Everybody is talking about this like it's boring news and not really a big deal. I'm surprised the normally 'environmentally conscious' quasi-nerd-activist slashdot community isn't talking about the ramifications of this project.
Private ownership of water by large companies is going to be the cause of global wars, and already is in many water-deficient countries. When you give a private company the right to treat water as a commodity and own it, you create a monster. This is the basis for a very disturbing documentary titled, "Water Wars" which chronicles the abuse of citizens all over the world via. control of water supply. It is also the basis for a james bond movie, which I guess makes it seem like even less of a real threat.
It doesn't seem like a big deal for a country 'wealthy' in water as a natural resource to give it away to a 'needy' country -- but it's not being given away. Maybe we should focus on that. It is being commodified and sold, stolen for free from a country of people that don't realize they're giving away their future. If you don't think water shortages are an impending global catastrophe, read some of the comments about problems with desalination technology.
Fresh water is a resource we should be fighting to keep out of corporate hands, not laughing at.
You know what's funny about this, is we're going to end up with a situation where increases in the propulsion systems end up sending newer satellites past ones launched earlier before they complete their missions. We'll end up with a cloud of ever decreasing technological junk arriving at distant civilizations....
This guy is obviously a pedophile, the article points out he has a prior conviction of posession of actual child pornography. His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.
The problem I have with this case is that the guy is disgusting, his motives were obvious and so it is very easy to support his conviction. But with Cartoons, it could be argued that there is _no victim_ at all. And as much as I hate pedophiles, and I do - I don't believe that the images, real or cartoon, actually encourage pedophile tendencies.
Images of children being exploited sexually have been banned all over the world because the children have to be protected from those images remaining in circulation for their entire lifetime; images of children being exploited sexually encourage other pedophiles to exploit more children on camera for the purpose of trading images, etc. BUT with the case of a cartoon -- none of these reasons hold true, and more importantly, at best - they encourage pedophiles to draw cartoons of children being sexually exploited which, as i said, doesn't create any victims. Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn, but it doesn't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles. You have to be a pedophile to begin with to even want it.
Now that this guy has been charged, and this is obviously a precedent setting case - it will be easier to charge and dole out harsh sentences for people found posessing cartoon porn even if it is their first offense and they really aren't pedophiles. I mean, cartoons are sometimes funny and in the case of Simpsons porn - I know I've seen a few cartoons featuring Bart and Lisa that were funny and.... at least to me, not sexually exciting at all. I mean christ, they're cartoons.
It seems to me that they've gone after an easy person to hate, with a history of child porn collecting - to blindside people to the over zealous and really very useless law they've just created.
This story is ridiculous. All life has evolved as a result of 'pressure' from the environment surrounding it. It's not a conscious decision on the part of the plant, it's a permanent adaptation. It's not going to just say, "Oh ok, now I don't need to do this anymore".
If we were able to obliterate all insect life on earth, would we be studying the Venus Fly Trap and the Pitcher Plant and saying, "Oh wow! These plants are still trying to capture insects we obliterated years ago!". I feel stupider having read that article.
The person shows the elaborate process they go through to get the key pressed. I mean, if you were a paraplegic typing with a pencil stuck up your nose - you're still hitting the key. Or is the pen hitting the key? What if you white out just the key you need to hit so you can claim you knowingly hit it, but it wasn't marked.
I mean, cummon. This isn't worthy of slashdot. This is really lame.
"would make the US second-rate in education and basic research."
-- Wait a minute, somehow the U.S. is going to improve as a result of this beating out the 5 or 6 other countries that kick the 5#17 out of them for education and basic research? Awesome!
Now CNN is reporting that Al-Quaeda is attempting to "somehow" mess with the US elections. Finally, a reason to turn people away from the polls and enforce strict laws in swing states.
The US elections are a joke, your leader is a fascist dictator.
I don't really understand what you're getting at here ; you think "at this point" they should be concerned about how to recycle them - instead of concerned about whether or not they could even make one?
Are they supposed to stop the research and start working on a recycling method ? This sounds like something maybe you would slate for the future - like if or when you had a single working prototype.
What's with the pseudo-math, "Even with a 1:1.... demand will increase exponentially" - exponentially from what? the first single one not yet created? Cuz from 1 to 2 _is_ exponential growth, but seriously. These articles don't even tell us if these batteries would _be_ better than a regular car battery (or what it would cost to produce one of these) -- so what can they do but keep the research and prototyping going?
