Did you know that some of Nicola Tesla's work is still classified by the US government? Near as I can tell, it's because it's related to this work. Pretty cool if you ask me since the guy died 50 years ago!
Now we're going in a different direction. I'm not going to argue with your view of people and the world. Clearly, I have a much more positive view of both. Both of us are making fair evaluations of people. I choose to neither ignore humanities evils or it's virtues. That's my world, and I'm content in it. Hopefully, you are in yours.
Oh, go ahead and do it; just don't pretend that it's actually going to accomplish anything. I'm afraid the only solution is massive population reduction; the only permanent solution is extinction.
Wow, you're quite the pessimist. I have a different view. Humans are smart, and I'm betting on our survival. There is another solution. Fusion, or maybe something else no one's thought of yet. Have you heard of those folks in New Mexico, France, England, and Germany experimenting with bacteria that fairly convert sunlight directly into hydrogen. That could be quite a solution to our energy problems. Granted, fusion, likely the best solution, is probably not going to be effective for a while; decades, but humans have a knack for finding solutions. There a need for more energy and clean energy, and there are millions of smart people out there. I'll bet on them before I start talking about death. I guess you could always hope for a big asteroid, though.
As for me, I haven't lost my youthful optimism, so I'll stick around a while and see if I can't lend a hand. Besides, you don't fight the fights you know you'll win. You fight the fights worth fighting.
No I didn't. It is, but switching to X isn't going to make any difference in the long run; it's attitudes that are the problem.
I see that I mistook your comments from the first person I responded to. My mistake.
Using lightbulbs that are 5-10 times more efficient will help some; hence why Long Island's power company, LIPA, gives them away for free to it's customers. They figure that if most of their customers do that, then they'll save the cost of building a new powerplant. That's also why they are encouraging customers to take advantage of NYS's alternative energy tax breaks. I'd say that'd make a difference in the long run, and perhaps the people who get involved with this will continue down that path.
To the real point, I do agree with you. Attitudes are the problem, so why attempt to discourage me when I am making an effort to lessen my impact? Honestly, it doesn't make any sence to me. It seems clear that you are someone who care about the environment, but I'm not convinced that you're actually doing anything about it? I do. Every now and again I've convinced a friend to do some of the things that I do; like the lights bit and recycling. Granted, the latter is the law in NYC.
Basically, I'm missing your point as to why I shouldn't? It certainly wouldn't hurt, and only wastes my time.
Even something as small as using a flourescent bulb in place of an incandescent helps.
You're kidding yourself.
I find your comment hypocritical. You said earlier that the US is a big polluter. Lighting is between 30-40% of US electrical usage, so the potential for savings with going from a 5% effiecent device to a roughly 35-40% efficient device is significant. Since most of that usage is done in homes, then to discourage the adoption of such things is fool hearty and works against your very complaint about Americans.
Honestly, it makes you sound foolish, and I doubt it will help you convince other people to agree with you.
If you think that the US is the only one trying to bend, twist, and warp those agreements, then you are mistaken. Everybody does it.
Ah, well you're excused then. Sorry about the confusion.
Again, you make a valid point. Two wrongs don't make a right after all. The point that I was trying to make is that it appeared to me that you were implying that only the US does those things. That is not fair. The fact that no one SHOULD do those things; I don't think anyone would dispute. It'd be nice if no one committed murder either, and I don't make the analgy loosely. In regards to the poorer countries, when the richer ones do that it often results in greater poverty for them while maintaining greater ease for the rich. I try to keep that stuff in mind when I vote with both my wallet and my ballot. Even something as small as using a flourescent bulb in place of an incandescent helps.
Just to generate converstion... how would you feel about setting up.xxx as a domain name and REQUIRING all pornographic material to be confined to this domain? How do you think the porn industry would feel?
Yeah, that's the real problem, isn't it. I don't like the idea of REQUIRING it. Still, perhaps it's not the worst idea. After all, cities and towns have zones for that stuff. Hmmm, as you can see I am of two minds on it. I guess, I'd have to say that you might be able to convince them it was a public service thing, and my guess is they wouldn't mind. That would be the best option.
