young phenomenon. The amount of money raised via crowdfunding nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012 and 2013 will likely be another record year.

3- Graphene


http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/article4-300x199.jpg

Iíd start my discussion on this little piece of Nobel Prize winning nano tech by telling your what it does, but a more appropriate question would be what doesnít it do? Itís the strongest substance known to man, itís more conductive than copper itís biodegradable, itís a super capacitor, and did I mention you can make it at home? This substance that sounds like pure Science fiction has unbelievably humble beginnings. In fact, when scientists began experimenting with it they were extracting it by rubbing the tips of pencils on Scotch tape. Everyone is scrambling to gain patents pertaining to graphene, but by virtue of it being a substance thatís so simple to create yourself, itís going to be impossible to stop people from tinkering with it.
sugmA-pll4k

mEH6tDLKcVU

In the next few years youíll be seeing graphene hit the market in a multitude of forms. It will make screens that roll up like a piece of paper, wearable electronics, coatings that strengthen flexible materials, it will even be a power supply. There are literally so many applications for this substance that the potential is limitless. However, the real power will come to you when you combine it with a technology I will discuss later (hint hint, itís number item number one on the list).

2- Psychedelics

Psychedelics may seem out of place in an article about technology, especially since psychedelics in and of themselves are nothing new. However, after decades of repression and demonization, these substances are being studied seriously and the results have been undeniable.

Back in the 1990s Psychiatrist Rick Strassman conducted some the first FDA cleared clinical studies on DMT. A compound thatís highly psychoactive secreted by our own brainís Pineal gland. Many of the participants had valuable experiences, reporting bonafide mystical experiences (yes, thereís an actual academic distinction). Strassmanís studies a got a long stagnant ball rolling and since then, there have been several high-profile studies conducted using psychedelics.

One such study was conducted at Johns Hopkins using Psilocybin, the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms. The experiences of the participants were again highly poignant. After more than a year, 94% of the studyís participants said the drug provided one of the top 5 most meaningful experiences of their life, with 48% saying it was the single most meaningful experience of their lives.

MDMA has also been getting a lot of attention in the field of psychotherapy, specifically regarding the treatment of PTSD. The substance has been shown to be highly effective in combating the disorder that plagues hundreds of thousands. In fact, a shocking 83% of the participants in these studies were no longer diagnosed with PTSD at their two-month follow up evaluations. As if that werenít convincing enough, 100% of the participants said that the doses were at least somewhat beneficial.

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mdma-mithoeferprescription1.jpg

Undeniable data aside, the world we live in is far from one where mainstream science and medicine embrace psychedelics. But, as we continue to study these substances and find that theyíre actually useful for treating serious psychological and medical issues, future generations will undoubtedly view these compounds in a new, respectful light. Due to the fact that these substances are also totally inseparable from deeply meaningful mystical experiences, I fail to see how their gaining legitimacy would have anything less than a profound impact on society, the kind that lead the government to clamp down on them the first place. The difference this time needs to be enough scientific oversight to manage and administer these substances in a responsible way.

1- 3-D Printing and digital fabrication

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/gershenfeld_426x280-300x197.jpg

can create basically anything, thereís no greater visionary or authority than Neil Gershenfeld of MIT, so itís fitting that he said it best. ďThis is like the birth of the Internet, but itís literally an internet of things.Ē Take a moment to wrap your mind around that. In whatís becoming known as the ďThird Digital Revolution,Ē youíll be able to download and produce an actual good on demand. If you have a pulse, you know what happened to the music industry when the mp3 and Napster came on the scene. Itís the same thing that happened to big data companies when the PC hit store shelves. Although the music industry and data companies havenít been completely wiped off the map, theyíve been fundamentally transformed and seriously comprised. In fact, Greshenfeld often points out that IBM is basically the only pre-PC computing company to survive, and they only did so by going through a complete metamorphosis.
5n-APFrlXDs

It really canít be overstated how blindsided these companies were by these disruptive technologies. Ken Olson, founder of DEC (a once mighty computer company with over 140,000 employees) said this- ďThereís no reason to have a computer at home.Ē Ironically, Compaq eventually bought what was left of the struggling company.
http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ken_olsen_cover-straightened1-224x300.jpg


From Americaís ďmost successful entrepreneurĒ to running a bankrupt company.