From the sounds of the article, they've found a way to suck battery components out of raw materials. This could be the future of recycling our standard car batteries ; Creating structured, pure materials from raw partially reacted crap materials.
You make an interesting point about Bacteria infecting things ; Maybe an offshoot of this research could be a medical-process for removing heavy metals from the human body. A method of completely counteracting Lead or Mercury poisoning. I wants to eats Salmon all the time darnit! I just don't want the brain tumours that go with it.
I imagine though, that would involve creating a much more sophisticated virus that itself attracts the metals, rather than using the bacteria they've already created. Unless you could get it up your nose and leave it there so you can blow mercury snot out of your nose. That would be kind of cool, in a 'My snots toxic' kind of way.
I'm going to sound crazy here, but this is my question :
Instead of creating conventional batteries (which is what I *think* is happening here) on a nano-scale ; wouldn't it be better to make bacteria to be used in ongoing reactions ?
Create a battery we can feed sugar (or something) to continually separate or replenish the reacted electrolyte?
I know that's a whole stupid theoretical idea on its own, but it seems like they would be so close to doing this instead with the virii / bacteria they are using right now.
It's obvious that weaving these batteries into fibre (for example) or just the fact that they can create such tiny batteries is hugely advantageous from an engineering perspective. Now clothes can be powered, etc.
What isn't clear is why would you want these batteries to power your car? I don't really see any discussion on whether these pack more power than a 50lb car battery would. From the description it sounds like they're just regular batteries which expire, but are tiny. So by my no-math-involved logic, 50lbs of these nano-batteries should pack about the same punch as a regular 50lb car battery.
Am I wrong about this? Do the infected bacteria constantly replenish the components of the battery making them more like a generator that runs on raw materials ? Because it doesn't look like that, it looks like they create the components, stop the process and put them together.
Very very cool, but it sounds like the same technology we've always had is the end product. Please tell me I'm wrong, I want this to be the mini nuclear generator powering our cars we were all promised in the 1950's.
"Can we stick it on the head of a pin? People love it when we do that"
Man, I would not want to live anywhere near one of these storage facilities.
On the other hand, from wikipedia "To further investigate the safety of CO2 sequestration, we can look into Norway's Sleipner gas field, as it is the oldest plant that stores CO2 on an industrial scale. According to an environmental assessment of the gas field which was conducted after ten years of operation, the author affirmed that geosequestration of CO2 was the most definite way to store CO2 permanently. [4]
"Available geological information shows absence of major tectonic events after the deposition of the Utsira formation [saline reservoir]. This implies that the geological environment is tectonically stable and a site suitable for carbon dioxide storage. The solubility trapping [is] the most permanent and secure form of geological storage." [4]"
This sounds pretty exact-opposite of what the greenpeace hippy terro... activists are saying.
For anybody with a short attention span, I'll just sum up the 11 points of this article for you:
RELY ON CRITICS: Be innovative! When someone has a problem with your product, it needs to be changed. So change it!
USE YOUR OWN PRODUCT: Be innovative! If you have a problem with your product, it needs to be changed. So change it!
MAKE CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENTS: Be innovative! If there's a problem with your product, it needs to be changed. So change it!
GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD: Be innovative! If there's a problem with your product, it needs to be changed. So change it!
DESIGN FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF CUSTOMERS: Be innovative! If different kinds of customers have a problem with your product, it needs to be changed. So change it!
THE IMPORTANCE OF FREQUENT FAILURES: Be innovative! Frequent failures tell you where there's problems with your product, and that it needs to be changed. So change it!
MOVE QUICKLY, IN PIECES: This one is VERY unique! The point here is to take people's requests, and INNOVATE! Change the product, in pieces.
To be fair though, the rest of the points they make are actually unique and say something relevant for software design. Seriously though, this first half looks like it was written by Aleksey Vayner -- this is the exact BS that you hear constantly in the boardrooms of software companies -- the type of crap that drives software developers insane and makes people fold their hands together and nod their heads until they can go home at 4pm.
This self fellating crap is hard to read, but of course, I don't have an office job anymore because I tend to laugh in people's faces when they take 4 pages of rehashed ideas to say how intelligent and innovative they are. Maybe if the software developers got to elaborate in this article on things like their rapid prototyping software or say, what financial incentives they have to overcome major obstacles, work ridiculous hours on a server upgrade - maybe then this would say something useful for business or consumers. As it is, this is better suited to pumping up the sense of genius an amway stooge likes to feel.
