Umm, Mars is remarkable similar to earth. It is a few Barr from having all three forms of water and people stille expect to find liquid water in aquifers on mars. The solar flux is well within the range that would support earth life. Mars is easily the closest planet to earth that we know of and in the past it was even closer.
As far as computer viruses, it is VERY easy to "kill" them...I suggest a nice power button with a magnet on the hard drive followed by an install disk. In an overtly artifical environment, yes computer viruses are the closest to acting like life. Now tell me how a computer virus could arrise spontaneously....
Even a sufficiently doped otherwise pure silicon asteroid bathed in solar energy wouldn't give rise to a "computer virus" and mars is not a sufficiently doped otherwise pure silicon planet. Therefore there is no reason to try and look for Computer viruses with the exceptionally limited resources availible on a Mars probe. Instead we should look for a life form that is even remotly likley.
Actually, there are fairly good odds that alien life uses DNA in a similar way that we do.
Primarily because proteins/amino acids are the only chemical family that has the variation needed for life to function. Sugars don't have the variety necessary and lipids have difficulty interacting with aqueous environments. the 20 amino acids we use cover the full range of conditions, acid/base/hydrophobic/hydrophilic/big/small/odd (proline). It is unlikley that other lifeforms will use significantly more or less amino acids even if the specific chemistry is slightly different.
The biggest problem with proteins is that they can't store information. They can't form complements and unfolding a protein to directly read off the amino acid sequence typically destroys the original protein. Life needs a repository of information that is self correcting and is non-destructive to existing proteins.
Since sugars and amino acids are common (sugar forms easily and amino acids are necessary for efficient life) it is not unlikley that DNA/RNA (which is based off of these two molecular families) would form and it DOES fit the bill for data storage. Since simplicity provides stability, it is unlikley that a huge number of different base pairs would be used so either 2 or 4 bases are likley. Due to space limitations it is very unlikley that a DNA/RNA system would use more than 3 hydrogen bonds and 1 hydrogen bond is too weak. Therefore the list of usefull base pairs drops to either 2 or 3 bonds and we call them adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.
I freely admit that this is based off of an N of 1. But even with that said it is important to remember that life is hard and the simpiler/more efficient a system is the better able a life form is to survive. While the system we use isn't mandatory, it is very likley that it is representative of other similarly effective systems.
A PCR system would be able to detect the residue of a lifeform that looks even remotly like us on a molecular level. Since we know our system works and we have no knowledge of a different life system it is only reasonable to look for a system we know works. PCR is our best bet for identifying life.
The arguments are generally flawed, there is very little actual data to back up any statments and the author ignores a wide range of actual data that has been proven. Where as time and again the bible has proven an excellent reference for archeological expiditions in the region. Time and again purley secular Roman or Egyptian documentation is discovered that confirms the history as described in the bible.
Your website is about as accurate as evilbible.com.
Take a look, it is really kind of funny how the author makes a statment, uses scripture to back it up and the scripture say exactly the oposite of what the author is trying to argue.
Umm...Ark of the Covenant (the wood box covered in gold...think Indiana Jones #1)..NOT Ark of Noah (the Zoo)...
What is probably being referenced in the story of Noah is a large but generally localized flood. Probably caused by a tsunami. From the knowledge of the writer it DID kill everyone in the known world.
But the fact that you made that kind of stupid assumption that on the face of it makes NO sense really casts anything else you put forth in a very poor light.
Tell me that the next time your wife asks you "does this make me look fat".:-)
You obviously haven't been married long if at all...the correct answer is "huh?" as you look aimlessly elsewhere:-)
My point on lieing is that intending to mislead someone may salve a moment but doesn't help them in the long term. You never HAVE to answer anything if you don't want to. The truth is that everyone will die eventually. Lieing to someone to spare their feelings usually just helps keep them deluded and prevents them from addressing the problem...whether it is solvable or not.
Now remember I use small lies like that as well. Honestly I just don't have the strength to be that honest with people.