In the interest of being evenhanded, Gershenfeld also says this revolution wonít totally destroy manufacturing. ďMass manufacturing will still stay, but it will by definition make the boring stuff because everyone gets the same thing.Ē This, he says, will lead to entirely new businesses.

But what happens when people begin to circumvent the need for a business? Mass proliferation of 3D printing and fabrication tech in concert with other modern miracles like graphene will surely give birth to itís own version Napster or Pirate Bay. Only this time, you wonít be downloading music or movies for free; it will be actual physical objects. When this happens, we are talking about not only serious disruption to manufacturing, but the entire supply chain all the way on up to retail, something the economy is certainly not ready for.

When these technologies reach their fully realized forms we may hit a highly tumultuous period, but no great change comes without sacrifice. Furthermore, what lies on the other side of that pain is an an unbelievable pay off that we can only dream about.


http://www.blacklistednews.com/Five_Corporation-Crushing_Disruptive_Technologies_That_Will_Empower _the_Masses/27376/0/0/0/Y/M.html?morestories=obinsite

johnf
24th July 2013, 19:53
The combination of graphene and 3d printing was enough to blow my mind.
Soon after I started looking it up to refresh my memory, I asked myself, so where does the raw material,
the natural resource for the raw carbon come from?
Not having success finding this out quickly, but I think it is quite important.
The main thing being , is this something that is still dependent on fossil fuels etc?

jf

Paul
24th July 2013, 19:58
Soon after I started looking it up to refresh my memory, I asked myself, so where does the raw material,
the natural resource for the raw carbon come from?
Perhaps from the CO2 that Al Gore has been warning us about, in our air :) ?

johnf
24th July 2013, 20:12
Perhaps from the CO2 that Al Gore has been warning us about, in our air :) ?

Well that carbon atom is involved in a lot of important stuff.
I recall some very interesting talk about how an increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere
could contribute to reforestation.
It's kind of confusing at this point.
We are facing a time of re-evalution of some very basic informantion from all quarters, and it is a ripe time for misinfo for sure.

However, the decentralization of manufacturing has so many repercussions (most pretty darn positive).
My searches for where the carbon would come from, and what would the consequences to environment , health, have so far only come up with
fossil fuel sources.
Can anyone else enlighten us.
One article takes it all the way back to the big bang, and talks about nuclear reactions that produce it.
Is it possible that it can be manufactured in some kind of reactor in the future?

jf

TargeT
24th July 2013, 20:14
You can create graphene with a DVD burner (lightscribe I believe, the ones that will burn your own CD label)


Raw material: Graphite Oxide suspended in a liquid, product: Graphene
_oEFwyoWKXo

http://images.gizmag.com/hero/graphene-supercapacitor.jpg
DVD writer spins out graphene electrodes for new class of supercapacitor

The wonders of graphene seem to know no bounds. Not only is it one of the strongest materials known, is both highly conductive and piezoelectric, it can generate electricity from flowing water and now it is being used to make better supercapacitors. Using a DVD writer, a team of UCLA researchers has invented a new process for making high quality graphene electrodes and used these electrodes to make a new species of supercapacitor. Though the work is in the early stages of development, it could lay a foundation for supercapacitor-based energy storage systems suitable for flexible portable electronic devices.

Lithium-ion batteries are electrically fragile, can explode on charging, and must be slowly recharged over a period of hours to avoid an early death. Supercapacitors, more formally known as electric double layer capacitors, are rugged and can be charged in a minute or so. They also can provide plenty of power and last through millions of recharge cycles. Why, then, don't we hear more about their use?

The short answer is energy density. Supercapacitors store about 20 watt-hours per kilogram, or one-seventh of the energy per kilogram of a lithium-ion battery.

To understand what more widespread adoption will require, let's take a look at how supercapacitors work. A supercapacitor is able to store a charge as a coating of ions adsorbed on the surfaces of its electrodes.