Anybody remember "V", the futuristic show where evil (and sexy) reptilian aliens took over the earth and started a smear campaign against "Scientists" to get them hated by the public and turned in to authorities for execution?
That show was awesome, and I remember the slow realization I had as a kid that there is no such thing as a "Scientist"... Just physicists and engineers etc.
Anyways, maybe George Bush eats mice when nobodies lookin'... I'm just throwin' that out there.
Yeah, as somebody said -- "Do the magnets depolarize over time". I think that's the big secret here. I'm almost definite I heard of this from my (now retired) engineer grandfather, who while being a genius, has forgotten some basics at the age of 75 and I'm pretty sure has been duped by a 'real looking' documentary on this crap.
His explanation to me was that the magnet somehow increases the speed of the motor ; ergo its free energy.
Whatever his explanation was of how it works (since this article doesn't show anything) -- I asked the very simple question, "Does the magnet depolarize? Because all magnets, unless they're powered electro magnets, lose polarity and that's why.... when you suck up a coin with a magnet - you're not violating the laws of physics. It's not 'free energy', it's stored energy.
blah blah blah. My point being, with magnets involved, and this guy running around going, "I'm dyslexic and I have no education! LOOK AT MY MAGNET FERRIS WHEEL!"... it's likely he's just using magnetic energy on a small scale and he can't find an energy loss because his test involves watching it a lot and going 'wee, it's accelerating!'
There have been a *lot* of free energy machines that accelerate. It's pretty much a basic tenet of a 'free energy machine'. If it doesn't accelerate, it's obviously not gaining energy (and I'm counting circular motion here as acceleration too physics gurus). Because it accelerates doesn't mean the system is gaining energy either. But I seriously don't understand why anybody takes this seriously just because it accelerates.
They all accelerate, that's why people show them off. "Look I broke the laws of physics! It's accelerating!"
I honestly don't even think this guy has come up with an improvement to electric motors. You're going to find, when all is said and done - the acceleration comes from a magnet which, as complicated as the setup may be, requires more energy to polarize than it actually puts into acceleration. It may only have to be charged once every 5 years, but he's also (likely) only accelerating a wheel that weighs 20 grams with a lot of powerful magnets.
This is bunk. And the real test is this: Make a second, identical device. Start it running. Let us know when it flies apart.
If it *ever* reaches a constant speed, and the magnets don't start sucking iron from the blood of passers by 10 miles away -- it's not gaining energy indefinitely. If it reaches a constant speed and then (as I suspect) stops when he leaves it there for a few hours or days (long enough that the casual observer wouldn't want to wait for when he's on tour with it) -- then it's a very obvious piece of crap. If it reaches a constant speed, and you slow it down, and it stays slowed down.... why isn't it accelerating again? It can only get 'free energy' when you first turn it on?
The ability of this machine to generate energy can be disproved easily in so many different ways. The biggest, easiest way to disprove this is to ask a very obvious question:
Can his spinning wheel charge a battery?
It would cost him a couple hundred dollars to get the equipment to put this free electricity into his electrical grid. He could buy it from any solar panel manufacturer or store. In most states the utility company pays you for power you generate. If he's getting free energy, he can get rich without our help. He should have done that already if he's getting free energy.
Seriously. He's had years and his wife left him, but he never thought of that? that's like finding a genie lamp and never thinking of getting a tonne of money. That only happens on the x-files. And this demonstrates the other basic tenet of free energy machines: 2) They can't ever be hooked up to a generator.
They can do all sorts of nifty things, but for some reason getting rich by selling that free energy in the easiest way possible - to a utility company - just can never happen. You have to get millions from investors even though if you never told
Yeah, as you said -- "Do the magnets depolarize over time". I think that's the big secret here. I'm almost definite I heard of this from my (now retired) engineer grandfather, who while being a genius, has forgotten some basics at the age of 75 and I'm pretty sure has been duped by a 'real looking' documentary on this crap.
His explanation to me was that the magnet somehow increases the speed of the motor ; ergo its free energy.
Whatever his explanation was of how it works (since this article doesn't show anything) -- I asked the very simple question, "Does the magnet depolarize? Because all magnets, unless they're powered electro magnets, lose polarity and that's why.... when you suck up a coin with a magnet - you're not violating the laws of physics. It's not 'free energy', it's stored energy.
blah blah blah. My point being, with magnets involved, and this guy running around going, "I'm dyslexic and I have no education! LOOK AT ME!"... it's likely he's just using magnetic energy on a small scale and he can't find an energy loss because his test involves watching it a lot and going 'wee, it's accelerating!'