The original sin debate does rage on. The idea is that Adam as the original man is actually a representative of all man kind. However this is only a possibile argument if you aasume that the Adam-Eve story is just religious allegory and doesn't represent a true occurance. My stance allows for either allegory or fact.
You're missing the point. I'm not trying to argue the morality of abortion one way or the other. Merely pointing out that honest people can have an honest disagreement about the morality ("goodness") of the act.
Actually, I don't think there is any debate on morality. The debate is on the application of morality. Fundamental morality is very simple...respect for life and opinions. The question arrises when we try to define life or when opinions conflict.
If you follow the bible than she is doing nothing wrong. According to Exodus the unborn is chattel. If you kill the unborn you must repay the owner (Father in the old testament) but your life is NOT forfeit like it would be if you killed anyone else, even accidentally.
I personally think that a fetus is as valuable as the parents decide. Some elevate the unborn on-par with a child. Others place no value on it. However once a child is born it has the same rights as anyone else. Unlike some other Christians, I follow the bible.
And yes I more or less understand the concept of original sin and I do not accept it as the premise for any rational discussion
Deuteronomy states that we are not to stone the son for the sins of the father nor the father for the sins of the son. Each person must answer for their own sins. While the original sin does provide an example of the sins of man, you and I bear no guilt for the sins of Adam. We are each born with a blank slate...sinless. It is for our own sins that we must answer and no one else.
Why would a white lie necessarily be bad?
The intention to miss-lead is a sin. Why tell the person "I don't know where my family is." when you could say "There is no way in HELL I will ever tell you where they are." I have yet to find a situation where a lie is honestly necessary.
yes I have actually read the old and new testaments cover to cover
I am impressed. It is rare to run across an agnostic that has actually researched their belief (and yes sadly most Christians are the same way).
You can be a "good" person without being a perfect person.
The grandfather mist-stated however. I think what he meant to say is that there cannot be a "Good enough" person.
I am happy being a good person on earth. I am reasonably honest. I don't beat my family. I don't cheat on my taxes. I don't cheat on my wife. I do charitable work and give money to several different charities. I am friendly and people generally like me. I think I am living a good life.
However when compared to perfect I fall woefully short and I know it. I do tell white lies. I do have some income that isn't reported on my taxes (ebay sales). I haven't hit my wife but I've thought of it. I haven't cheated on my wife but I have been on the internet for almost 20 years. I make $120,000 a years and only a small percentage goes to charity. Since god demands perfection I am up S**T creek.
Fortunetly God provided a loop hole for me and for you if you choose to use it.
Have you ever actually read the bible cover to cover? Just a thought.
I went through that website and it really is kind of silly.
I read 15 pages of quotes in virtually every one the quote itself disproved the thesis of the page....I especially like the "Jesus is a liar" page. Every single quote said if you are absoultly certain you have faith then (and only then) god will do as you pray. Thoes quotes that didn't say that included the word "may." I AM a christian and I can tell you that I struggle with doubt every day. In addition God doesn't give a time frame for the prayer to be answered.
Yes, the bible was set in a very violent time. Yes it offends our modern tastes. However I have yet to find a place in the bible where god did not warn people over and over again BEFORE bad things happen.
The closest is Israel occupying the promised land. But did you notice that God didn't instruct the Israelites to hunt down and kill everyone who voluntairly left Cannan? Yes, taking the land (which had already belonged to Abraham in the past) was a mean (but not uncommon for all cultures) thing to do, but God did not order the extinction of the local inhaitants, only their removal. Only the people who refused to leave were to be killed, and they knew they could leave.
I hope you re-read the "evilBible" and keep a copy of the actual bible next to you when you do.
Or better yet, read the bible. At the very least it is a remarkable historical document and provides insight into theological thought. Just remember that the bible is a single tale and dicussus the cultural evolution of man through it's volumes.
Actually, with the exception of specific conversations between two people, the bible has proven to be almost perfectly accurate.
Archeology, third party histories and other evidence pretty much always proves that the larger events and geographies are accurate.
