Great!!!!! Cut all of NASA's budget that has nothing to do with space exploration. Now that we will have an extra $15 billion a year to spend our of the $17 B they typically get, let's fund something worth while.
What straw man argument? Their budget has been cut or stagnate since Obama has been in office. Only this past year have they seen a nice bump, which just happens to coincide with this extra interest global warming and sea levels.
I would think that it would have been obvious that you have to clean them off once in a while. That is not degrading the solar cells ability to produce power, just blocking light from reaching them.
So what do we do with all the people who don't score high enough to do anything other than mining (basic manual labor)? War? Deport them? Sterilize them? Soylent green?
The only downside to these roofs is that they are of higher quality than the homes they would be going on. Most of the houses built these days are slapped together monstrosities that aren't designed to last much past 20 years.
So far they don't know how long solar panels will last. There are solar cells from the 50-60's still producing power.
The biggest problem for failure over the long term will be the framing, the racks, and the wiring. The cells themselves, absent stray rocks, will probably produces a useable amounts of power for over a hundred years. We are talking about he crystal/glass setups, not the plastic variety solar cells. Currently quite a few of the manufactures under promise the output of their cells so that they will still produce the rated amount of power for at least 20 years for their warranties. They seem to loose 5-10% of their output every decade or so.
So what you are saying is that it is a really expensive watch that has to be put on a charger every day.
Doesn't sound like a very good watch to me.
I like my solar Casio. It has survived everywhere I've taken it. Up in the mounts and scuba diving in the ocean. It doesn't need to be recharged. It tells time and has a compass. It does that job very well without me having to do anything more than put it on.
What you mean me using all that water in the first world is not stealing water from poor people in the third world?
That is big news. Someone needs to tell the UN and all their little SJW, tree hugger buddies about it.
You know though an extra 73 Billion gallons per year in the first world will have an impact on the 3rd. The tech for water capture will be made cheaper and make it's way into the 3rd. The extra food and manufacturing that will come with a drop in the price of water will result in more goods and services which too will find its way into the 3rd.
You don't make people's lives better by showing up with a tanker truck full of water. You make it easier for them to get water on their own and they will.
California has a similar problem. Farming eats up the bulk of their water usage but they sell water to the farmers anywhere from 1/10 to 1/4 the price that they charge people in the cities. Then they wonder why the farmers are growing dumb ass things such as rice in the desert. Hint rice doesn't grow in the fucking desert.
Step 1 go up to Home Depot. )
Step 2 buy a length of hose for $10
Step 3 connect one to each of the hundreds of millions of air conditions that dot the planets.
Step 4 collect the condensation instead of letting it run down the drain.
Use said water for toilet flushing, growing crops etc.
I get 5-10 gallons a day off my AC during the summer. It probably averages out to 2 gallons a day for the whole year.
That would be 200 million gallons of water per day or 73 Billion gallons per year assuming my 2 gallons a day as the average multiplied by 100,000,000 homes. sized air conditioners globally. 1 Billion dollars to retrofit 100million air conditioners. The hoses would last 10 years.
Price per gallon. 1.4 cents per gallon
Oh wait they wanted in Liters. ok. That would be 0.36 cents per Liter. 5.5 time under what they wanted.
The word you are dancing around is Japanese. No one refused because as any sane person would know that a rather large portion would be sympathetic to the Japanese cause. (They were) The sad part is that the other 90% made up of regular people (who would never harm anyone regardless of loyalties) and loyal Americans (those that who no longer saw themselves as Japanese).
Why would we register Muslim Americans? You don't think the government has already been doing that for the past 50 years? Think about ANYTHING you have ever filled out with all the little check boxes and then try to tell me that isn't true. There are plenty of lists of who is who and thanks to companies like Google its really easy to sort through the data.
Most people would have a problem with them rounding up the average Muslim in the US. On the other hand I highly doubt anyone would even blink (those nice people you mentioned, not including Liberals, they are not nice people) if Trump ordered every non-citizen Muslim with even a whiff of ties to any terrorist group deported tomorrow and a long hard look at the citizen variety with the same. Those that have real links could find themselves facing legal prosecution.
How exactly is that a problem? Why would that be wrong?