There have been a *lot* of free energy machines that accelerate. It's pretty much a basic tenet of a 'free energy machine'. If it doesn't accelerate, it's obviously not gaining energy. Because it accelerates doesn't mean the system is gaining energy either. But I seriously don't understand why anybody takes this seriously just because it accelerates.
They all accelerate, that's why people show them off. "Look I broke the laws of physics! It's accelerating!"
I honestly don't even think this guy has come up with an improvement to electric motors. You're going to find, when all is said and done - the acceleration comes from a magnet which, as complicated as the setup may be, requires more energy to polarize than it actually puts into acceleration. It may only have to be charged once every 5 years, but he's also (likely) only accelerating a wheel that weighs 20 grams with a lot of powerful magnets.
This is bunk. And the real test is this: Make a second, identical device. Start it running. Let us know when it flies apart.
If it *ever* reaches a constant speed, and the magnets don't start sucking iron from the blood of passers by 10 miles away -- it's not gaining energy. If it reaches a constant speed and then (as I suspect) stops when he leaves it there for a few hours or days (long enough that the casual observer wouldn't want to wait for when he's on tour with it) -- then it's a very obvious piece of crap. If it reaches a constant speed, and you slow it down, and it stays slowed down.... same story.
The ability of this machine to generate energy can be disproved easily in so many different ways.
Tell him to make his spinning wheel charge a battery, and then hook that battery to his home electrical grid. It would cost him a couple hundred dollars to get the equipment to do it from a solar panel manufacturer. In most states the utility company pays you for power you generate. If he's getting free energy, he can get rich without our help.
Seriously. He's had years and his wife left him, but he never thought of that? that's like finding a genie lamp and never thinking of getting a tonne of money. That only happens on the x-files. And this demonstrates the other basic tenet of free energy machines: 2) They can't ever be hooked up to a generator.
They can do all sorts of nifty things, but for some reason getting rich by selling that free energy in the easiest way possible - to a utility company - just can never happen. You have to get millions from investors even though (here in Canada) Ontario Hydro would pay you indefinitely just to have your already created prototype running a generator.
You're right, I don't know a lot about history. And I'm an ignorant Canadian. instead of talking to thousands of europeans to find out their opinion - I just read the article, and used wikipedia.
I feel so ignorant.
"As WND reported last year, Google had no problem honoring the war dead of other countries, creating a special logo with poppies for Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom." -- I guess this ISN'T the day celebrated all over europe. Sorry.
"Wow, that's very.... very technical. I'm not sure all of our readers will understand something of that complexity, could you explain it in very very simple terms. Something we could all relate to?"
"Well, basically, when the computer is getting information - this is the sound that plays"
"I still don't get it."
"Ok, you call - you ask for information - this is what plays"
"Wow. ok, and... what is it?"
"It's me pretending I'm a computer"
"Pretending! Doctor feynman, surely you're joking!"
"Well, yes... I am joking - it's a joke, because computers don't make that noise ever, and it doesn't sound like a computer at all, it sounds like me... spitting"
"Wow! that's fascinating"
"yeah.... yeah, sheila in accounting gets a kick out of it"
"Oh my god, so you get _requests_ to make that noise?"
"yep..."
"wow.... fascinating. absolutely fascinating. I don't understand anything you've just said - you must be eons beyond our human comprehension of space and time. How will I ever put this down on paper, in a way someone without a PHD could possibly understand?"
"Hrm... well.... let's not call it the... fetch.. audio - that is very complicated, and maybe... if you're going to talk about why I do that noise, don't get into all the super, very very technical aspects of how I came up with that. Just mention maybe, some of the contenders to that sound we had to eliminate using very very complicated, subjective, basic reasoning"
"Wow. thank you so much, this is going to be the best article my high school's every published!"
"high school!?"
"Could you do that sound for me? What do you call it?"
"... I call it the biddy-biddy-boop sound"
"But you never, ever make a biddy-biddy-boop sound while you're doing it"
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody is talking about this like it's boring news and not really a big deal. I'm surprised the normally 'environmentally conscious' quasi-nerd-activist slashdot community isn't talking about the ramifications of this project.