-There are egyptian writtings that confirm the plagues. -Sodom and Gramorrah have been found and were both destroyed at the same time, having burnt down. -There is more third party documentation as to the life and crusifiction of Christ than there is for the life and death of Julius Ceaser. -Paul's exploits were well documented -the dead sea scrolls showend minimal historical drift in the text
The list goes on and on.
There are very few sections of the bible that are presented as fact when they may be religious allegory..the genesis story and Revelation are the big ones. Most other places the extraordinary occurances are events that DO happen (ie the plagues of Egypt) or are presented in dreams. But what I find so interesting about Genesis is that it actually does follow our current understanding of the creation of the universe, our solar system and the earth-moon system. I could easily beleive that a stone age man "receiving" an image of how the universe began would come up with a Genisis story from what he saw.
The astonding accuracy is a result of the honor placed on the document. Most of the old testement was kept in the Ark and once every 49 years it was taken out and read in public then returned to the Ark until about 60 AD. This archiving maintained the original text without historical drift. Once the new testament was cannonized in the 4th century, it was maintained equally zealously. Monks studies for years to be allowed to hand copy the bible and do so with such expertise that it was impossible to tell the original from the copy.
The reason conversations are necessarily excluded for the statment of accuracy is simply because there is usually no way to confirm or deny them. We only have Moses's word that a bush appeared to be on fire and talked with him. However we can reasonably assume that the text in the bible is the same text that was written 1,800 years ago.
You really should actually read the bible. It is a remarkably good read and provides real insight into that part of history, human psycology not to mention religious theory.
Actually I don't know that he bought it new. I actually figured he was using a used truck. I guessed at $7K since it is a reasonable price for that kind of used truck. However the truck did look newer so it might be even more.
But regardless he went from having a ICE powered truck to a EV truck. The truck part should be removed from the equation.
Therefore by spending the $5000 extra he has saved $700 in six months over what he would have spent with his gas truck.
But you bring up an interesting point...are you sure it is neccessary to buy a vehicle to do the conversion?
A vehicle is something you can climb into and it moves. If you are going to strip out the engine compartment anyway, you could always buy a vehicle that is dead because the engine block is cracked. So long as the frame and transmission are in good shape nothing else really maters. You can buy dead trucks/cars for under $1000...That would drop the price to $6K or so....
Umm, the average commute is 15 miles each way so the truck described would be fine.
I am not suggesting that the EV described in the article is where it should stay. EV's won't seriously replace ICE until EV has the range and performance of ICE.
Now if the guy used something other than very low power density lead-acid batteries he would get better than 100 miles but that adds to cost. Plus I bet he doesn't have very good regenerative bracking if any at all. Current regenerative systems only capture about 10% of the availible energy. This is steadily improving and is mainly restricted by the batteries ability to absorb the energy quickly enough.
A True EV will have 4 smaller motors, one per wheel. These will double as brakes and have efficiencies in the 90% range. The primary losses for this car would be wind resistance and cabin environmental controls. It takes the average electric car 100 watt-hours to drive at 60 MPH and about 250 to drive at 80. The truck described is a VERY inefficient design but even so look at how well it did.
EV's will mostly be charged at night which is already off-peak. Therefore the current power grid can easily accomidate all the power needs even if up to 80% of all vehicles were electric.
Plus since the biggest issues with power plants profitability is the disparity between base and peak loads, having electric cars raise the base load could actually LOWER the overall price of power.
Plus it makes the cost of solar power MUCH more favorable. Over the next few years solar efficiency and electrical storage will increase dramatically. This makes home power generation even more favorable.
By the time the current power grid can't handle the demand (in about 20 years) there is plenty of time to upgrade the system without strain.
The $12,000 INCLUDED the truck. The truck probably ran around $7,000. So $5000 saved $700 in 6 months. At $1400 a year we are looking at 3.6 years. in addition EV's typcially cost 50% to run outside of the cost of fuel. Since he would probably spend around $1000 a year for repairs on the truck, the actual savings are $1900 a year for about 2.5 years.
