Michael Ruppert - Peak Oil, collapse

[f283000]

I doubt martial law will happen that would only increase strain on the financial and economical aspects of the population not to mention putting pressure right on the population.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2295hoOtAkM

military rescues of people in the gulf to FEMA CAMPS!

The end of america has started.

Okay for starters, Martial Law is NOT going to happen. Forget about Alex Jones and what any other nutbags tell you. There simply are not enough soliders or police to control everyone

Who said it would be American soldiers?

 

[wolf116]

@ Quiksilver
Yeah the Copenhagen Treaty is a joke. There is no true democracy in the world at the moment. America has made sure to pull them all down. Because democracy enables the people to take control of their lives and will lead to tearing down the power structures that exploit them.

Climate science is insanely complex and if you don't spend your life studying it you have to just make your best judgments based on the top scientists who study it. Here is where I sympathize with your climate change view. How do you know the scientist aren't corrupt? Yeah that is a problem. So if we what the truth exposed, or worked on if there is a problem, the main goal should be working to change the political environment so this corruption can not exist.

 

[j0n24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2295hoOtAkM

military rescues of people in the gulf to FEMA CAMPS!

The end of america has started.

Who said it would be American soldiers?

What is that video suppose to say? The guy makes to many assumptions to even take him seriously.

Yeah some of the stuff the ACTUAL paper said was shocking and makes you start to think like ...."No buildings to hide in, Mass casualties, and most importantly the whole chemical attack."

Nowhere did it say that the military NOR nato forces are taking people out of the gulf coast (Where I actually live TX) right now.

Also everyone got it right....BP isnt doing **** about the oil because their stock is going UP.

****ing general populace is so ignorant they basically tell them that BP is getting richer while they dont do ****.

 

[gösta berling]

now that i think about it....seems more like scam than anything.

WE ALREADY HAVE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

Electric cars

but they were taken off the market because gas companies would lose money.

The country has already been through tough economic times and pulled through.

So you think it´s a good idéa for us to plunder scarce mineral resources
such as lithium, aluminium, rare earths and so on, to make electrical vehicles?

We have to come up with something better than that.

 

[Inquisitus]

So you think it´s a good idéa for us to plunder scarce mineral resources
such as lithium, aluminium, rare earths and so on, to make electrical vehicles?

You understand that neither aluminum nor lithium are rare metal by any means. At the same time, batteries do not use lithium in the same quantities steel, aluminum, or even silicates would be used in vehicles. Batteries are also recyclable.

It's a lot better to try to reduce our carbon emission as well as reduce our dependence on oil. We are barely out of a recession and oil is at $75.

As soon as the US recovers, that baby is going way north and it will either fvck up the world economy again, or fvck up the normal working guy.

 

[Inquisitus]

Electric cars have been raved as the future since Edisons time. A pure electrical car won't happen. why? the battary technology is still insufficient.

It seems insufficient right now, but five years from now, it probably wouldn't be.

Lets talk about where batteries come from. You need rare earth elements which are exclusively from one country, china (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rare-earths.gif. It is estimated that between 95% and 100% of these elements come from China with trace amounts coming from Argentina and Chile. the united states has one mine for rare earths. So we talk about OPEC and weaning ourselves off foreign oil for "energy independence" yet we all embrace going towards something where one country has a monopoly.

You understand that neither lithium nor nickel are rare earth metals right? There are large reserves in South America, Canada, & also sea water. How can these metals be so rare that pretty much all battery powered device out there have lithium ion or nickel metal hydride batteries?

now lets talk about battery technology. In short , the energy density is a joke. You get more energy burning used tires than you get from batteries. And how do you charge those batteries? Oh, that's right, whatever is on the grid. As of now, Coal is a whopping 41% of our total energy generation ( BP statistical review of world energy). So plugging in is burning coal which is creating massive amounts of sludge!

Energy density right now is a joke. But it's only been the last 10 years that battery technology for vehicles have been heavily invested in. There are promising technology coming out there now that money is actually being spent on battery development.

Generating power at a plant allows the use of cleaning technologies and re-use of excess heat. No vehicle smaller than a ship would be able to deploy any of these technologies efficiently & cost effectively.