Private ownership of water by large companies is going to be the cause of global wars, and already is in many water-deficient countries. When you give a private company the right to treat water as a commodity and own it, you create a monster. This is the basis for a very disturbing documentary titled, "Water Wars" which chronicles the abuse of citizens all over the world via. control of water supply. It is also the basis for a james bond movie, which I guess makes it seem like even less of a real threat.
It doesn't seem like a big deal for a country 'wealthy' in water as a natural resource to give it away to a 'needy' country -- but it's not being given away. Maybe we should focus on that. It is being commodified and sold, stolen for free from a country of people that don't realize they're giving away their future. If you don't think water shortages are an impending global catastrophe, read some of the comments about problems with desalination technology.
Fresh water is a resource we should be fighting to keep out of corporate hands, not laughing at.
You know what's funny about this, is we're going to end up with a situation where increases in the propulsion systems end up sending newer satellites past ones launched earlier before they complete their missions. We'll end up with a cloud of ever decreasing technological junk arriving at distant civilizations....
This guy is obviously a pedophile, the article points out he has a prior conviction of posession of actual child pornography. His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.
The problem I have with this case is that the guy is disgusting, his motives were obvious and so it is very easy to support his conviction. But with Cartoons, it could be argued that there is _no victim_ at all. And as much as I hate pedophiles, and I do - I don't believe that the images, real or cartoon, actually encourage pedophile tendencies.
Images of children being exploited sexually have been banned all over the world because the children have to be protected from those images remaining in circulation for their entire lifetime; images of children being exploited sexually encourage other pedophiles to exploit more children on camera for the purpose of trading images, etc. BUT with the case of a cartoon -- none of these reasons hold true, and more importantly, at best - they encourage pedophiles to draw cartoons of children being sexually exploited which, as i said, doesn't create any victims. Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn, but it doesn't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles. You have to be a pedophile to begin with to even want it.
Now that this guy has been charged, and this is obviously a precedent setting case - it will be easier to charge and dole out harsh sentences for people found posessing cartoon porn even if it is their first offense and they really aren't pedophiles. I mean, cartoons are sometimes funny and in the case of Simpsons porn - I know I've seen a few cartoons featuring Bart and Lisa that were funny and.... at least to me, not sexually exciting at all. I mean christ, they're cartoons.
It seems to me that they've gone after an easy person to hate, with a history of child porn collecting - to blindside people to the over zealous and really very useless law they've just created.
This sounds like it would be useful as a directed energy weapon, especially with the ability to compress waves over a distance.
This story is ridiculous. All life has evolved as a result of 'pressure' from the environment surrounding it. It's not a conscious decision on the part of the plant, it's a permanent adaptation. It's not going to just say, "Oh ok, now I don't need to do this anymore".
If we were able to obliterate all insect life on earth, would we be studying the Venus Fly Trap and the Pitcher Plant and saying, "Oh wow! These plants are still trying to capture insects we obliterated years ago!". I feel stupider having read that article.
This is kind of cute, but not really...
The person shows the elaborate process they go through to get the key pressed. I mean, if you were a paraplegic typing with a pencil stuck up your nose - you're still hitting the key. Or is the pen hitting the key? What if you white out just the key you need to hit so you can claim you knowingly hit it, but it wasn't marked.
I mean, cummon. This isn't worthy of slashdot. This is really lame.
"would make the US second-rate in education and basic research."
-- Wait a minute, somehow the U.S. is going to improve as a result of this beating out the 5 or 6 other countries that kick the 5#17 out of them for education and basic research? Awesome!
they weren't black widows were they?
Now CNN is reporting that Al-Quaeda is attempting to "somehow" mess with the US elections. Finally, a reason to turn people away from the polls and enforce strict laws in swing states.
The US elections are a joke, your leader is a fascist dictator.
I don't really understand what you're getting at here ; you think "at this point" they should be concerned about how to recycle them - instead of concerned about whether or not they could even make one?
Are they supposed to stop the research and start working on a recycling method ? This sounds like something maybe you would slate for the future - like if or when you had a single working prototype.
What's with the pseudo-math, "Even with a 1:1 .... demand will increase exponentially" - exponentially from what? the first single one not yet created? Cuz from 1 to 2 _is_ exponential growth, but seriously. These articles don't even tell us if these batteries would _be_ better than a regular car battery (or what it would cost to produce one of these) -- so what can they do but keep the research and prototyping going?
From the sounds of the article, they've found a way to suck battery components out of raw materials. This could be the future of recycling our standard car batteries ; Creating structured, pure materials from raw partially reacted crap materials.