World: We want equal partnership in the Internet
USA: No, it's all ours
well, why not? Although it would not doubt be technically difficult, and perhaps stupid, but why not have each country setup their own net and link them to eachother. Then places that want to adjust things their way could do it. We could retune this thing. It's not like they HAVE to use our version of the net.
World: Ok, we want the US to follow UN directives and not invade countries at a whim
USA: No, can't tell me what to do, I'll invade whatever country I want
Actually, if you look at the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, Iraq violated it. If for no other reason, we had the leagal grounds to invade. In general, you'd be hard pressed to find a country clean on that; Switzerland, maybe?
World: Ok, we want the US to honour free trade agreements, just like you expect us to
USA: No, I'll break free trade agreements whenever it suits me If you think that the US is the only one trying to bend, twist, and warp those agreements, then you are mistaken. Everybody does it. Ask an African how they feel about Europe or America's farm subsuties. That's international politics.
World: Ok, we want the US to stop polluting our part of the world
USA: No, I don't give a crap about you, I'll shit on your lawn and piss on your door
Well, this one is probably true to a point; especially if you feel CO2 is a pollutant. One thing though, most of Europe is not going to meet Kyoto; at least the last time I checked. As far as I know, although we use by far the most energy by capita, we are more efficient in our usage in many areas; admittedly cars not being one of them. Did you know that a third of the air polution in LA comes from China; the smog forming pollutants? Check the EPA's website on that stuff. Sad, and interesting reading. Still, you do have a point. There is not enough responcibility here when it comes to that.
World: You know, you really are a jerk
USA: Shutup or I'll beat you up
World:...
I believe this is generally a crack at the current administration, but I don't recall the rest of the world loving us all that much when Clinton was running things.
As an aside, Isolationism was our foreign policy before WWI. It was the Europeans who drew us into it, and changed it all. Granted, one could make many different arguments for our involvement in that war; the Lusatania and all; but both sides did want our support and involvment. For a while, contrary to popular belief, we sold arms and equipment to both sides. After the war, we tried to return to isolationism. Again, they drew us back in. Granted some of FDR's policies could be argued to help that to happen. After all, he was the driving force behind the Lend Lease Act, and the sanctions for Japan. Even if I think those sanctions, like not selling oil, arms, and scrap metal to Japan was supported by our political view of their actions in places like China, it still is one of the reasons for their attack. Granted Yamamato himself said that part of it was also due to the fact that we were the last strong colonial power in the area; the French, Dutch, and British being busy with the Germans. After that, we had the Russians to contend with. Europe seemed pretty happy with the Marshall plan, and our support keeping them at bay for a few decades. It seems we're not needed now in that role anymore, but it's one that's not easy to let go of. For all of our faults, and admitedly we have our share, we've also done pleanty of good.
Something just came to mind. You said USA: Shutup or I'll beat you up. It was Machivelli who said that might makes right. Perhaps Europe's military needs to be larger.... I would not complain.
yeah, i think.xxx is a great idea. how much easier would it be for parents, via parental controls on a bowser, to lock them out. Then those of us who like that stuff could enjoy it with no problem, and those against could more easily block it. Seemed like the dumbest thing the ultra religious/conservative folks did regarding the net.
Granted, fuel cells have considerable energy-density advantages over current chemical cells, but it will never be enough until we have devices that will *never* need a recharge, battery replacement, or refill.
"Bart, we obey the laws of physics in this house!"
Wind power usually isn't practical or environmental for large-scale deployment (land usage/kW is too high),
Can't you put these things on farms, and make the bottom of the blades high enough off the ground so a farmer can get a combine around it? Wouldn't that make sence?
I think he means more of the fact that the CD-Record (album) sales model is disappearing . It's entirely possible that the artists will release their music directly to iTunes - Napster - Yahoo (web distro) and skip the RIAA altogether. I'm fustrated about all the great rock bands that I hear here in the city (I live in Manhattan) that never get noticed by them. I buy lots of CDs from these guys, and I'm not really a music nut; just an engineer who likes the little bands as much as the big ones like Greenday, etc...