More here:
http://www.gizmag.com/graphene-supercapacitor/21925/


Where do you get graphite oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_oxide)?

Why... from Graphite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite), Where do you get Graphite? Coal mines! (Graphite may be considered the highest grade of coal) Or synthetic creation (U.S. production of synthetic graphite in 2010 was 134 kt valued at $1.07 billion)

so,, in my mind.. fairly easy to get.

Hughe
24th July 2013, 22:28
The bottom line is energy. Any super fantastic technology that depends on grid will always be limited.
Virtually all scientists and engineers are so stupid when it comes to serious energy crisis nowadays.
Probably TPTB enjoys present situation how millions of scientists waste their valuable time and resources for doing superficial, delusional stuff.

Tesseract
24th July 2013, 23:16
Thanks for the post. I'm going to eat tea now, make a phone call, and then I'll be back to shoot some holes in this graphene story - stay tuned...

TargeT
25th July 2013, 01:28
Thanks for the post. I'm going to eat tea now, make a phone call, and then I'll be back to shoot some holes in this graphene story - stay tuned...

Can't really tell a story with out all sides of it!

what ever you've go to share I'm interested, I've only heard the "good" sides so far.

(over 2 hours to "eat tea" those must be some fibrous leafs! )


The bottom line is energy. Any super fantastic technology that depends on grid will always be limited.
Virtually all scientists and engineers are so stupid when it comes to serious energy crisis nowadays.
Probably TPTB enjoys present situation how millions of scientists waste their valuable time and resources for doing superficial, delusional stuff.

I track a lot of topics... Look into the E-cat and it's current progress... energy might be a lot more available than it currently is ( no where near the "free energy" myth, but very very easy energy surely)

http://www.e-catworld.com/ is one of the many good websites for keeping up with the progress of E-cat


Here's a good description of an Ecat:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator

There are other methods of obtaining energy as well, I am going to put in 24 solar panels and a small battery backup bank on my house, I'll generate more energy than I use at a cost that will be repaid in 3 years (due to the high cost of electricity here... .58 a Kw/h)giving me 12-17 years of free energy on current panel life estimates

Tesseract
25th July 2013, 02:38
Ok, so I had my meal (beef pot-roast, of the supermarket freezer kind) and phone call, and did the analysis on this graphene deal. I had little idea what numbers I was going to get when I started this analysis Ė if you read to the end you will find that it is quite a deviation from what is mentioned in the article.

This is for the sake of keeping people informed, rather than 50 % informed and 50 % misled. I know these kinds of highly technical posts are not going to be to everyoneís liking... but here it is! :)

For reference, the full science article is here: http://hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/laser-scribing-of-high-performance-and-flexible-graphene-based-electrochemical-capacitors.pdf

From the gizmag article:


ĎTheir highest energy storage supercapacitor was based on using the ionic liquid 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate as the electrolyte. The supercapacitor exhibited a capacitance of 276 Farads per gram, and an operating voltage of 4 volts. This corresponds to an energy density of over 600 watt-hours per kilogram (2.2 lb), or about four times that of lithium-ion batteries. In practice, the energy density will be smaller, owing to support structures, but such supercapacitors should be able to give lithium-ion batteries a run for their money.í

Ok, first letís look at that 600 Wh/kg figure. For reference, a really high energy lithium ion battery will be about 200 Wh/kg Ė that is the whole battery including terminals, cell can and everything else you need in a real device.

The energy of a capacitor is given by E = Ĺ*C*V^2

[V = volts across the capacitor, C = capacitance of the capacitor, which has the unit of Farads].

Letís assume a capacitor contains 1 kg of their graphene and one used 4 V as described:

E = 0.5 * (276*1000) * 4 * 4 = 2208000 Joules

[here, 276F/g*1000g gives the ĎCí value]

Now divide the Joules by 3600 to convert Joules to Wh: 2208000/3600 = 616.3 Wh

Since we used 1 kg of graphene, we can say the energy density is 612.3 Wh/kg, just like in the article. Indeed, a whopping 3 times greater than a lithium ion battery.

