Both are big deals - Mars isn't believed to be geologically active, and life would be a massively interesting find for obvious reasons. The seasonality rules out explanations like cosmic rays generating methane.
That's a fair response. I just thought it was fairly broad since I subconsciously eliminated the cosmic ray option since they did mention seasonality.
Ignoring the biological aspect for a moment. Geological just seems so damned broad as to incorporate pretty much everything on a planet. If it were a Jovian moon, I'd consider it less broad of a suggestion since you would then be eliminating seasonal influences from Jupiter in stating that it was just geological.
1. Find some trees that were knocked down over the winter or during a storm. 2. Cut it up, split the wood if possible. 3. Season it (it has to sit in a shelter for about a season or so) 4. use it.
Hardwood you buy is often pre-seasoned by baking it in a kiln! (Not sure what else the kiln is cooking or if it's waste heat)
If I were to cut down trees, I probably wouldn't even plant new ones. I just don't harvest enough to offset the number that grow on their own. I might put a deer fence around a sapling I want to preserve though.
When I do have to cut down trees, I try to cut down those that are in the areas where I'm planning on clearing an area for a road or trail or clearing. Then I DO remove the stump. You aren't off regarding the TNT. Though I will point out that there are items available to farmers which they use to fertilize their fields and power their tractors which works real well for stump removal.
Two people meet and exchange keys. One of them broadcasts the message in some untraceable way (say, spray-painting it on the sidewalk). Everyone sees the message tomorrow, and one of them is able to read it with the key.
What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with anything I said.
Where is the threat of violence? You can say they only did this because of the violence, but there's no threat of violence in the message transmission itself.
Again, you aren't just barking up the wrong tree, you are barking up a light post in a city 200 miles away. I was talking about the derivation of power.
Now, you're head will spin, the little Libertarian hamster wheel inside will turn, and you'll come up with some plausible threat of violence that exists only in your blinkered mind. People like you are annoying, just like the people who think the whole world can be traced back to God. It's a cheap trick, and you don't even realize it. I could trace everything back to sex if I wanted to. Oh wait, Freud did and fooled the psychological establishment for decades in the process.
Actually your wood-burning stove has zero CO2 emission. Where do you think the CO2 that is being released came from?
If you are talking about a long enough timeline you are correct, but in terms of energy conversion, it's fairly wasteful. If I lived there full time, I'd probably build a masonry system to pull the heat out more efficiently, but most people here use cast iron stoves with a relatively straight chimney. I also don't like the fact that it's a more serious fire hazard, and releases carbon monoxide INSIDE my house (I regularly check for leaks).
On a short timeframe, it's still putting out particulates and Co2 which would have been sequestered for a long time.
In general I agree, but I think this conversation does highlight the fact that we are getting a HELL of a lot of laws put into place because they sound good, but the situation is actually a hell of a lot more complex than simple popular legislation can fix.
Case in point is the effort to BAN woodburning stoves in some areas in order to be 'green' even though, as you said, they are more neutral than a lot of other options.
The irony is that I have a natural gas well on my property. I get natural gas for free, and while 'clean' it certainly isn't what people would prefer me to use when compared to the wood I harvest from my own property. (Typically I just use fallen branches. I have 40 acres of woods, so it's enough to support me)
don't have a source here, but i thought i read somewhere that the average can of tuna has more mercury than what's in a modern CFL.
So that makes it ok to use products which we KNOW will be disposed of improperly and thus will go into the food chain and eventually tuna 10 years from now will have even more mercury in it.
So 10 years from now, you will be able to say the same thing: a can of tuna has more mercury than a CFL. So use more CFLs.
It doesn't mean that CFLs are safe, it just means that there is a lot of mercury in tuna!
And, at least where I am, I have a hell of a time trying to get rid of them when they die
Just do what 99.9% of everyone else does. They go in the trash where they can be sent to a landfill, the mercury can leach out and into the soil where it will enter into the food chain.
You save the planet by eventually storing all that evil mercury in your organs.
I guess that makes sense form a supply and demand point of view... but common sense says: how much light do I need in my apartment... If all the rooms are lit to a reasonable level I am not going to go out a buy more lights and plug them in!
I go out of my way to turn off my incandescent lights. I use them in a few fixtures where they look better, or are required.
