In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:41:32 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...

I though you were some type of engineer?

You thought wrong, as usual.

Then that explains a lot. Thanks!

Your wrongful thinking sure does explain a lot.

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:15:09 AM UTC-4, Meyer wrote:
On 9/18/2012 10:08 AM, wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:41:32 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...



I though you were some type of engineer?



You thought wrong, as usual.


Then that explains a lot. Thanks!


He's just a common ordinary user of the technology that inventors,
designers, and engineers develop. A knob twister and button pusher if
you will.

Problem is, he tries to act like he understands the technology. Now we find out he's not technical, and is just spouting the marketing fluff he's been fed. Another sheep who wouldn't know a technical requirements document if it bit him in the ass. Not a trained critical thinker. I always suspected it.

But you all argued that there is no new technology, remember? You all
claimed that internal combustion engines are the same as the first one,
computers are abacuses, etc.

In article om,
says...

On 9/18/2012 8:54 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, September 16, 2012 5:57:51 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
In article ,

says...



In article ,

says...



In article ,

says...



In article ,

says...



On Sunday, September 16, 2012 11:36:55 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

http://www.cnt.org/news/media/vision-2-pager-final.pdf





Slickly done marketing fluff... with zero technical details and glossing over some MAJOR stuff.



Hope they get the funding they're looking for. Along with ramping up generation, we need to do something. I want to wash my clothes amd take a hot shower... when I want, not when some gov drone lets me.



What a moron.



You are promoting marketing fluff and he is a moron?



"Marketing fluff"? What data in that site do you disagree with and why?



The document you provided a link to is nothing more than a vision

statement. There are no specifics, plans or time-lines.



It is a document to encourage early investment.

Exactly. It has *zero* data.

Really? Are you that stupid?

Point me to some data contained in the pdf you linked to.

"Automatically detects and responds to problems"

I don't know if I would trust artificial intelligence to fix grid
problems without human intervention. But, hey, we're talking visions
here. Visions have a tendency to be fluid and change shape.

Of course you wouldn't.

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:29 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

But you all argued that there is no new technology, remember?

Never happened.

You all
claimed that internal combustion engines are the same as the first one,
computers are abacuses, etc.

Again, never happened. Your lack of engineering training and inability to perform critical thinking leads you to completely misunderstand what you read.

Your admission makes it all clear now. It's pointless to continue. Have a nice day.

On 9/18/2012 10:54 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:29 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

But you all argued that there is no new technology, remember?

Never happened.

You all
claimed that internal combustion engines are the same as the first one,
computers are abacuses, etc.

Again, never happened. Your lack of engineering training and inability to perform critical thinking leads you to completely misunderstand what you read.

Your admission makes it all clear now. It's pointless to continue. Have a nice day.


Thank God.. Maybe he can go running around the net pleading for a friend
like his buddy from the North.

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:50 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:


I don't know if I would trust artificial intelligence to fix grid

problems without human intervention. But, hey, we're talking visions

here. Visions have a tendency to be fluid and change shape.



Of course you wouldn't.

Your admitted lack of understanding technology is what lead you to blindly trust technology.

Those of us that do understand it know better. We create it, know what is involved in proving it out to be reliable, and know how often it fails. That's something the general public doesn't have an understanding of, and that's why they fall for those fluffy "vision statements".

It's just one of your shortcomings.

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:29 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

But you all argued that there is no new technology, remember?

Never happened.

You all
claimed that internal combustion engines are the same as the first one,
computers are abacuses, etc.

Again, never happened. Your lack of engineering training and inability to perform critical thinking leads you to completely misunderstand what you read.

Your admission makes it all clear now. It's pointless to continue. Have a nice day.

My "admission" to WHAT?

In article , says...

On 9/18/2012 10:54 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:29 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

But you all argued that there is no new technology, remember?

Never happened.

You all
claimed that internal combustion engines are the same as the first one,
computers are abacuses, etc.

Again, never happened. Your lack of engineering training and inability to perform critical thinking leads you to completely misunderstand what you read.

Your admission makes it all clear now. It's pointless to continue. Have a nice day.


Thank God.. Maybe he can go running around the net pleading for a friend
like his buddy from the North.

Maybe you can go running around the net acting insane... Oh, wait, never
mind.

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:34:50 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:


I don't know if I would trust artificial intelligence to fix grid

problems without human intervention. But, hey, we're talking visions

here. Visions have a tendency to be fluid and change shape.



Of course you wouldn't.

Your admitted lack of understanding technology is what lead you to blindly trust technology.

Just where did I admit that?

Those of us that do understand it know better. We create it, know what is involved in proving it out to be reliable, and know how often it fails. That's something the general public doesn't have an understanding of, and that's why they fall for those fluffy "vision statements".

It's just one of your shortcomings.

No, apparently you don't. In any form of technology, when new it is
barely feasible, costly, and there are failures. To naysayers like you,
you immediately deem a new technology useless because of just those
reasons, and that is blind, head in the sand thinking.

On 9/18/2012 10:18 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:15:09 AM UTC-4, Meyer wrote:
On 9/18/2012 10:08 AM, wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:41:32 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...



I though you were some type of engineer?



You thought wrong, as usual.


Then that explains a lot. Thanks!


He's just a common ordinary user of the technology that inventors,
designers, and engineers develop. A knob twister and button pusher if
you will.

Problem is, he tries to act like he understands the technology. Now we find out he's not technical, and is just spouting the marketing fluff he's been fed. Another sheep who wouldn't know a technical requirements document if it bit him in the ass. Not a trained critical thinker. I always suspected it.


I gave him credit for being smarter than he actually is. My mistake