Solar suffers from a similar ill to electric cars. the storage via the battary. Since its not always on, you need a backup to kick in when the sun isn't out - it would be different if people were 'ok' with periodic times with power and periodic blackouts. They also require rare earths to build which is why we see solar companies coming from china. Solar also suffers from poor energy density; its 8 times less effective on a Watt per meter squared basis than nuclear ( nuclear is 47 times more effective on the same basis than wind).

Solar is not a magic bullet to our energy needs but it's the best thing to capture the sun's energy.

Also, what rare earths are solar cells made out of? Silicon? One of the most common materials on Earth? You have one in pretty much every $10 calculator out there. We see ****loads from China because it's cheap to produce there.

How can solar cells have poor energy density when it is batteries that hold the energy that solar cells convert from sunlight? Are you referring to batteries?

 

[Quiksilver]

@ Quiksilver
Yeah the Copenhagen Treaty is a joke. There is no true democracy in the world at the moment. America has made sure to pull them all down. Because democracy enables the people to take control of their lives and will lead to tearing down the power structures that exploit them.

Climate science is insanely complex and if you don't spend your life studying it you have to just make your best judgments based on the top scientists who study it. Here is where I sympathize with your climate change view. How do you know the scientist aren't corrupt? Yeah that is a problem. So if we what the truth exposed, or worked on if there is a problem, the main goal should be working to change the political environment so this corruption can not exist.

Agreed.

I don't claim to know much at all about climate science, but I know a thing or two about rational thinking, not jumping to conclusions, and asking for a detailed summary of exactly what the IMF will do with our money to mitigate climate change. It is poor investment decision to throw money at a group of (unelected) people to solve a problem when they don't state specifically what they are going to do or how long it will take.

I would be supportive of a Copenhagen style treaty that was designed to alleviate more 'real' environmental concerns, prevent deforestation, and stop overfishing of the oceans, etc. Those are practical things that will minimize our "footprint" on the planet which I would support myself and my government putting huge quantities of money behind.

Even something like a "Climate Change Commission" which states that it will take the following xxxxx actions for exactly five years and then disband, at which time a review of its actions could take place and determine if continuing investment and global undemocratic power should continue. But it doesn't say that, it says: give us 2% of all money on earth, you can't ever back out once you agree, we aren't going to say what we'll do with the money, and we don't know if it will make a difference.

Anyways enough of that, pretty long winded discussion and for some reason I think I've had it before on here ...

cheers

 

[jonwon]

I agree Quicksilver, but I need to mention I heard on BBC two radio, an environmentalist V a Global warming expert, discussing packaging, or to be more specific, the dependence on packaging and plastics and the problems with land fill and the effect on the oceans with all the junk floating in it.

You'd think these two camps would agree, especially considering they are green - Well the Co2 man was stating that the packaging created less Co2 than say - the food wastage would create, hence he was all for more packaging, more pollution from this sort of stuff - The Environmentalist couldn't really argue, since no doubt she had been sucked into the Co2 brainwashing also.

Hence what I am seeing shockingly is the drive for less Co2, a product that isn't really measurable, out of scientific theory, is at logger-heads with an environmental issue that any one with a pair of eyes can see.

That to me is a big problem, the effect on the planet due to our dependence on resources for say packaging, is a worthy persuit for the Co2 briggade, because it lowers our carbon footprint.

Spare a thought for this for the drive for oil and the Co2 climate alarmists need to create more packaging to lower our carbon footprint.

You seriously couldn’t make this shi* up.

In the persuit of a lower carbon footprint, its a doube edged sword, on one had we have; 'cut the emissions', on the other had to do that sort of thing, means the use of more resources that include things that are deemed evil - It's fuking nuts! Its fine if it lowers the footprint, but not fine if it increases it, but that also includes things like oil used at both ends of the spectrum.

I'm hoping the green's get split over these sorts of issues and the Co2 paranoia is culled because of the fact that one problem is evident whilst the other is pure theoretical.

As for electic Cars, you can picture in-time the political agenda, when they state the resources for making the engines is running out: panic, panic, panic = money, money, money.