You make an interesting point about Bacteria infecting things ; Maybe an offshoot of this research could be a medical-process for removing heavy metals from the human body. A method of completely counteracting Lead or Mercury poisoning. I wants to eats Salmon all the time darnit! I just don't want the brain tumours that go with it.
I imagine though, that would involve creating a much more sophisticated virus that itself attracts the metals, rather than using the bacteria they've already created. Unless you could get it up your nose and leave it there so you can blow mercury snot out of your nose. That would be kind of cool, in a 'My snots toxic' kind of way.
Man.... i'm tired.
I'm going to sound crazy here, but this is my question :
Instead of creating conventional batteries (which is what I *think* is happening here) on a nano-scale ; wouldn't it be better to make bacteria to be used in ongoing reactions ?
Create a battery we can feed sugar (or something) to continually separate or replenish the reacted electrolyte?
I know that's a whole stupid theoretical idea on its own, but it seems like they would be so close to doing this instead with the virii / bacteria they are using right now.
Comments? Flames?
It's obvious that weaving these batteries into fibre (for example) or just the fact that they can create such tiny batteries is hugely advantageous from an engineering perspective. Now clothes can be powered, etc.
What isn't clear is why would you want these batteries to power your car? I don't really see any discussion on whether these pack more power than a 50lb car battery would. From the description it sounds like they're just regular batteries which expire, but are tiny. So by my no-math-involved logic, 50lbs of these nano-batteries should pack about the same punch as a regular 50lb car battery.
Am I wrong about this? Do the infected bacteria constantly replenish the components of the battery making them more like a generator that runs on raw materials ? Because it doesn't look like that, it looks like they create the components, stop the process and put them together.
Very very cool, but it sounds like the same technology we've always had is the end product. Please tell me I'm wrong, I want this to be the mini nuclear generator powering our cars we were all promised in the 1950's.
"Can we stick it on the head of a pin? People love it when we do that"
Man, I would not want to live anywhere near one of these storage facilities.
On the other hand, from wikipedia "To further investigate the safety of CO2 sequestration, we can look into Norway's Sleipner gas field, as it is the oldest plant that stores CO2 on an industrial scale. According to an environmental assessment of the gas field which was conducted after ten years of operation, the author affirmed that geosequestration of CO2 was the most definite way to store CO2 permanently. [4]
"Available geological information shows absence of major tectonic events after the deposition of the Utsira formation [saline reservoir]. This implies that the geological environment is tectonically stable and a site suitable for carbon dioxide storage. The solubility trapping [is] the most permanent and secure form of geological storage." [4]"
This sounds pretty exact-opposite of what the greenpeace hippy terro... activists are saying.
To be fair though, the rest of the points they make are actually unique and say something relevant for software design. Seriously though, this first half looks like it was written by Aleksey Vayner -- this is the exact BS that you hear constantly in the boardrooms of software companies -- the type of crap that drives software developers insane and makes people fold their hands together and nod their heads until they can go home at 4pm.
This self fellating crap is hard to read, but of course, I don't have an office job anymore because I tend to laugh in people's faces when they take 4 pages of rehashed ideas to say how intelligent and innovative they are. Maybe if the software developers got to elaborate in this article on things like their rapid prototyping software or say, what financial incentives they have to overcome major obstacles, work ridiculous hours on a server upgrade - maybe then this would say something useful for business or consumers. As it is, this is better suited to pumping up the sense of genius an amway stooge likes to feel.
Anybody remember "V", the futuristic show where evil (and sexy) reptilian aliens took over the earth and started a smear campaign against "Scientists" to get them hated by the public and turned in to authorities for execution?
That show was awesome, and I remember the slow realization I had as a kid that there is no such thing as a "Scientist"... Just physicists and engineers etc.
Anyways, maybe George Bush eats mice when nobodies lookin'... I'm just throwin' that out there.
"I'm sick of some guy with a triple digit income and a double digit IQ rooting around inside my bag and never finding anything" -- George Carlin
The word prodigious always reminds me of Dr. Strangelove
---
it appears to be sucking up new material at a prodigious rate.
---
as somebody said, there's a lot of home consoles and the market... and... well in case we forgot, PC's.
Strange though, that a Japanese company falling on tough times would be forced to blame a Japanese companies creation for their loss.
I'm sure now that they've said, "Arcades are useless because of NINTENDO Wii!" they're going to devestate nintendo's sales.
Or more likely, cash a big check from Nintendo for the stupid, obvious publicity stunt.