We are pretty different from the Germans because the sense of duty is gone from most of the population. Half the population doesn't believe in guns much less taking them up for a cause. There is less than 1% that are currently serving and maybe 10-15% that have served in the past. Very few of those people will stand with the government if push comes to shove.
Many countries will not be idle if the US does Civil War 2. You can kiss Europe goodbye and China will consolidate it's empire in Asia once again. The Middle East will be a bunch glowing parking lots of former arab capitals because Israel is not going to wait around to be steam rolled by the hoard. Africa will still be Africa.
The worst thing that will happen will be that a lot of people will starve to death in the US. Too many people are on the dole and can't/won't take care of themselves. You'll see a massive die off of the elderly and the poor if economic systems are disrupted due to conflict.
Frankly if we are in the middle of our own civil break down. I won't much care about the rest of the world.
Last time I checked we wouldn't be fighting against a modern, mechanized army. Not just because a large portion of said Army would walk out the day after being ordered to attack citizens, but the simple fact that their families would be EXTREMELY vulnerable to an irate, heavily armed portion of the population if they were break their oaths and turn on the citizens of the country. Most would just simply refuse to act rather than follow orders.
Make too much power by burning something and store the extra turning it into ethanol with 60% yields and then burn it later? They got an F in thermodynamics didn't they?
As a way to make ethanol it sounds very interesting. Lot's of places with too much CO2/power and not enough Rum (nuclear submarines, power plants, Mars). As a way to increase "efficiency" in the power grid not so much.
Come on, only the left tries to claim Hitler was far right, as they do with many things from their collective past that make them look bad. If you look at their policies, outside the race superiority non-sense, they look just like a liberal/socialist policy check list: Heavy government regulation of all things, strict economic controls, cradle to grave social programs, public schools, etc.
From a hard liberal view I can see how a Neo-Nazi looks "far right". This a relative thing only because they are so far left. From where I am sitting a Neo-Nazi is just an aggressive bigoted liberal, vs the modern more tolerant passive-aggressive PC (polite society bigotry) progressive liberal. If political position were houses on a street, they would be just a few houses over from one another, while classical liberals (libertarians), aka "the far right", would be 5 miles down the road out in the country.
"Only the strong survive" comes from social Darwinism." Bernard was a eugenicist not a Darwinist. He wanted to actively deal with thing he saw as problematic not just let nature take it's course. That meant getting rid of the trash taking up valuable space and breeding programs to improve the future. He would be more like a gardener or a rancher.
Designer babies may use some of the same tools as eugenics, but the philosophy is worlds apart. I have no problem with them as long as it is completely voluntary. What people do to themselves is up to them, just don't force me to participate or pay for it. Comparing people wanting to have healthy children or specific traits is vastly different than marching people off to gas chambers because they have a big nose, a low IQ, or lazy.
Bernard as with nearly all socialists believe they (ruling elite/government) should have the power to force their views and policies on public. In that case Hitler was very much the socialist.
There is a world of difference between social Darwinism, "Only the strong survive" also known as "we aren't going to kill you but we aren't going to try to save you either" and the policies of eugenics where the elites actively trimmed out the undesirable in society. See George Bernard Shaw for a famous socialist who pushed that agenda. The other big socialist/communist eugenics programs can be easily found under Hitler and Stalin and Mao. (Yes Hitler was a socialist, look it up already and stop being an ass.)
Cirby speaks the truth. Even that last bit. Go to any popular dive site and it will be half dead and picked clean of shells and other souvenirs. I have a favorite beach dive I do in......(not going to tell you). On the right side of the pier is where all the tourists go and it has nothing left but fish. Go on the left side of the pier where there is no beach access parking (damn those rich people and their condos) and it's a pain in the ass to haul your gear to and you can dive a Florida reef that they've claim doesn't exist anymore. It looks like a 1960's reef photo. Very pretty.
Couple items for those of you who don't spend much time underwater.
1. The mineral structure, the big rocky stuff that sinks pirate ships that run afoul the reef, IS...NOT...ALIVE... Never has been, never will be. It is merely the mineral deposits that corals deposit on things to use as a base on which to grow. So when they go on an on about it being thousands of years old and being the largest organism on the planet, they are either woefully ignorant or blatantly lying. It's like saying the human race is the biggest organism on the planet because we build cities and have people everywhere. Scratch off the top inch of a reef and you have hit the dead stuff.