Will the big guys adapt, probably; so I'd say you're both right. The existing model does seem to be coming to an end, and that is somewhat of a threat. It's more likely that they will simply adapt, but possible that they will fail to do so; like AT&T.
But of course nobody is protesting wind and solar power, I wonder why we haven't invested in those with half the gusto we've spent trying to find a few million nonreplaceable barrels of oil off the coast of Florida? I've never heard of anyone getting sick from living next to a windmill.
Clearly, then you don't live near where they're trying to build them. I live in Manhattan, and they've been trying for several years now to put a big wind farm off the Long Island coast; also another one off Cape Code; I think Near Martha's Vinyard. Anyway, there have been many protests about these wind farms citing a variety of issues. First, they will hurt the birds. Both LI and Cape Cod are in migration routes. Second, many rich folks such as Senator Kennedy don't want their view tainted. Thirdly, I've read in the NY papers that people say the moving blades of the windmills create sub-sonic sounds that make them sick.
Now, for the record, I disagree with all of that. I think a few dead birds are worth the impact of less oil. One of the big problems with these kinds of enenergy alternatives is NIMBY. I don't know the answer here, but I'm all for giving these wind farms a shot.
Also it should be mentioned that the oil industry owns stock in these American automobile companies so they have a financial incentive to create gas guzzlers.
I don't know about this first-hand, but given the track record of your post I wouldn't take only your word for it.
For the record, as I do work in the financial industry, and checked this out, while some oil companies own some of the stock, the are NOT major holders of ford or gm.
Also it should be mentioned that the oil industry owns stock in these American automobile companies so they have a financial incentive to create gas guzzlers.
I don't know about this first-hand, but given the track record of your post I wouldn't take only your word for it.
Fair point. In either case, the hybrids are selling like hotcakes, and the gas guzzlers are not selling, which is hurting the us automakers. If you ask me, I'd say regardless of your stance on the oil companies and the like, all businesses are in the business of staying in business. Pun aside, big oil would still want the automakes to stay in business then; otherwise they'd lose their investments!
The aging advertising revenue model has been completely circumvented by the advent of TiVO and downloadable content. Advertisers pay big bucks for the exposure but now they don't feel they should pay as much if the consumers skip through the commercials or block them altogether.
I think this is right on the money. In the beginning, and I am far to young to remember this, products would sponser shows; like in the movie Quiz Show where Geritol sponsers the tv show of the same name in the movie. I think we can expect to see a return to things like that along with a rise in product placement ads throughout the show; like those Reces Pieces in ET. I figure that is what we're going more to.
I really don't even watch too much regular; broadcast; tv. It's History, Discovery, and HBO stuff like Rome that I enjoy. Even then, it's HBO's model that I find most appealing. I like the ability to watch what I want on demand. Many of my friends agree to varying degrees. I have a hunch we are not alone. It seems more natural to me that people would want to be able to watch; consume if you will; what content they enjoy at their own schedule as opposed to that of the Networks. It really is only a question of making the technology available, which we all know here has been for quite some time, and then having the marketplace respond to it. My guess is that this change will come soon, but perhaps not soon enough for those of us here; including myself!
funny signature... that was from sneakers, right? it was River Phoenix's character, i think.
just curious... good flick as i remember
Re:I thought there were a bunch
on
Warm-blooded Fish?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Even great white sharks are. They aren't warm-blooded, but are able to maintain a temperature of ambient + a few degreees by recycling the warm blood from their muscles; like a car's supercharger in effect. Nature has lots of these "inbetweens" when it comes to the warm-blooded - cold-blooded animals. I like this... not black or white world
I can't really understand that people who choose to ignore what we're about 99% certain is fact in the name of faith, Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to are only true from our own point of view
I think it's good when we engineers overdesign stuff. Take the Brooklyn Bridge for example. It was designed and built before car traffic existed. The steel in the cables is only 1/2 as strong as it was supposed to be, and it's still like 4 times strong than it needs to be with modern car and truck traffic! Quite a feat!