CFLs? I don't feel the pressure. Getting out of bed to turn off the lights downstairs isn't going to save me much cash.
haha. Yeah, that's what i thought. I actually switch out my CFLs to incandescent lightbulbs in the winter in my study because it is warmer. The study is a pretty small room and the lamp is close to me so it works out alright. I don't know about using heat balls in a large space though:p
I have a cabin in upstate NY. It is heated from a wood burning stove. I do the same thing. In the summer, I 'light' the cabin by opening up skylights and CFL bulbs. In the winter, with the much shorter days and VERY cold weather, the incandescent bulbs provide heat and are actually much more efficient than my wood stove.
The electricity comes from a hydroelectric source, which heats my home. Which beats my local natural gas furnace or wood stove in terms of efficiency, emissions, and saves me from cutting down any hardwoods on my property.
It's not enough to heat my entire house, but any time I meet the following conditions, it is the best solution:
1. If temperatures are below 60F and I'd light my wood stove or furnace. 2. If I require light.
Under those two conditions, Incandescent bulbs are more efficient.
Banks could not work without secure communication, no trade secrets could be kept, and so on.
Even though you say that such a thing can be accomplished without guns, anything someone wishes to do against the wishes of another (send a communication without someone reading it), will eventually trace back to a threat of violence.
Government is nothing more than a monopoly on the application of violence.
Wasn't the previous slashdot post about "Man gets 10 years for VOIP hacking [slashdot.org]" ? But when the gov does it it's all dandy and fine and necessary and indeed obligatory ?!?
In our current environment, it is fine and dandy.
That is the danger of ignoring the Constitution for things that just happen to jive with your goals, and then getting upset when someone else ignores the constitution for something you oppose.
It's why a liberal or elastic interpretation of our Constitution is a damned dangerous thing. Not because any individual goal is wrong, but our Constitution simply breaks down when you allow it to be interpreted in a flexible manner. It simply wasn't designed to be able to withstand such interpretations. The result is a bit like cutting a hole through a fence that surrounds your yard. It certainly makes it easier for you to go in and out, but it also means that you lose control over who else will use that hole.
The limitations on power in our Constitution simply fail if it is interpreted as a flexible document. Power should only be granted in very specific and limited ways. Especially when you are granting it to an entity that claims to be sovereign and universal.
The only real difference is that these birds are "cute and cuddly" t
So what? It's an evolutionary advantage. Humans like them, therefore we protect them. It's not like we get nothing out of the deal. I'd like to see one of these someday. I'm half convinced that some of the bans on private ownership of certain species is eliminating a huge avenue for rehabilitating some species. If it weren't for 'pet' species, a lot of the varieties of cattle that exist today would have long gone extinct.
A few thousand or few tens of thousands dead in late consequence of that existential conflict is a trifle. We are too easily impressed by small wars nowadays.
What do you mean we kemosabe?
Wouldn't it be nice if the people who felt it was acceptable to kill a few thousand people for their political goals were included in the total?
But then, wouldn't a lot of people simply wait to be pushed by the electric shweeb?
No. See my comment regarding the DC metro. In any urban area, there will be people in a hurry, they will be pushing as well. You can see this exact same thing on Escalators, most people will walk or even run up them. Never underestimate the untapped potential of a power commuter
Every 100 pods send an 'autonomous' with a simple electric motor. It clears the track and can serve to 'circulate' and expedite any backup.
You won't need a passing lane. And as for lazy commuters, take a look at the DC metro. There are enough people in a hurry that if you are lounging on the left of the escalator you will get yelled at to 'stand on the right'. And there are definately enough people in a hurry that they would gladly push anyone in front of them on these Schweeb things.
That said, every 100 have one go through at the max speed of 25 km/hr. It would be a very small cost (A 30 Watt electric motor) would basically guarantee a minimum speed and 'push out' any slackers.
How recently? Are we due for a big advance in rotorcraft in the near future due to new understanding, or is this a "we finally know why aspirin works" kind of discovery?
Ironically, we are due for... not a very big advance, because we now can state with conviction that as far as rotor aircraft are concerned, there is only so far you can take them because physics puts practical limits on their performance.
There are 'sweet' spots, much like Lagrange points with respect to gravity. It isn't that we CAN'T exceed certain performance parameters with rotorcraft, it's just that exceeding those parameters is VERY costly with respect to other parameters.