Electic Vehicles are about break-even for city driving/daily commutes. In the next 2 years the power storage will increase and become cheaper pushing EV's into the financial smart move category.
Yes, even considering the dramatically dangerous environment on the road, the average life expectancy (excluding natural death) is around 1000 years.
Remember in a world where your entier body can be replaced easily and most brain damage can be repaired, only the accidents that kill you outright or within a few minutes will actually end your life.
Plus even with current medical tech irreversabile brain damage still takes 7-10 minutes of no bloodflow. So even arterial hemoraging would give you a good 15-20 minutes before irreversable damage/death. Unless youn are out in the middle of no where it is likley emergency help coould get to you in time.
PLUS...both active and passive safety systems have been improving dramatically in the last few years. This trend is likley to continue.
And who says it isn't possible to rejuvinate the brain?
The old assumption that no new neurons are created was disproven a decade ago. Neurons have a remarkable ability to self organize. The most promising treatment for Parkinson's is to inject pre-neurons into the target are and let them take hold.
PLUS why would it be impossible to replace the brain? True it is significantly more complex but that doesn't preclude the possibility.
The reason I say 1000 is that with organ replacement there is no reason to simply die. But if you look at the statistics, random accidents will have a 50% shot of killing you by the age 1000.
Tissue and somatic genetic engineering will allow us to avoid or activly fix most if not all illnesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, Mars is remarkable similar to earth. It is a few Barr from having all three forms of water and people stille expect to find liquid water in aquifers on mars. The solar flux is well within the range that would support earth life. Mars is easily the closest planet to earth that we know of and in the past it was even closer.
As far as computer viruses, it is VERY easy to "kill" them...I suggest a nice power button with a magnet on the hard drive followed by an install disk. In an overtly artifical environment, yes computer viruses are the closest to acting like life. Now tell me how a computer virus could arrise spontaneously....
Even a sufficiently doped otherwise pure silicon asteroid bathed in solar energy wouldn't give rise to a "computer virus" and mars is not a sufficiently doped otherwise pure silicon planet. Therefore there is no reason to try and look for Computer viruses with the exceptionally limited resources availible on a Mars probe. Instead we should look for a life form that is even remotly likley.
Actually, there are fairly good odds that alien life uses DNA in a similar way that we do.
Primarily because proteins/amino acids are the only chemical family that has the variation needed for life to function. Sugars don't have the variety necessary and lipids have difficulty interacting with aqueous environments. the 20 amino acids we use cover the full range of conditions, acid/base/hydrophobic/hydrophilic/big/small/odd (proline). It is unlikley that other lifeforms will use significantly more or less amino acids even if the specific chemistry is slightly different.
The biggest problem with proteins is that they can't store information. They can't form complements and unfolding a protein to directly read off the amino acid sequence typically destroys the original protein. Life needs a repository of information that is self correcting and is non-destructive to existing proteins.
Since sugars and amino acids are common (sugar forms easily and amino acids are necessary for efficient life) it is not unlikley that DNA/RNA (which is based off of these two molecular families) would form and it DOES fit the bill for data storage. Since simplicity provides stability, it is unlikley that a huge number of different base pairs would be used so either 2 or 4 bases are likley. Due to space limitations it is very unlikley that a DNA/RNA system would use more than 3 hydrogen bonds and 1 hydrogen bond is too weak. Therefore the list of usefull base pairs drops to either 2 or 3 bonds and we call them adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.
I freely admit that this is based off of an N of 1. But even with that said it is important to remember that life is hard and the simpiler/more efficient a system is the better able a life form is to survive. While the system we use isn't mandatory, it is very likley that it is representative of other similarly effective systems.
A PCR system would be able to detect the residue of a lifeform that looks even remotly like us on a molecular level. Since we know our system works and we have no knowledge of a different life system it is only reasonable to look for a system we know works. PCR is our best bet for identifying life.
Yes I've read all thoes books.