You make a fair comment about the lives lost and the war part. I am very much in favor of the argument about moving from Fossil Fuels due to the National Security implications. There is no question that the oil economy supports a lot of people who dislike us, and the West in general, quite a bit.
I live in, and grew up in, the New York City area. All the commuter trains here do allow bicycles on them, although you do have to get a $5 permit. As far as I know, mass transit, to include those trains, is used to a greater degree by the population here than anywhere else in the country. The population density here supports that, and the city has recently converted a large number of lanes on city streets to bike lanes; even the famous Broadway. However, I grew up in the suburbs. America is BIG, and our people are spread out. Judging by your post, I think it's possible that you don't live here. Trains and mass transit doesn't really work in rural areas. Cars are needed. Social engineering might solve that by reworking the layout of our country; moving large numbers of people into more densely populated areas would do it. Still, that doesn't seem to be workeable. The best option would be to further encourage mass transit in urban areas along with alternative fuel projects. Top that off with incentives to research alternative engergy sources, and you have something. Perhaps a few cents(3-10) tax on gasoline to pay for the research could be workeable. I've heard in the news from some pundits that each penny per gallon tax would produce roughly a billion in revenue over a year.
Your idea about solar panels has some merrit, and most states offer tax incentives for people and companies to do just that. Up until this point, though, the efficiencies haven't really been there. I think the time is right for this stuff, and I see more and more projects taking off with this in mind.
I haven't heard of that surcharge on the hybred cars. Where did you hear of that? I knew a few people who bought one, and they never mentioned it.
And yes, solar electrolysis of hydrogen is incredibly inefficient, but you can probably help it become cost effective with tax breaks due to the fact that it's an entirely local production.
Actually, an interesting solution for hydrogen generation is being experimented with by a number of different groups. AFRL is one of many attempting to use bacteria to breakdown liquid/semi-solid waste into hydrogen. Berkeley amongst others are working on ways to generate hydrogen via algae.
I think these experiments have the potential to do some serious damage to our energy needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know that some of Nicola Tesla's work is still classified by the US government? Near as I can tell, it's because it's related to this work. Pretty cool if you ask me since the guy died 50 years ago!
Now we're going in a different direction. I'm not going to argue with your view of people and the world. Clearly, I have a much more positive view of both. Both of us are making fair evaluations of people. I choose to neither ignore humanities evils or it's virtues. That's my world, and I'm content in it. Hopefully, you are in yours.
Oh, go ahead and do it; just don't pretend that it's actually going to accomplish anything. I'm afraid the only solution is massive population reduction; the only permanent solution is extinction.
Wow, you're quite the pessimist. I have a different view. Humans are smart, and I'm betting on our survival. There is another solution. Fusion, or maybe something else no one's thought of yet. Have you heard of those folks in New Mexico, France, England, and Germany experimenting with bacteria that fairly convert sunlight directly into hydrogen. That could be quite a solution to our energy problems. Granted, fusion, likely the best solution, is probably not going to be effective for a while; decades, but humans have a knack for finding solutions. There a need for more energy and clean energy, and there are millions of smart people out there. I'll bet on them before I start talking about death. I guess you could always hope for a big asteroid, though.
As for me, I haven't lost my youthful optimism, so I'll stick around a while and see if I can't lend a hand. Besides, you don't fight the fights you know you'll win. You fight the fights worth fighting.
I'll give you this, you option is A solution.
Good points all of them. Changed my mind on it.
No I didn't. It is, but switching to X isn't going to make any difference in the long run; it's attitudes that are the problem.
I see that I mistook your comments from the first person I responded to. My mistake.
Using lightbulbs that are 5-10 times more efficient will help some; hence why Long Island's power company, LIPA, gives them away for free to it's customers. They figure that if most of their customers do that, then they'll save the cost of building a new powerplant. That's also why they are encouraging customers to take advantage of NYS's alternative energy tax breaks. I'd say that'd make a difference in the long run, and perhaps the people who get involved with this will continue down that path.
To the real point, I do agree with you. Attitudes are the problem, so why attempt to discourage me when I am making an effort to lessen my impact? Honestly, it doesn't make any sence to me. It seems clear that you are someone who care about the environment, but I'm not convinced that you're actually doing anything about it? I do. Every now and again I've convinced a friend to do some of the things that I do; like the lights bit and recycling. Granted, the latter is the law in NYC.