 

[DanelMadr]

Climate change....they can't even tell me what weather will be next week let alone next decade. It is all crude statistics based on a few years of data. Because the main method (measuring the tree-ring), has started the global warming debate was proved wrong/falsified.

On one hand I think it has to do some damage to burn so many energy...it has to go somewhere. On other hand I don't think it will be catastrophic as it won't happen over night and other natural phenomena like sun activity, volcanoes etc. play significant role too.

What can be catastrophic?
Asteroid collision.

Sudden change in magnetic field of earth (it is changing approx. every xx thousands of years and we are some couple of years behind)

Super-volcano

These are the things which are unmanageable.

My grandfather always said:"The worst death is from being panic-stricken ."

And the whole situation reminds me of the movie "Life of O'Brien" by Monty Python where doomsday prophets are the real street entertainers.

If the Michael Ruppert is so sure about all that why is he selling DVDs? I would give them for free. Or does he want to build a fortress with several tons stash of condoms?

Advice people to get satellite connection for Internet? Is he stupid? It is the first thing which will go down when cyber attack occurs. It is much easier to shot down a couple of satellites than to destroy fiber optic land lines.
And what will you need the Internet for? Facebook? Oh yeah I know...p0rn. If civilization is doomed like he says, all you can do is to jack off anyway.

 

[synergy1]

You understand that neither aluminum nor lithium are rare metal by any means. At the same time, batteries do not use lithium in the same quantities steel, aluminum, or even silicates would be used in vehicles. Batteries are also recyclable.

It's a lot better to try to reduce our carbon emission as well as reduce our dependence on oil. We are barely out of a recession and oil is at $75.

As soon as the US recovers, that baby is going way north and it will either fvck up the world economy again, or fvck up the normal working guy.

I don't feel like going back and arguing your other post point by point because than the whole screen would be filled up.

Lithium and Aluminum are not rare earth elements. The rare earth elements in batteries are dysprosium, lanthanum and a few others whose names I can't dig up. The elements required to make these batteries are almost exclusivly coming from china. In other words, our dependence on one country would be greater if we switch to technologies requiring these elements.

Reducing carbon emissions is silly. Burning hydrocarbons is the reason why we are here. Its why you are talking to me right now online. We can't just up and "reduce" carbon emissions. What we can do, and have been doing is increasing our use of energy efficiently. The U.S is one of the best and is ranked behind the U.K for energy efficiency. Not bad considering the U.K is many times smaller than us.

If you are so bullish on battary technology, please show me the advances in the past 30 years we have had.

 

[wolf116]

I don't think it's wise decide which side of the climate change fence you are on by following the money trail. That is, who is profiting from it. Whether climate change is true or fabricated there will be someone exploiting it for profit.
So if climate change is true, you will have corporate power and government setting up ways to profit disguised as selfless environmental acts (which may or may not be effective). Or the whole thing was preplanned with the goal of cashing in. This to me seems unlikely as those who are now profiting from climate change are those who have been denying it for so long until they discovered they could cash in.

 

[TheHumanist]

If you are so bullish on battary technology, please show me the advances in the past 30 years we have had.

I'm not trying to take sides, but I do want to point out that progress have been made in battery technology. Your cell phone and ipod is the very advance you are asking. Lithium Ion techonolgy was only developed in the 1970's, Okay, so it was invented 40 years ago, but it reach the ability to power little electronic devices required continued development over the last 30 years.

The reason why battery technology barely progress since Edison's time is because there was no drive to do R&D. Thanks to the demand of more powerful batteries for increasingly powerful portable electronic devices, battery technology will continue to develop and somebody is going to go and say "hey, we can make a big one and put it in a car!"

There's already a car that uses full-on battery technology, as expensive the car is, the Tesla Roadster is an electric sports car. The only reason why it can exist at all to drive as a sports car and cater to the super rich is the progress of the last 30 years. Of course, more time will be needed before it can be made to something of our range.