The arguments are generally flawed, there is very little actual data to back up any statments and the author ignores a wide range of actual data that has been proven. Where as time and again the bible has proven an excellent reference for archeological expiditions in the region. Time and again purley secular Roman or Egyptian documentation is discovered that confirms the history as described in the bible.
Your website is about as accurate as evilbible.com.
Take a look, it is really kind of funny how the author makes a statment, uses scripture to back it up and the scripture say exactly the oposite of what the author is trying to argue.
Umm...Ark of the Covenant (the wood box covered in gold...think Indiana Jones #1)..NOT Ark of Noah (the Zoo)...
What is probably being referenced in the story of Noah is a large but generally localized flood. Probably caused by a tsunami. From the knowledge of the writer it DID kill everyone in the known world.
But the fact that you made that kind of stupid assumption that on the face of it makes NO sense really casts anything else you put forth in a very poor light.
Tell me that the next time your wife asks you "does this make me look fat". :-)
You obviously haven't been married long if at all...the correct answer is "huh?" as you look aimlessly elsewhere :-)
My point on lieing is that intending to mislead someone may salve a moment but doesn't help them in the long term. You never HAVE to answer anything if you don't want to. The truth is that everyone will die eventually. Lieing to someone to spare their feelings usually just helps keep them deluded and prevents them from addressing the problem...whether it is solvable or not.
Now remember I use small lies like that as well. Honestly I just don't have the strength to be that honest with people.
The original sin debate does rage on. The idea is that Adam as the original man is actually a representative of all man kind. However this is only a possibile argument if you aasume that the Adam-Eve story is just religious allegory and doesn't represent a true occurance. My stance allows for either allegory or fact.
You're missing the point. I'm not trying to argue the morality of abortion one way or the other. Merely pointing out that honest people can have an honest disagreement about the morality ("goodness") of the act.
Actually, I don't think there is any debate on morality. The debate is on the application of morality. Fundamental morality is very simple...respect for life and opinions. The question arrises when we try to define life or when opinions conflict.
Been fun :)
Let's say a woman has an abortion.
If you follow the bible than she is doing nothing wrong. According to Exodus the unborn is chattel. If you kill the unborn you must repay the owner (Father in the old testament) but your life is NOT forfeit like it would be if you killed anyone else, even accidentally.
I personally think that a fetus is as valuable as the parents decide. Some elevate the unborn on-par with a child. Others place no value on it. However once a child is born it has the same rights as anyone else. Unlike some other Christians, I follow the bible.
And yes I more or less understand the concept of original sin and I do not accept it as the premise for any rational discussion
Deuteronomy states that we are not to stone the son for the sins of the father nor the father for the sins of the son. Each person must answer for their own sins. While the original sin does provide an example of the sins of man, you and I bear no guilt for the sins of Adam. We are each born with a blank slate...sinless. It is for our own sins that we must answer and no one else.
Why would a white lie necessarily be bad?
The intention to miss-lead is a sin. Why tell the person "I don't know where my family is." when you could say "There is no way in HELL I will ever tell you where they are." I have yet to find a situation where a lie is honestly necessary.
yes I have actually read the old and new testaments cover to cover
I am impressed. It is rare to run across an agnostic that has actually researched their belief (and yes sadly most Christians are the same way).
You know, I completly agree with you.
You can be a "good" person without being a perfect person.
The grandfather mist-stated however. I think what he meant to say is that there cannot be a "Good enough" person.
I am happy being a good person on earth. I am reasonably honest. I don't beat my family. I don't cheat on my taxes. I don't cheat on my wife. I do charitable work and give money to several different charities. I am friendly and people generally like me. I think I am living a good life.
However when compared to perfect I fall woefully short and I know it. I do tell white lies. I do have some income that isn't reported on my taxes (ebay sales). I haven't hit my wife but I've thought of it. I haven't cheated on my wife but I have been on the internet for almost 20 years. I make $120,000 a years and only a small percentage goes to charity. Since god demands perfection I am up S**T creek.