2. Corals do not take thousands of years to grow. They take days, weeks, and sometimes months to grow. Many spawn free swimming and drifting larva every lunar cycle or so (full moon).
3. That's right boys and like the 2 girls here, corals are not plants, they are animals that cultivate algae inside themselves to use as a food source. That is the dreaded "bleaching" they are always worried about. Bleaching does not always equal death to a coral, nor is it always cause by a change in temperature. Disease, stress, salinity, water chemistry, water clarity, sand settling, and people (touching, nets, poisons, boats etc.) all cause that. Sometimes the corals dump the algae in order to get a more productive local algae to grow. Corals also catch and eat various things, hence why the bleaching is not a death sentence.
4. Coral reefs are not static. They move over time. When they spawn they dump millions of larvae into the currents which spread everywhere. If they find a spot that is favorable they will start a new reef. Storms break up the reefs and the chunks can go on to form new reefs or end up in dead spots on the old reef and patch the holes. So when they go on about parts of a reef dying, yep it probably is. Is that normal? Depends on why. A reef being smothered by runoff silt, probably not. Water temps changing, yep happens all the time. Currents and regional temps have never been static, they move and change with time. The reef will die off during the change. Temperature tolerant organism will take over, and when the temperature shifts back they too will move on or die and the corals will take over again....growing right back on top of the "dead" reef" like nothing ever happened..
5. Coral reefs can be replaced at an time in locations they find favorable by the average person. They'd like you to think that only dedicated government certified highly trained scientists are the ones capable of dealing with the problem. Not even remotely true. There is an entire cottage industry in the aquarium trade of people who grow corals in their homes. Those same techniques are used often to repopulate areas that have been damaged much in the same way you would replant trees after a hurricane. I personally have been kicking the idea around for years of building my own patch reef offshore for fun and profit down here in Florida away from the well known dive spots loved to death by tourists.
I love the ocean and spend is much time in it as I can, but I grow weary of the shrill land lubbers claiming to know what is best, if only we would just put them in charge. Fuck that. If the government was in charge of the ocean there would be a shortage of sand within 10 years.
No, because old people smell funny and are a drain on the economy, that and he is going senile, hence why he is standing in the middle of the road. To do anything but let the bus run him over would be an unkind act.
Slashdot Mirror
Great!!!!! Cut all of NASA's budget that has nothing to do with space exploration. Now that we will have an extra $15 billion a year to spend our of the $17 B they typically get, let's fund something worth while.
What straw man argument? Their budget has been cut or stagnate since Obama has been in office. Only this past year have they seen a nice bump, which just happens to coincide with this extra interest global warming and sea levels.
Also discovered in the study that 4 women were cheating on their partners.
It's worse than we thought!!!!!!! Please approve a $5 billion increase in our budget.
I would think that it would have been obvious that you have to clean them off once in a while. That is not degrading the solar cells ability to produce power, just blocking light from reaching them.
So what do we do with all the people who don't score high enough to do anything other than mining (basic manual labor)? War? Deport them? Sterilize them? Soylent green?
Duh, I always upgrade my miners the first chance I get. A dude with a pickaxe can't mine the gold fast enough for me.
This is a real product, solar frickin roadways is scam to defraud idiots in the public and the government.
The only downside to these roofs is that they are of higher quality than the homes they would be going on. Most of the houses built these days are slapped together monstrosities that aren't designed to last much past 20 years.
The biggest problem for failure over the long term will be the framing, the racks, and the wiring. The cells themselves, absent stray rocks, will probably produces a useable amounts of power for over a hundred years. We are talking about he crystal/glass setups, not the plastic variety solar cells. Currently quite a few of the manufactures under promise the output of their cells so that they will still produce the rated amount of power for at least 20 years for their warranties. They seem to loose 5-10% of their output every decade or so.
Doesn't sound like a very good watch to me.
I like my solar Casio. It has survived everywhere I've taken it. Up in the mounts and scuba diving in the ocean. It doesn't need to be recharged. It tells time and has a compass. It does that job very well without me having to do anything more than put it on.
That is big news. Someone needs to tell the UN and all their little SJW, tree hugger buddies about it.