 

[synergy1]

The upside to the electric car is that the system is simpler than the combustion engine. Anyone who works in QC knows that fewer moving parts = fewer problems down the road. The Tesla is pretty expensive and still suffers from reliability issues. Coupled with the downtime needed to charge and the lack of infrastructure to charge it , it just isn't feasible for you and me. I will give it one thing, the car looks mint. I saw one in Cali en route to San Fransisco and we had to stop and get pictures.

I see hybrid vehicles that get good gas mileage as a more viable option in the near future. The battery coupled with possibly a renewable fuel that has good range, good gas mileage and doesn't require charges. Given the advances I am seeing with algae ( my area of expertise), those fuels can be refined to be dropped right into existing Diesel systems. They actually just completed a test flight yesterday in Germany using 100% algae biofuel. To me, this is exciting. We are closing in on the capabilities of making an oil which can be used in existing machinery and perform as well as the stuff coming out of the ground.

Here is the link : http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/biofuel-flights-one-step-closer-1996407.html

When it comes to energy storage , ask yourself this. Which is a simpler way to store energy? Via electrical charge ( capacitors, battaries, molten salts), or a liquid you can store in a cup? Which is safer to move around? Which packs more energy per unit volume?

yes, I am clearly Biased. Learn to love it

 

[synergy1]

some closure on electric cars now that I dug up my sources:

Toyota Prius - 1 kg of Neodymium, 10 kg Lanthanum. Neodymium are lightweight powerful magnets. Most of this comes from china. Japan has significant concern and was quoted in saying,

"All green technology depends on rare earth metals and all global trade in rare earth depends on china" (Japans ministry of Economic Trade and Industry in 2009)

Meanwhile OPEC only counts for 33% of total oil production. http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm

me? I'd rather have the oil than the battery.

 

[Razor Sharp]

I think there is some misinterpretation as to what "collapse" means. It's not the end of the world, just a deterioration of a culture and society. Like every other bubble (financial, economic, etc) cultures burst. But that doesn't mean they cease to be, they just evolve into smaller components.

See, I dont view any of this in a negative light at all. Few people here would argue that large government is actually working. What we need is a breakdown, with more localized powers that are truly in touch with the people. That is true democracy. Heads get it twisted in America. We do not live in a democracy - this is a REPUBLIC.. and there is a big difference!

Personally I would be happy to see the current system fail and crumble - I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said that revolution was necessary in order to preserve freedom. The more people comply, the less rights they end up having. You really do have to fight for your own liberty!

Yes I would miss plane and car rides, and plastics, and the millions of other things that oil has granted us. But IMO, just as much, if not more evil has come along with it. Capitalism itself is built around a model of infinite resources, which guarantees its failure. Whether its tomorrow or in 50 years is irrelevant - point is that you can only get so much milk from a cow before there's nothing left.

Point being: LIFE GOES ON. WITH OR WITHOUT OIL.

Indeed it does, just a lot less of it. You do realize that the current population is supported by a petroleum-fueled agriculture. The day that there is no more gas to fill up those tractors, sowers and harvesters, you can kiss a great deal of the population goodbye. Human population remained steady for many centuries. We only saw it peak when (surprise, surprise) the oil-fueled industrial revolution came along. Without oil, or some cheap readily available energy source, there simply is no way to sustain what we currently have. The math does not add up.

Rome collapsed because it was rotten. No real democracy...no real feedback

You really think the American people's voice is heard in politics today? Did you watch the 2000 election? Have you paid attention to what's been going on for the past 15 years? Do you even know how politics work.. who pays for those expensive campaigns (in turn writing laws that favor their businesses over people)? Have you read any of the Patriot Act (or its proposed succesor which is even more fuct up?) No offense intended mate, but to say that we are any less corrupt than the Romans is either blind patriotism, or just plain naivete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2295hoOtAkM

military rescues of people in the gulf to FEMA CAMPS!

Who said it would be American soldiers?

There is no economy on earth that could sustain such an effort. Even china, with its million-man army and current financial boom, could not effectively police the 309,477,630 people currently living in this giant country. Combine this with the fact that we are the most armed civilian population in the world makes this whole premise is just ridiculous. I wouldn't even call it fear-mongering because it's laughable!

The end of america has started.