Fortunetly God provided a loop hole for me and for you if you choose to use it.
Have you ever actually read the bible cover to cover? Just a thought.
I went through that website and it really is kind of silly.
I read 15 pages of quotes in virtually every one the quote itself disproved the thesis of the page....I especially like the "Jesus is a liar" page. Every single quote said if you are absoultly certain you have faith then (and only then) god will do as you pray. Thoes quotes that didn't say that included the word "may." I AM a christian and I can tell you that I struggle with doubt every day. In addition God doesn't give a time frame for the prayer to be answered.
Yes, the bible was set in a very violent time. Yes it offends our modern tastes. However I have yet to find a place in the bible where god did not warn people over and over again BEFORE bad things happen.
The closest is Israel occupying the promised land. But did you notice that God didn't instruct the Israelites to hunt down and kill everyone who voluntairly left Cannan? Yes, taking the land (which had already belonged to Abraham in the past) was a mean (but not uncommon for all cultures) thing to do, but God did not order the extinction of the local inhaitants, only their removal. Only the people who refused to leave were to be killed, and they knew they could leave.
I hope you re-read the "evilBible" and keep a copy of the actual bible next to you when you do.
Or better yet, read the bible. At the very least it is a remarkable historical document and provides insight into theological thought. Just remember that the bible is a single tale and dicussus the cultural evolution of man through it's volumes.
Actually, with the exception of specific conversations between two people, the bible has proven to be almost perfectly accurate.
Archeology, third party histories and other evidence pretty much always proves that the larger events and geographies are accurate.
-There are egyptian writtings that confirm the plagues.
-Sodom and Gramorrah have been found and were both destroyed at the same time, having burnt down.
-There is more third party documentation as to the life and crusifiction of Christ than there is for the life and death of Julius Ceaser.
-Paul's exploits were well documented
-the dead sea scrolls showend minimal historical drift in the text
The list goes on and on.
There are very few sections of the bible that are presented as fact when they may be religious allegory..the genesis story and Revelation are the big ones. Most other places the extraordinary occurances are events that DO happen (ie the plagues of Egypt) or are presented in dreams. But what I find so interesting about Genesis is that it actually does follow our current understanding of the creation of the universe, our solar system and the earth-moon system. I could easily beleive that a stone age man "receiving" an image of how the universe began would come up with a Genisis story from what he saw.
The astonding accuracy is a result of the honor placed on the document. Most of the old testement was kept in the Ark and once every 49 years it was taken out and read in public then returned to the Ark until about 60 AD. This archiving maintained the original text without historical drift. Once the new testament was cannonized in the 4th century, it was maintained equally zealously. Monks studies for years to be allowed to hand copy the bible and do so with such expertise that it was impossible to tell the original from the copy.
The reason conversations are necessarily excluded for the statment of accuracy is simply because there is usually no way to confirm or deny them. We only have Moses's word that a bush appeared to be on fire and talked with him. However we can reasonably assume that the text in the bible is the same text that was written 1,800 years ago.
You really should actually read the bible. It is a remarkably good read and provides real insight into that part of history, human psycology not to mention religious theory.
I always thought the Orion project was a really elegant solution to interstellar travel considering the thechnology!
I read the article and thought...
Ohh they are doing Nuclear powered spacecraft tests!!
Bummer...
Actually I don't know that he bought it new. I actually figured he was using a used truck. I guessed at $7K since it is a reasonable price for that kind of used truck. However the truck did look newer so it might be even more.
But regardless he went from having a ICE powered truck to a EV truck. The truck part should be removed from the equation.
Therefore by spending the $5000 extra he has saved $700 in six months over what he would have spent with his gas truck.
But you bring up an interesting point...are you sure it is neccessary to buy a vehicle to do the conversion?
A vehicle is something you can climb into and it moves. If you are going to strip out the engine compartment anyway, you could always buy a vehicle that is dead because the engine block is cracked. So long as the frame and transmission are in good shape nothing else really maters. You can buy dead trucks/cars for under $1000...That would drop the price to $6K or so....