Thanks for posting Nintendo spam.
Yeah, as somebody said -- "Do the magnets depolarize over time". I think that's the big secret here. I'm almost definite I heard of this from my (now retired) engineer grandfather, who while being a genius, has forgotten some basics at the age of 75 and I'm pretty sure has been duped by a 'real looking' documentary on this crap.
His explanation to me was that the magnet somehow increases the speed of the motor ; ergo its free energy.
Whatever his explanation was of how it works (since this article doesn't show anything) -- I asked the very simple question, "Does the magnet depolarize? Because all magnets, unless they're powered electro magnets, lose polarity and that's why.... when you suck up a coin with a magnet - you're not violating the laws of physics. It's not 'free energy', it's stored energy.
blah blah blah. My point being, with magnets involved, and this guy running around going, "I'm dyslexic and I have no education! LOOK AT MY MAGNET FERRIS WHEEL!"... it's likely he's just using magnetic energy on a small scale and he can't find an energy loss because his test involves watching it a lot and going 'wee, it's accelerating!'
There have been a *lot* of free energy machines that accelerate. It's pretty much a basic tenet of a 'free energy machine'. If it doesn't accelerate, it's obviously not gaining energy (and I'm counting circular motion here as acceleration too physics gurus). Because it accelerates doesn't mean the system is gaining energy either. But I seriously don't understand why anybody takes this seriously just because it accelerates.
They all accelerate, that's why people show them off. "Look I broke the laws of physics! It's accelerating!"
I honestly don't even think this guy has come up with an improvement to electric motors. You're going to find, when all is said and done - the acceleration comes from a magnet which, as complicated as the setup may be, requires more energy to polarize than it actually puts into acceleration. It may only have to be charged once every 5 years, but he's also (likely) only accelerating a wheel that weighs 20 grams with a lot of powerful magnets.
This is bunk. And the real test is this:
Make a second, identical device.
Start it running.
Let us know when it flies apart.
If it *ever* reaches a constant speed, and the magnets don't start sucking iron from the blood of passers by 10 miles away -- it's not gaining energy indefinitely.
If it reaches a constant speed and then (as I suspect) stops when he leaves it there for a few hours or days (long enough that the casual observer wouldn't want to wait for when he's on tour with it) -- then it's a very obvious piece of crap.
If it reaches a constant speed, and you slow it down, and it stays slowed down.... why isn't it accelerating again? It can only get 'free energy' when you first turn it on?
The ability of this machine to generate energy can be disproved easily in so many different ways. The biggest, easiest way to disprove this is to ask a very obvious question:
Can his spinning wheel charge a battery?
It would cost him a couple hundred dollars to get the equipment to put this free electricity into his electrical grid. He could buy it from any solar panel manufacturer or store. In most states the utility company pays you for power you generate. If he's getting free energy, he can get rich without our help. He should have done that already if he's getting free energy.
Seriously. He's had years and his wife left him, but he never thought of that? that's like finding a genie lamp and never thinking of getting a tonne of money. That only happens on the x-files. And this demonstrates the other basic tenet of free energy machines:
2) They can't ever be hooked up to a generator.
They can do all sorts of nifty things, but for some reason getting rich by selling that free energy in the easiest way possible - to a utility company - just can never happen. You have to get millions from investors even though if you never told
Yeah, as you said -- "Do the magnets depolarize over time". I think that's the big secret here. I'm almost definite I heard of this from my (now retired) engineer grandfather, who while being a genius, has forgotten some basics at the age of 75 and I'm pretty sure has been duped by a 'real looking' documentary on this crap.
His explanation to me was that the magnet somehow increases the speed of the motor ; ergo its free energy.
Whatever his explanation was of how it works (since this article doesn't show anything) -- I asked the very simple question, "Does the magnet depolarize? Because all magnets, unless they're powered electro magnets, lose polarity and that's why.... when you suck up a coin with a magnet - you're not violating the laws of physics. It's not 'free energy', it's stored energy.
blah blah blah. My point being, with magnets involved, and this guy running around going, "I'm dyslexic and I have no education! LOOK AT ME!"... it's likely he's just using magnetic energy on a small scale and he can't find an energy loss because his test involves watching it a lot and going 'wee, it's accelerating!'
There have been a *lot* of free energy machines that accelerate. It's pretty much a basic tenet of a 'free energy machine'. If it doesn't accelerate, it's obviously not gaining energy. Because it accelerates doesn't mean the system is gaining energy either. But I seriously don't understand why anybody takes this seriously just because it accelerates.