You know though an extra 73 Billion gallons per year in the first world will have an impact on the 3rd. The tech for water capture will be made cheaper and make it's way into the 3rd. The extra food and manufacturing that will come with a drop in the price of water will result in more goods and services which too will find its way into the 3rd.
You don't make people's lives better by showing up with a tanker truck full of water. You make it easier for them to get water on their own and they will.
California has a similar problem. Farming eats up the bulk of their water usage but they sell water to the farmers anywhere from 1/10 to 1/4 the price that they charge people in the cities. Then they wonder why the farmers are growing dumb ass things such as rice in the desert. Hint rice doesn't grow in the fucking desert.
Step 1 go up to Home Depot.
) Step 2 buy a length of hose for $10
Step 3 connect one to each of the hundreds of millions of air conditions that dot the planets.
Step 4 collect the condensation instead of letting it run down the drain.
Use said water for toilet flushing, growing crops etc.
I get 5-10 gallons a day off my AC during the summer. It probably averages out to 2 gallons a day for the whole year.
That would be 200 million gallons of water per day or 73 Billion gallons per year assuming my 2 gallons a day as the average multiplied by 100,000,000 homes. sized air conditioners globally. 1 Billion dollars to retrofit 100million air conditioners. The hoses would last 10 years.
Price per gallon. 1.4 cents per gallon
Oh wait they wanted in Liters. ok. That would be 0.36 cents per Liter. 5.5 time under what they wanted.
Pay up bitches.
I need my phone to be a phone and my watch to be a watch. Smart watches are just shitty phones. I've already got a phone. Don't need a second one.
Why would we register Muslim Americans? You don't think the government has already been doing that for the past 50 years? Think about ANYTHING you have ever filled out with all the little check boxes and then try to tell me that isn't true. There are plenty of lists of who is who and thanks to companies like Google its really easy to sort through the data.
Most people would have a problem with them rounding up the average Muslim in the US. On the other hand I highly doubt anyone would even blink (those nice people you mentioned, not including Liberals, they are not nice people) if Trump ordered every non-citizen Muslim with even a whiff of ties to any terrorist group deported tomorrow and a long hard look at the citizen variety with the same. Those that have real links could find themselves facing legal prosecution.
How exactly is that a problem? Why would that be wrong?
Many countries will not be idle if the US does Civil War 2. You can kiss Europe goodbye and China will consolidate it's empire in Asia once again. The Middle East will be a bunch glowing parking lots of former arab capitals because Israel is not going to wait around to be steam rolled by the hoard. Africa will still be Africa.
The worst thing that will happen will be that a lot of people will starve to death in the US. Too many people are on the dole and can't/won't take care of themselves. You'll see a massive die off of the elderly and the poor if economic systems are disrupted due to conflict. Frankly if we are in the middle of our own civil break down. I won't much care about the rest of the world.
Last time I checked we wouldn't be fighting against a modern, mechanized army. Not just because a large portion of said Army would walk out the day after being ordered to attack citizens, but the simple fact that their families would be EXTREMELY vulnerable to an irate, heavily armed portion of the population if they were break their oaths and turn on the citizens of the country. Most would just simply refuse to act rather than follow orders.
As a way to make ethanol it sounds very interesting. Lot's of places with too much CO2/power and not enough Rum (nuclear submarines, power plants, Mars). As a way to increase "efficiency" in the power grid not so much.
Come on, only the left tries to claim Hitler was far right, as they do with many things from their collective past that make them look bad. If you look at their policies, outside the race superiority non-sense, they look just like a liberal/socialist policy check list: Heavy government regulation of all things, strict economic controls, cradle to grave social programs, public schools, etc.
From a hard liberal view I can see how a Neo-Nazi looks "far right". This a relative thing only because they are so far left. From where I am sitting a Neo-Nazi is just an aggressive bigoted liberal, vs the modern more tolerant passive-aggressive PC (polite society bigotry) progressive liberal. If political position were houses on a street, they would be just a few houses over from one another, while classical liberals (libertarians), aka "the far right", would be 5 miles down the road out in the country.
"Only the strong survive" comes from social Darwinism." Bernard was a eugenicist not a Darwinist. He wanted to actively deal with thing he saw as problematic not just let nature take it's course. That meant getting rid of the trash taking up valuable space and breeding programs to improve the future. He would be more like a gardener or a rancher.