Basically, I'm missing your point as to why I shouldn't? It certainly wouldn't hurt, and only wastes my time.
Even something as small as using a flourescent bulb in place of an incandescent helps.
You're kidding yourself.
I find your comment hypocritical. You said earlier that the US is a big polluter. Lighting is between 30-40% of US electrical usage, so the potential for savings with going from a 5% effiecent device to a roughly 35-40% efficient device is significant. Since most of that usage is done in homes, then to discourage the adoption of such things is fool hearty and works against your very complaint about Americans.
Honestly, it makes you sound foolish, and I doubt it will help you convince other people to agree with you.
If you think that the US is the only one trying to bend, twist, and warp those agreements, then you are mistaken. Everybody does it. Ah, well you're excused then. Sorry about the confusion.
Again, you make a valid point. Two wrongs don't make a right after all. The point that I was trying to make is that it appeared to me that you were implying that only the US does those things. That is not fair. The fact that no one SHOULD do those things; I don't think anyone would dispute. It'd be nice if no one committed murder either, and I don't make the analgy loosely. In regards to the poorer countries, when the richer ones do that it often results in greater poverty for them while maintaining greater ease for the rich. I try to keep that stuff in mind when I vote with both my wallet and my ballot. Even something as small as using a flourescent bulb in place of an incandescent helps.
Just to generate converstion... how would you feel about setting up .xxx as a domain name and REQUIRING all pornographic material to be confined to this domain? How do you think the porn industry would feel?
Yeah, that's the real problem, isn't it. I don't like the idea of REQUIRING it. Still, perhaps it's not the worst idea. After all, cities and towns have zones for that stuff. Hmmm, as you can see I am of two minds on it. I guess, I'd have to say that you might be able to convince them it was a public service thing, and my guess is they wouldn't mind. That would be the best option.
World: We want equal partnership in the Internet
...
USA: No, it's all ours
well, why not? Although it would not doubt be technically difficult, and perhaps stupid, but why not have each country setup their own net and link them to eachother. Then places that want to adjust things their way could do it. We could retune this thing. It's not like they HAVE to use our version of the net.
World: Ok, we want the US to follow UN directives and not invade countries at a whim
USA: No, can't tell me what to do, I'll invade whatever country I want
Actually, if you look at the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, Iraq violated it. If for no other reason, we had the leagal grounds to invade. In general, you'd be hard pressed to find a country clean on that; Switzerland, maybe?
World: Ok, we want the US to honour free trade agreements, just like you expect us to
USA: No, I'll break free trade agreements whenever it suits me
If you think that the US is the only one trying to bend, twist, and warp those agreements, then you are mistaken. Everybody does it. Ask an African how they feel about Europe or America's farm subsuties. That's international politics.
World: Ok, we want the US to stop polluting our part of the world
USA: No, I don't give a crap about you, I'll shit on your lawn and piss on your door
Well, this one is probably true to a point; especially if you feel CO2 is a pollutant. One thing though, most of Europe is not going to meet Kyoto; at least the last time I checked. As far as I know, although we use by far the most energy by capita, we are more efficient in our usage in many areas; admittedly cars not being one of them. Did you know that a third of the air polution in LA comes from China; the smog forming pollutants? Check the EPA's website on that stuff. Sad, and interesting reading. Still, you do have a point. There is not enough responcibility here when it comes to that.
World: You know, you really are a jerk
USA: Shutup or I'll beat you up
World:
I believe this is generally a crack at the current administration, but I don't recall the rest of the world loving us all that much when Clinton was running things.