Now letís look at a conventional supercapacitor material, activated carbon. A high grade activated carbon will give you 160 F/g. Iíll skip the maths, but via the same equation (E = Ĺ*C*V^2) you will get 355 Wh/kg, assuming you use 4 V again. So, when the analysis is done on an equal footing, the graphene still wins but not to an amazing extent. Furthermore, there are activated carbons that achieve ~300 F/g, the same as this graphene, but there are reasons that have prevented them from being commercialised. I chose the 160 F/g because carbons at that level have been commercialised.

The above example is valid for one electrode, unfortunately supercapacitors have two electrodes, one positive and one negative. They are thus effectively two electrodes in series when charging, or discharging across a load. Each electrode (with its ionic double layer) is a capacitor in itís own right. Therefore the supercapacitor 'device' must be described as not one capacitor, but 2 capacitors in series. The equation for that is:

1/C_device = 1/C_positive + 1/C_negative

C_positive = capacitance of positive electrode, and C_negative = capacitance of negative electrode.


So, now letís take the 1 kg of graphene and split it over 2 electrodes (0.5 kg per electrode), as is required in a real device. By the way, by splitting the carbon evenly, the device capacitance is maximised.

1/C_device = 1/C_positive + 1/C_negative

1/C_device = 1/(276*500) + 1/(276*500) [276 F/g carbon, 500g for each electrode]

1/C_device = 0.0000145

C_device = 69000 Farads


Now use E = Ĺ*C*V^2: At 4 V, this gives 552 000 J, or 153.3 Wh

This gives 153.3 Wh/kg since we used 1 kg of graphene.


Oh dear, weíve now gone from 613 Wh/kg to 153 Wh/kg. Weíre now well below what a high level lithium ion battery can provide, and we still havenít even accounted for dead weight items like terminals, cell can etc.

Thereís more. If you go back to the original equation for energy, youíll notice that E is proportional to V squared. So, the voltage of the device is rather important in determining energy. I have been using a voltage of 4 V in the above equations, the authors of the study demonstrated that with a chemical called 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate. This is not a stable chemical, and is not capable of enabling a practical 4 V device. Itís also expensive. The only reason it worked for them is because (I believe) they did short time-frame tests at room temperature. If we take 3 V as a far more realistic voltage (but still more than most normal supercapacitors), and use the device level capacitance (69000 F for 1 kg of graphene, as calculated above), the equation (E = Ĺ*C*V^2) yields 86.25 Wh/kg. Now a very, very long way away from the 600 Wh/kg we initially had in our heads.

Now, letís get even more realistic, and consider the masses of all the other components that you need to make a cell: cell can, terminals, separator, electrolyte, current collector. I will, however, discount the current collector because they donít in theory need one since the graphene is in sheet form and highly conductive already.

For this example, itís prudent to come down in size, 1 kg of graphene would make cell that is far bigger than anything on the market right now.

Very large supercapacitors come in the size of about a 300 mL can (~coke can size). About twenty five percent of that space will be consumed by separator and empty space around the terminal connection areas etc. This leaves 225 mL of volume to hold the graphene. If the graphene electrode has a density of 0.75 (this is a reasonable estimate), then you have 168.75 g of graphene in the cell (and assuming you donít need a current collector). Now add the mass of the can and terminals (150g), the mass of electrolyte (100g), and the mass of separator (10 g) for a total of 428.75 g.

Now letís calculate the energy density of the realistic cell. It is shown above that at 3 V and at a device level the graphene itself has an energy density of 86.25 Wh/kg. Since our cell has 168.75 g of graphene in it, it will have 14.55 Wh of energy (.16875*86.25). When we divide that by the mass of the cell (0.42875 kg) we arrive at an energy density of 33.9 Wh/kg.

I'm not done yet :), it gets a little bit worse. Modern DC-DC converter electronics are not able to accommodate large swings in voltage, so generally a 3 V supercapacitor would be rated for the energy it can deliver by discharging to 1.5 V (instead of right to 0 V). I know that sounds strange, but electrical engineers really have not yet found a solution to this problem. If you plug the numbers into the equation, it works out that only 75 % of the energy in the cell is useable. So, we now go from 33.9 Wh/kg of energy to 25.4 Wh/kg of useable energy.