I am looking forward to hearing more about eestor.
52 KW-h at 400 lbs and $3200
They claim units will be shiped early next year...
Umm, the average commute is 15 miles each way so the truck described would be fine.
I am not suggesting that the EV described in the article is where it should stay. EV's won't seriously replace ICE until EV has the range and performance of ICE.
Now if the guy used something other than very low power density lead-acid batteries he would get better than 100 miles but that adds to cost. Plus I bet he doesn't have very good regenerative bracking if any at all. Current regenerative systems only capture about 10% of the availible energy. This is steadily improving and is mainly restricted by the batteries ability to absorb the energy quickly enough.
A True EV will have 4 smaller motors, one per wheel. These will double as brakes and have efficiencies in the 90% range. The primary losses for this car would be wind resistance and cabin environmental controls. It takes the average electric car 100 watt-hours to drive at 60 MPH and about 250 to drive at 80. The truck described is a VERY inefficient design but even so look at how well it did.
Actually there isn't much of an issue here.
EV's will mostly be charged at night which is already off-peak. Therefore the current power grid can easily accomidate all the power needs even if up to 80% of all vehicles were electric.
Plus since the biggest issues with power plants profitability is the disparity between base and peak loads, having electric cars raise the base load could actually LOWER the overall price of power.
Plus it makes the cost of solar power MUCH more favorable. Over the next few years solar efficiency and electrical storage will increase dramatically. This makes home power generation even more favorable.
By the time the current power grid can't handle the demand (in about 20 years) there is plenty of time to upgrade the system without strain.
Umm...RTFA!
The $12,000 INCLUDED the truck. The truck probably ran around $7,000. So $5000 saved $700 in 6 months. At $1400 a year we are looking at 3.6 years. in addition EV's typcially cost 50% to run outside of the cost of fuel. Since he would probably spend around $1000 a year for repairs on the truck, the actual savings are $1900 a year for about 2.5 years.
Electic Vehicles are about break-even for city driving/daily commutes. In the next 2 years the power storage will increase and become cheaper pushing EV's into the financial smart move category.
Yes, even considering the dramatically dangerous environment on the road, the average life expectancy (excluding natural death) is around 1000 years.
Remember in a world where your entier body can be replaced easily and most brain damage can be repaired, only the accidents that kill you outright or within a few minutes will actually end your life.
Plus even with current medical tech irreversabile brain damage still takes 7-10 minutes of no bloodflow. So even arterial hemoraging would give you a good 15-20 minutes before irreversable damage/death. Unless youn are out in the middle of no where it is likley emergency help coould get to you in time.
PLUS...both active and passive safety systems have been improving dramatically in the last few years. This trend is likley to continue.
And who says it isn't possible to rejuvinate the brain?
The old assumption that no new neurons are created was disproven a decade ago. Neurons have a remarkable ability to self organize. The most promising treatment for Parkinson's is to inject pre-neurons into the target are and let them take hold.
PLUS why would it be impossible to replace the brain? True it is significantly more complex but that doesn't preclude the possibility.
BUT...
If I can just go down the street and replace my body when I need to then the poor health habits will not effect longevity.
It is a whole different way of looking at health and the body.
The reason I say 1000 is that with organ replacement there is no reason to simply die. But if you look at the statistics, random accidents will have a 50% shot of killing you by the age 1000.
Tissue and somatic genetic engineering will allow us to avoid or activly fix most if not all illnesses.
Not at all! We are probably the first generation that has a serious chance of living to a Thousand...
In a hundred years I plan on living on Mars and the US broadband speed is WAY better than the one on Mars...
GO US!
I mean seriously...at least 76 other people have honey.bunny!
Think up something new!
So as I understand it, one of the big issues with hydrogen as a fuel is that it leaks really easily...
So we line the tank with this stuff and the H2 gas won't escape anywhere except the valve.
pB11 in a Bussard Polywell!!
We should hear something in the next month!