They all accelerate, that's why people show them off. "Look I broke the laws of physics! It's accelerating!"
I honestly don't even think this guy has come up with an improvement to electric motors. You're going to find, when all is said and done - the acceleration comes from a magnet which, as complicated as the setup may be, requires more energy to polarize than it actually puts into acceleration. It may only have to be charged once every 5 years, but he's also (likely) only accelerating a wheel that weighs 20 grams with a lot of powerful magnets.
This is bunk. And the real test is this:
Make a second, identical device.
Start it running.
Let us know when it flies apart.
If it *ever* reaches a constant speed, and the magnets don't start sucking iron from the blood of passers by 10 miles away -- it's not gaining energy.
If it reaches a constant speed and then (as I suspect) stops when he leaves it there for a few hours or days (long enough that the casual observer wouldn't want to wait for when he's on tour with it) -- then it's a very obvious piece of crap.
If it reaches a constant speed, and you slow it down, and it stays slowed down.... same story.
The ability of this machine to generate energy can be disproved easily in so many different ways.
Tell him to make his spinning wheel charge a battery, and then hook that battery to his home electrical grid. It would cost him a couple hundred dollars to get the equipment to do it from a solar panel manufacturer. In most states the utility company pays you for power you generate. If he's getting free energy, he can get rich without our help.
Seriously. He's had years and his wife left him, but he never thought of that? that's like finding a genie lamp and never thinking of getting a tonne of money. That only happens on the x-files. And this demonstrates the other basic tenet of free energy machines:
2) They can't ever be hooked up to a generator.
They can do all sorts of nifty things, but for some reason getting rich by selling that free energy in the easiest way possible - to a utility company - just can never happen. You have to get millions from investors even though (here in Canada) Ontario Hydro would pay you indefinitely just to have your already created prototype running a generator.
Douginadress.com
This is amazing! Just imagine what they could accomplish if they tried to do something useful, innovative, or even - technologically challenging.
You're right, I don't know a lot about history. And I'm an ignorant Canadian. instead of talking to thousands of europeans to find out their opinion - I just read the article, and used wikipedia.
I feel so ignorant.
"As WND reported last year, Google had no problem honoring the war dead of other countries, creating a special logo with poppies for Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom." -- I guess this ISN'T the day celebrated all over europe. Sorry.
"Veterans Day is an American holiday honoring military veterans. Both a federal holiday and a state holiday in all states, it is celebrated on the same day as Armistice Day or Remembrance Day in other parts of the world, falling on November 11, the anniversary of the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I." - Wikipedia
I'm sorry I believed everybody but you and read the article.
I feel very ignorant.
Wow, world-wide Google finally honours a solely American holiday.
What took them so long? Common sense? psh. This is America buddy! got off your heathen muslim ass and f#{)en celebrate!
The interview transcript:
... what is it?"
... if you're going to talk about why I do that noise, don't get into all the super, very very technical aspects of how I came up with that. Just mention maybe, some of the contenders to that sound we had to eliminate using very very complicated, subjective, basic reasoning"
[...]
"The technical term is the fetch audio"
"Wow, that's very.... very technical. I'm not sure all of our readers will understand something of that complexity, could you explain it in very very simple terms. Something we could all relate to?"
"Well, basically, when the computer is getting information - this is the sound that plays"
"I still don't get it."
"Ok, you call - you ask for information - this is what plays"
"Wow. ok, and
"It's me pretending I'm a computer"
"Pretending! Doctor feynman, surely you're joking!"
"Well, yes... I am joking - it's a joke, because computers don't make that noise ever, and it doesn't sound like a computer at all, it sounds like me... spitting"
"Wow! that's fascinating"
"yeah.... yeah, sheila in accounting gets a kick out of it"
"Oh my god, so you get _requests_ to make that noise?"
"yep..."
"wow.... fascinating. absolutely fascinating. I don't understand anything you've just said - you must be eons beyond our human comprehension of space and time. How will I ever put this down on paper, in a way someone without a PHD could possibly understand?"
"Hrm... well.... let's not call it the... fetch.. audio - that is very complicated, and maybe
"Wow. thank you so much, this is going to be the best article my high school's every published!"
"high school!?"
"Could you do that sound for me? What do you call it?"
"... I call it the biddy-biddy-boop sound"
"But you never, ever make a biddy-biddy-boop sound while you're doing it"
"Shut up. [subject leaves]"