No news there. The end of America started long ago, on the day that Woodrow Wilson made a pact with the devil and created the Federal Reserve. Wilson knew it too, citing it as his biggest regret.

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

Another great quote from Thomas Jefferson sums it up:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

I say bring it on. I'm ready :box:

 

[Inquisitus]

some closure on electric cars now that I dug up my sources:

Toyota Prius - 1 kg of Neodymium, 10 kg Lanthanum. Neodymium are lightweight powerful magnets. Most of this comes from china. Japan has significant concern and was quoted in saying,

"All green technology depends on rare earth metals and all global trade in rare earth depends on china" (Japans ministry of Economic Trade and Industry in 2009)

Meanwhile OPEC only counts for 33% of total oil production. http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm

me? I'd rather have the oil than the battery.

Since oil is a commodity, and the US/Canada operate of free market principles, any shock on oil production in OPEC or in any other part of the world can and will screw us up. OPEC and several other oil producing countries are not quite stable to Western interests as China.

There may well be substitutes for those rare earth metals as technology advances. Unfortunately, oil, as we have seen, is very difficult to replace.

 

[Inquisitus]

When it comes to energy storage , ask yourself this. Which is a simpler way to store energy? Via electrical charge ( capacitors, battaries, molten salts), or a liquid you can store in a cup? Which is safer to move around? Which packs more energy per unit volume?

Which fits into your Ipod? Batteries are so complicated that half the world's electronics contain them.

I agree with you on alternative fuels. At the end of the day, whatever gets us to reduce our consumption of oil without harming our food supply and minimizing the harm in our biosphere should be the focus.

 

[synergy1]

any shock on oil production in OPEC or in any other part of the world can and will screw us up. OPEC and several other oil producing countries are not quite stable to Western interests as China.

There may well be substitutes for those rare earth metals as technology advances. Unfortunately, oil, as we have seen, is very difficult to replace.

Maybe, and maybe not. As I said OPEC is 33 percent of the total world production. 21 other nations produce more than 1 million barrels per day so if OPEC decides to close up shop, there are plenty of other customers. The U.S currently imports from 90 countries - the idea that OPEC is one huge cartel is a bit overblown based on the numbers. the U.S is also ranked #3 in Oil production world wide - we produce 74% of the energy we consume.

Rare earth elements have unique properties. Remember they are pretty far down on that periodic table so their outer lattice requires less energy to displace those electrons. For this reason they interact uniquely with other elements. Substitutes would have to be man made, and even with our current understanding of quantum physics, we do not possess the ability to make large scale quantities of elements on a whim. Even if we did, it would likely be a huge net energy loser.


Which fits into your Ipod? Batteries are so complicated that half the world's electronics contain them.


I guess my argument doesn't encompass non essentials Those little buggers don't draw too much power, so its okay. The new 4G smartphones, however, apparently die within 5-6 hours of use though. Gotta bring a charger with you wherever you go. Someone who has one can correct me if I am wrong here...just going on what I read.

 

[DanelMadr]

I think there is some misinterpretation as to what "collapse" means. It's not the end of the world, just a deterioration of a culture and society. Like every other bubble (financial, economic, etc) cultures burst. But that doesn't mean they cease to be, they just evolve into smaller components.

See, I dont view any of this in a negative light at all. Few people here would argue that large government is actually working. What we need is a breakdown, with more localized powers that are truly in touch with the people. That is true democracy. Heads get it twisted in America. We do not live in a democracy - this is a REPUBLIC.. and there is a big difference!

First Republic is necessary, you can't have a "democracy" where you have to ask for permission for everything. It would be unmanageable and stupid - it would take ages to decide and people don't have time to be experts in economy, defense etc. they pay the government to do that for them.

Smaller components? Your enemies would crush you in a day. Not talking about inability to maintain order in the world - merchant routes...even more chaos.
Why do you think EU is trying to federalize? To be effective. Of course you have to put emphasis on local governments like in the cities. When central government tries to manage the little things it gets messy. But believe me US government is doing 0 compared to governments elsewhere. And you need some oversight or the local sheriff will hold the town hostage.