Designer babies may use some of the same tools as eugenics, but the philosophy is worlds apart. I have no problem with them as long as it is completely voluntary. What people do to themselves is up to them, just don't force me to participate or pay for it. Comparing people wanting to have healthy children or specific traits is vastly different than marching people off to gas chambers because they have a big nose, a low IQ, or lazy.
Bernard as with nearly all socialists believe they (ruling elite/government) should have the power to force their views and policies on public. In that case Hitler was very much the socialist.
There is a world of difference between social Darwinism, "Only the strong survive" also known as "we aren't going to kill you but we aren't going to try to save you either" and the policies of eugenics where the elites actively trimmed out the undesirable in society. See George Bernard Shaw for a famous socialist who pushed that agenda. The other big socialist/communist eugenics programs can be easily found under Hitler and Stalin and Mao. (Yes Hitler was a socialist, look it up already and stop being an ass.)
Cirby speaks the truth. Even that last bit. Go to any popular dive site and it will be half dead and picked clean of shells and other souvenirs. I have a favorite beach dive I do in......(not going to tell you). On the right side of the pier is where all the tourists go and it has nothing left but fish. Go on the left side of the pier where there is no beach access parking (damn those rich people and their condos) and it's a pain in the ass to haul your gear to and you can dive a Florida reef that they've claim doesn't exist anymore. It looks like a 1960's reef photo. Very pretty.
Ever wonder why Liberals the party of "science" and especially evolution are the ones who object the loudest of it being applied to people?
1. The mineral structure, the big rocky stuff that sinks pirate ships that run afoul the reef, IS...NOT...ALIVE... Never has been, never will be. It is merely the mineral deposits that corals deposit on things to use as a base on which to grow. So when they go on an on about it being thousands of years old and being the largest organism on the planet, they are either woefully ignorant or blatantly lying. It's like saying the human race is the biggest organism on the planet because we build cities and have people everywhere. Scratch off the top inch of a reef and you have hit the dead stuff.
2. Corals do not take thousands of years to grow. They take days, weeks, and sometimes months to grow. Many spawn free swimming and drifting larva every lunar cycle or so (full moon).
3. That's right boys and like the 2 girls here, corals are not plants, they are animals that cultivate algae inside themselves to use as a food source. That is the dreaded "bleaching" they are always worried about. Bleaching does not always equal death to a coral, nor is it always cause by a change in temperature. Disease, stress, salinity, water chemistry, water clarity, sand settling, and people (touching, nets, poisons, boats etc.) all cause that. Sometimes the corals dump the algae in order to get a more productive local algae to grow. Corals also catch and eat various things, hence why the bleaching is not a death sentence.
4. Coral reefs are not static. They move over time. When they spawn they dump millions of larvae into the currents which spread everywhere. If they find a spot that is favorable they will start a new reef. Storms break up the reefs and the chunks can go on to form new reefs or end up in dead spots on the old reef and patch the holes. So when they go on about parts of a reef dying, yep it probably is. Is that normal? Depends on why. A reef being smothered by runoff silt, probably not. Water temps changing, yep happens all the time. Currents and regional temps have never been static, they move and change with time. The reef will die off during the change. Temperature tolerant organism will take over, and when the temperature shifts back they too will move on or die and the corals will take over again....growing right back on top of the "dead" reef" like nothing ever happened..
5. Coral reefs can be replaced at an time in locations they find favorable by the average person. They'd like you to think that only dedicated government certified highly trained scientists are the ones capable of dealing with the problem. Not even remotely true. There is an entire cottage industry in the aquarium trade of people who grow corals in their homes. Those same techniques are used often to repopulate areas that have been damaged much in the same way you would replant trees after a hurricane. I personally have been kicking the idea around for years of building my own patch reef offshore for fun and profit down here in Florida away from the well known dive spots loved to death by tourists.
I love the ocean and spend is much time in it as I can, but I grow weary of the shrill land lubbers claiming to know what is best, if only we would just put them in charge. Fuck that. If the government was in charge of the ocean there would be a shortage of sand within 10 years.
No, because old people smell funny and are a drain on the economy, that and he is going senile, hence why he is standing in the middle of the road. To do anything but let the bus run him over would be an unkind act.