As an aside, Isolationism was our foreign policy before WWI. It was the Europeans who drew us into it, and changed it all. Granted, one could make many different arguments for our involvement in that war; the Lusatania and all; but both sides did want our support and involvment. For a while, contrary to popular belief, we sold arms and equipment to both sides. After the war, we tried to return to isolationism. Again, they drew us back in. Granted some of FDR's policies could be argued to help that to happen. After all, he was the driving force behind the Lend Lease Act, and the sanctions for Japan. Even if I think those sanctions, like not selling oil, arms, and scrap metal to Japan was supported by our political view of their actions in places like China, it still is one of the reasons for their attack. Granted Yamamato himself said that part of it was also due to the fact that we were the last strong colonial power in the area; the French, Dutch, and British being busy with the Germans. After that, we had the Russians to contend with. Europe seemed pretty happy with the Marshall plan, and our support keeping them at bay for a few decades. It seems we're not needed now in that role anymore, but it's one that's not easy to let go of. For all of our faults, and admitedly we have our share, we've also done pleanty of good.
Something just came to mind. You said USA: Shutup or I'll beat you up. It was Machivelli who said that might makes right. Perhaps Europe's military needs to be larger.... I would not complain.
yeah, i think .xxx is a great idea. how much easier would it be for parents, via parental controls on a bowser, to lock them out. Then those of us who like that stuff could enjoy it with no problem, and those against could more easily block it. Seemed like the dumbest thing the ultra religious/conservative folks did regarding the net.
Granted, fuel cells have considerable energy-density advantages over current chemical cells, but it will never be enough until we have devices that will *never* need a recharge, battery replacement, or refill.
"Bart, we obey the laws of physics in this house!"
Wind power usually isn't practical or environmental for large-scale deployment (land usage/kW is too high),
Can't you put these things on farms, and make the bottom of the blades high enough off the ground so a farmer can get a combine around it? Wouldn't that make sence?
I think he means more of the fact that the CD-Record (album) sales model is disappearing . It's entirely possible that the artists will release their music directly to iTunes - Napster - Yahoo (web distro) and skip the RIAA altogether. I'm fustrated about all the great rock bands that I hear here in the city (I live in Manhattan) that never get noticed by them. I buy lots of CDs from these guys, and I'm not really a music nut; just an engineer who likes the little bands as much as the big ones like Greenday, etc... Will the big guys adapt, probably; so I'd say you're both right. The existing model does seem to be coming to an end, and that is somewhat of a threat. It's more likely that they will simply adapt, but possible that they will fail to do so; like AT&T.
But of course nobody is protesting wind and solar power, I wonder why we haven't invested in those with half the gusto we've spent trying to find a few million nonreplaceable barrels of oil off the coast of Florida? I've never heard of anyone getting sick from living next to a windmill.
Clearly, then you don't live near where they're trying to build them. I live in Manhattan, and they've been trying for several years now to put a big wind farm off the Long Island coast; also another one off Cape Code; I think Near Martha's Vinyard. Anyway, there have been many protests about these wind farms citing a variety of issues. First, they will hurt the birds. Both LI and Cape Cod are in migration routes. Second, many rich folks such as Senator Kennedy don't want their view tainted. Thirdly, I've read in the NY papers that people say the moving blades of the windmills create sub-sonic sounds that make them sick.
Now, for the record, I disagree with all of that. I think a few dead birds are worth the impact of less oil. One of the big problems with these kinds of enenergy alternatives is NIMBY. I don't know the answer here, but I'm all for giving these wind farms a shot.
Also it should be mentioned that the oil industry owns stock in these American automobile companies so they have a financial incentive to create gas guzzlers. I don't know about this first-hand, but given the track record of your post I wouldn't take only your word for it.
For the record, as I do work in the financial industry, and checked this out, while some oil companies own some of the stock, the are NOT major holders of ford or gm.
Also it should be mentioned that the oil industry owns stock in these American automobile companies so they have a financial incentive to create gas guzzlers.
I don't know about this first-hand, but given the track record of your post I wouldn't take only your word for it.
Fair point. In either case, the hybrids are selling like hotcakes, and the gas guzzlers are not selling, which is hurting the us automakers. If you ask me, I'd say regardless of your stance on the oil companies and the like, all businesses are in the business of staying in business. Pun aside, big oil would still want the automakes to stay in business then; otherwise they'd lose their investments!
wrap it in tinfoil!