Personally I would be happy to see the current system fail and crumble - I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said that revolution was necessary in order to preserve freedom. The more people comply, the less rights they end up having. You really do have to fight for your own liberty!

You almost make me cry. Billions of people would give their left nut to live in a freedom like yours. I lived in totalitarian state and believe me you can feel the difference. Don't call for revolution when you can get elected and change that. Oh you can't? Thats because majority is not on the same wave. If you had truly inspirational ideas you would get money for campaign. But the truth is Republicans and Democrats cover pretty much everything. You have to do politics joining them. But don't hope in anything radical..it is dangerous.

Yes I would miss plane and car rides, and plastics, and the millions of other things that oil has granted us. But IMO, just as much, if not more evil has come along with it. Capitalism itself is built around a model of infinite resources, which guarantees its failure. Whether its tomorrow or in 50 years is irrelevant - point is that you can only get so much milk from a cow before there's nothing left.

It is not capitalism. It is modern economy based on free market. And especially in US you can go from 0 to million if you have the right ideas. In other countries you would add up bribes and AK47 to achieve something.

Indeed it does, just a lot less of it. You do realize that the current population is supported by a petroleum-fueled agriculture. The day that there is no more gas to fill up those tractors, sowers and harvesters, you can kiss a great deal of the population goodbye. Human population remained steady for many centuries. We only saw it peak when (surprise, surprise) the oil-fueled industrial revolution came along. Without oil, or some cheap readily available energy source, there simply is no way to sustain what we currently have. The math does not add up.

I haven't come up with anything to oppose this so I guess it is true

You really think the American people's voice is heard in politics today? Did you watch the 2000 election? Have you paid attention to what's been going on for the past 15 years? Do you even know how politics work.. who pays for those expensive campaigns (in turn writing laws that favor their businesses over people)? Have you read any of the Patriot Act (or its proposed succesor which is even more fuct up?) No offense intended mate, but to say that we are any less corrupt than the Romans is either blind patriotism, or just plain naivete.

Oh common. You have your checks and balances. No slaves and citizens with no voting rights because they could not afford it. Can't really compare with Rome on this level, man.
US is a democracy with its faults but it is the best humans invented and maintained. It is work, a struggle to make working. Jefferson must be turning in his grave...you are being ungrateful, dude
As I wrote up there.....if you have really good ideas how to make it better, people would vote for you, give you money and support you. But I am afraid no one have come up with anything better. Just keep "fighting" for the freedom (which also means less state support) and against the negatives.

There is no economy on earth that could sustain such an effort. Even china, with its million-man army and current financial boom, could not effectively police the 309,477,630 people currently living in this giant country. Combine this with the fact that we are the most armed civilian population in the world makes this whole premise is just ridiculous. I wouldn't even call it fear-mongering because it's laughable!

Germans, Russians who occupied my country made sure that everyone disposed of their guns. You can't have a dictatorship with population having significant firepower. Hold on to the right to carry.

No news there. The end of America started long ago, on the day that Woodrow Wilson made a pact with the devil and created the Federal Reserve. Wilson knew it too, citing it as his biggest regret.

I don't know man. it could have been risky but it certainly made you prosper for half a century. Is there a better financial system? I don't know any. Except what I heard in one critique of FR by some commies. The proposed to get rid of money and use work coupons - I give you a car and you will work for me for 10 month. Fvcking ridiculous. Basically making people slaves.

Another great quote from Thomas Jefferson sums it up:

He said that? I refuse to believe he knew at that time about inflation, corporation or even homeless

I say bring it on. I'm ready :box:

You live in the best country. You take my place I take yours, what do ya say?
Democracy is about what can you do for it (JFK), it is constant work and effort. Save your bullets for the Chinese when they come to rape your women. Have hope, man. You can do it. The whole world relies on US. You doing stupid stunts or panicking and lot of people die of hunger or by the hands of real oppressors on the whole planet.

 

[Mistic]

Hey Mr. P. Dong Fu here from the site formally known as NLG. You need to be gettin out of the Bay Area man. Are you still a cop? DO you get any insider info on whats going on.

Also, your argument with drum n bass in the beginning of this thread doesn't make any sense.