Now, that doesnít compare so favourably with a 200 Wh/kg lithium battery, or even a 100 Wh/kg lithium battery. And, it is a fraction of the 600 Wh/kg that we had in our heads to begin with.

You can play around with the numbers and get different results, but the numbers I have used here are quite reasonable, even generous, to the case. Hopefully I did not make errors, feel free to point them out if I did.

But let me add, a 25 Wh/kg supercapacitor is still very awesome!

A couple of minor points: the web article said that supercapacitors currently have an energy density of about 20 Wh/kg. Wrong. They have an energy density between 4 and 10 Wh/kg. The science article itself says between 4 and 5 Wh/kg, but the upper numbers is outdated.

The article also implies that the graphene surface area of ~1500 sq/m per gram is higher than for activated carbons. That is incorrect, activated carbons can easily achieve 1800-2000 m2/g

How and why this got into the journal Science, in such a misleading form, and all over the media is a subject for another post. Nothing against the authors Ė itís a part of the game these days.

Carmody
25th July 2013, 04:53
The sciences of activated carbon are more mature, having endured cycles of design and perfection, same for lithium.

This cannot be said for graphene based capacitors.

Nor has any of this addressed the issue of lifetime cycling, drain rates or discharge rates (actual watt hours, amp hours, take your pick.)

I respect your numbers and conclusions, and find nothing out of place; but this area and application of graphene is just opening up, not one design cycle that reaches the point of actual use (In situ, real world) has been completed yet, IIRC. There's a long way to go to catch up to activated carbon or lithium.

Graphene, in this application, is..promising.

TargeT
25th July 2013, 12:51
How and why this got into the journal Science, in such a misleading form, and all over the media is a subject for another post. Nothing against the authors Ė itís a part of the game these days.

you are focusing JUST on its ability to hold an electrical charge, I'd say that's a MINOR side benefit (untill it is developed more, as Cam says), as a material it is highly conductive (lower resistance circuits) and extremely flexible / strong.
THOSE are the aspects of the material that 3d printing can take advantage of, much more useful in a 3d printer than just a battery (though if you can use the physical structure of your "widget" as a capacitor as well ( many many electrical systems make use of capacitors in ways other than long term power storage) then that's an added bonus!

Carmody
25th July 2013, 15:16
It must also be understood that as we approach these high power density devices and the techniques involved in their build, their design, and ultimate use in 'normal life', we are stepping into the danger area.

We are making nano devices. Nano connectivity devices, essentially 'quantum connected masses'. (large masses of quantum connected systems.) We are getting to very high power densities via these techniques but they can also create the environment for 'issue' to arise..

We even had Sony laptop batteries cascading into catching fire, there, for a while. Shades of a misbuilt e-cat like LENR device. Not exactly the same thing but the problem is the catalytic conditions, enabled at the quantum nano level. And we're trying hard.... to make those things as real as possible.

This means: devices that are bridging the gap between 'mass' and 'lattice structured materials and elements', and quantum mass. Large quantum spaces, spaces, 3d and time spaces calculated as being quantum, not what we call 'normal 'space/time'.

Gates and gating devices.

Devices that can be triggered to cascade. Accidentally built that way, and possible to be...accidentally triggered. All due to a lack of understanding of what is actually going on in these atomic and quantum nano arrangements we are creating.

Is anyone getting what I'm saying here? (http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/2061/PreviewComp/SuperStock_2061-439710.jpg)

If you wonder why the existing paranoid PTB power structure is going crazy and getting into fascist thinking and acting to maintain control, digging into everyone's lives, trying hard to make sure their patriarchal violent rule survives and maintains---this is part of it. We're hitting the artificially created limits of technology blocks, and we're hitting them everywhere, all at almost the same time.

The dam bursts, but requirements for individual growth and responsibility hits the table in a very hard and real way, at the same time.