The aging advertising revenue model has been completely circumvented by the advent of TiVO and downloadable content. Advertisers pay big bucks for the exposure but now they don't feel they should pay as much if the consumers skip through the commercials or block them altogether.
I think this is right on the money. In the beginning, and I am far to young to remember this, products would sponser shows; like in the movie Quiz Show where Geritol sponsers the tv show of the same name in the movie. I think we can expect to see a return to things like that along with a rise in product placement ads throughout the show; like those Reces Pieces in ET. I figure that is what we're going more to.
I really don't even watch too much regular; broadcast; tv. It's History, Discovery, and HBO stuff like Rome that I enjoy. Even then, it's HBO's model that I find most appealing. I like the ability to watch what I want on demand. Many of my friends agree to varying degrees. I have a hunch we are not alone. It seems more natural to me that people would want to be able to watch; consume if you will; what content they enjoy at their own schedule as opposed to that of the Networks. It really is only a question of making the technology available, which we all know here has been for quite some time, and then having the marketplace respond to it. My guess is that this change will come soon, but perhaps not soon enough for those of us here; including myself!
TV news isn't the same without the ad for Uncle Bob's Used Trucks - "On the corner of Main and Central - Right on the Auto Mile!"
You know I miss ol Nick "the Hammer" Shapiro's commercials, now that I've graduated from Syracuse, and moved away.
funny signature... that was from sneakers, right? it was River Phoenix's character, i think. just curious... good flick as i remember
Even great white sharks are. They aren't warm-blooded, but are able to maintain a temperature of ambient + a few degreees by recycling the warm blood from their muscles; like a car's supercharger in effect. Nature has lots of these "inbetweens" when it comes to the warm-blooded - cold-blooded animals. I like this ... not black or white world
I can't really understand that people who choose to ignore what we're about 99% certain is fact in the name of faith,
Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to are only true from our own point of view
I think it's good when we engineers overdesign stuff. Take the Brooklyn Bridge for example. It was designed and built before car traffic existed. The steel in the cables is only 1/2 as strong as it was supposed to be, and it's still like 4 times strong than it needs to be with modern car and truck traffic! Quite a feat!
You make a fair comment about the lives lost and the war part. I am very much in favor of the argument about moving from Fossil Fuels due to the National Security implications. There is no question that the oil economy supports a lot of people who dislike us, and the West in general, quite a bit.
I live in, and grew up in, the New York City area. All the commuter trains here do allow bicycles on them, although you do have to get a $5 permit. As far as I know, mass transit, to include those trains, is used to a greater degree by the population here than anywhere else in the country. The population density here supports that, and the city has recently converted a large number of lanes on city streets to bike lanes; even the famous Broadway. However, I grew up in the suburbs. America is BIG, and our people are spread out. Judging by your post, I think it's possible that you don't live here. Trains and mass transit doesn't really work in rural areas. Cars are needed. Social engineering might solve that by reworking the layout of our country; moving large numbers of people into more densely populated areas would do it. Still, that doesn't seem to be workeable. The best option would be to further encourage mass transit in urban areas along with alternative fuel projects. Top that off with incentives to research alternative engergy sources, and you have something. Perhaps a few cents(3-10) tax on gasoline to pay for the research could be workeable. I've heard in the news from some pundits that each penny per gallon tax would produce roughly a billion in revenue over a year.
Your idea about solar panels has some merrit, and most states offer tax incentives for people and companies to do just that. Up until this point, though, the efficiencies haven't really been there. I think the time is right for this stuff, and I see more and more projects taking off with this in mind.
I haven't heard of that surcharge on the hybred cars. Where did you hear of that? I knew a few people who bought one, and they never mentioned it.
And yes, solar electrolysis of hydrogen is incredibly inefficient, but you can probably help it become cost effective with tax breaks due to the fact that it's an entirely local production.
Actually, an interesting solution for hydrogen generation is being experimented with by a number of different groups.
AFRL is one of many attempting to use bacteria to breakdown liquid/semi-solid waste into hydrogen.
Berkeley amongst others are working on ways to generate hydrogen via algae.
I think these experiments have the potential to do some serious damage to our energy needs.