All the violence, all the animalism, all the ideas on war and sex and violence, all the wars and tribal religions, all of the primitive politics, the anger, the childishness, the bad upbringing of our children....all of that has to go. Utterly and completely. the Bill o'riely types, the fox news channels, the screaming politics, the hangings, the wars, the racism, the child marriages, the incest, the wife beatings, the biker and inner city gangs, the drug wars, every inch of it. all of it.


NOW. Not tomorrow, but NOW.

For example, wall of guns at home, playing call of duty on the gaming console, then going to the titty bar and watching the football game?

All gone. Every inch of it. All the upbringing that put him there and all the mindset and world that keeps him there, all gone. So close to being overnight, that it may as well be an overnight change.

How flipped out is this guy going to be? How badly will he misunderstand?

Lifebringer
25th July 2013, 19:57
Natrual resource for raw carbon.

Maybe they'll syphon it out the air and from smoke stacks.

Lifebringer
25th July 2013, 20:10
These corporations need to be charged with US scientific treason. You know most of the technology was paid for with OUR contracts and research and development. They are stopping us, from moving forward?
Really? They need our money, more than we need to sell our souls buying their crappy cheap unpatriotic goods. First of all, by dumping all the ads in your e-mail, it tells them you aren't answering their nosey snoop program cookies. I just write down the sites delete all that comes in. Take their ad cookies and shove em. They have a lot of nerve anyway updating my mail page, changing stuff around, and then throwing all the ads in because of pages I open through it.
I'll just tune them out, like they tune me out when I say, I won't play their games, and to stop spying on America. Bin Rotten is dead, so this ACT should cease and desist, and all the military facist gun ho police forces purged of inhumane acts against the public paying their salaries and benefits.
I just dumped all my e-mail concerning political, not opening the links attached to leave a trail on if I went there. I've dumped over 900 e-mails and that was only 4 months worth. But now at 49 pieces, I feel free of all that negative stuff. Political cheerleading I call it. I understand what is going on and I know who's responsible, and until the right gets rid of "most" of their houses, and the few Dems that are still status quo, we will continue the ride around in circles at the circus.

The motivation is the future of clean air, drinkable water, and biological life sustainability so our children don't think us retarded for leaving it as it is. I talk to the children the youngest 18, and explain the two Americas, and the real world. I tell them the only thing our families have had that really belongs to us also, is God, faith, and truth. Until we realize that the injustice in one community, will lead to injustice in every community and a gustapo police state of NO rights, as we are seeing now with tazed granny's.

They are tazing Grandma's who may have heart problems, and these heartless monsters call that moral justice?
The sooner we stop the Koch brothers divisional rants and interference in our children's elections the better. If they are purging college voters now, they will purge who they think aren't "real Americans" regardless of how many Bibles you're sworn in on. They mean to turn us all against each other. Part of agenda 21 and it all leads to just a few monopolized "old" thieves and crooks.

bearcow
11th October 2013, 03:55
graphene will be great and have many applications over the next few years.

bitcoin has more potential for change than ANYTHING going on in public view

it's market cap has gone from 100 million to 1.6 billion during the last 12 months,

once it gets to 1 trillion, it will become a major player in the world financial system, this is bad news for the global banking cartel

i suggest everyone do some research and consider putting a meager investment in it. Disclaimer: there is financial risk involved




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNXZKwR6Lio


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-w7SnQWwVA

TargeT
11th October 2013, 13:31
bitcoin is definitely something to keep an eye on; I've a few myself (on a thumbdrive that I never plug into a network).

Since the worlds current zeitgeist is based in obsession of "money" bitcoin will be a major step of empowerment; however I think eventually we will see that money is like religion, a super control structure that has very little good (when compared to the bad) and a different paradigm will emerge.

sigma6
12th October 2013, 22:27
bitcoin is definitely something to keep an eye on; I've a few myself (on a thumbdrive that I never plug into a network).

Since the worlds current zeitgeist is based in obsession of "money" bitcoin will be a major step of empowerment; however I think eventually we will see that money is like religion, a super control structure that has very little good (when compared to the bad) and a different paradigm will emerge.

that's pretty profound target... I have to say... lol I'd say that statement is right on the money... ;O