For example, consider what happens when you move forward in a helicopter. The rotor that is advancing is advancing at Vrotor+Vaircraft. The rotor that is retreating is retreating at Vrotor-Vaircraft (with respect to the air)
So when a blade is perpendicular to your aircraft, consider it's velocity relative to the air. Let's say your blades are rotating at 300mph and your aircraft is moving at 300 MPH. (I think 279 mph or knots is a bit of the maximum velocity where you start to run into problems. I can't remember the exact numbers if it was 180 or 280, but for the sake of this discussion, it exists) There is a period of time when your retreating blade has stalled along its entire length. Now, imagine what happens as the velocity of your helicopter increases. The area in which your blades are stalled increases (at least in the y direction)
Now as I said, I've probably grossly oversimplified this example (and misrepresented some items) but in general, rotorcraft are interesting because the more we know about them the more we realize that a lot of our current designs have managed to fall into the sweet spot of design.
Knowing this, advances to rotorcraft are going to come in the form of advanced control systems, dynamically adjustable vibration control, and materials advances.
I'd say that improvements to vibration dampening systems is the area where we can see the greatest improvement in the form of gain per dollar. A lot of mass is wasted in the form of pendulums and other really weird systems that are on board to keep the helicopter from ripping itself apart.
It shows a CH-47 and the effects of ground resonance. (I don't actually think what happened in the video was intended, I think it was a transmission test or some other activity and ground resonance just 'happened'. I could be wrong though)
But basically, vibration dampening costs a lot in the form of mass. Less mass there means more fuel, or more equipment, or greater payload capacity. As computers advance, we could see more dynamic controls that adjust dampening response based on feedback. Though they may not want to mess with something that works.
I just remember working on a helicopter before where if I could eliminate a washer from a system, I'd get a bonus.
Bees would violate the laws of aerodynamics for fixed wing airplanes. Fortunately for them they operate more like a helicopter and get more sufficient lift by beating their wings. Do people still seriously believe this?
Speaking as someone with experience with Helicopters. Designing those damned things is more an art that is reinforced by scientific knowledge. There are a lot of things about rotor aircraft that until recently have been way too complex to model. So in a manner of speaking, we did not know the aerodynamics of bees if you set your definition of know to be an exhaustive knowledge of the physics.
A rotor spinning in place you could model, but add in any bit of wind current and motion and it became an aerodynamic mess.
What, like gliders which normally require a second aircraft to give it a lift? Even though not 'practical' they do fall into the range of affordable for enthusiasts.
If by "accident" you mean something like King Kong, Megatron or Cloverfield monster picking up the car, tearing off the roof and then holding it upside down until the occupants of the vehicle fall out.
In real life, accidents are usually not that colorful, most of them being just the vehicle impacting another moving or stationary object.
He was being sarcastic. That arguement is typically one used by people who 'fear' wearing seatbelts for fear of getting trapped. (Or is that just a strawman that has replaced the actual people who didn't want to wear seatbelts. 20 years ago I heard that same 'excuse' when being told that it was a myth during my safety classes)
That said, you are actually underestimating the risk greatly. Being thrown from your car in real life IS very common for people who don't wear seatbelts. In a rollover situation, if you aren't wearing your seatbelt, it is more likely for you to have some part or all of you exit the vehicle than it is for you to remain in the vehicle.
Cars don't flip fast enough for the centripetal forces to keep someone pinned in their seat (disregarding nascar, etc) You are going to slam to the side, and then up. Without a seatbelt, that sideways slam will have you likely partially outside of the window, and if the rollover continues, the next way gravity is going to be pulling you is towards the roof of the car. If at that point your body is already partially outside of the vehicle and since most car doors slope in as they approach the roof, your likely path is OUT of the vehicle and not back in.
Ignorance is an excuse as long as there is no law classes in the public school system. You cant assume people just 'know' law
This is just a guess, but I'm not sure it is physically possible to know all the law anymore.
State, Local, Federal, Treaties... they all change, and some of the items being changed are thousands of pages long. Not only that, but written in legal language which is NOT readable by your normal citizen.
Let's say you go on vacation to some state park and decide to build a campfire. Is there a fire moratorium in effect? What do you have to do to make sure that your campfire is to code. Are there also local codes which you have to follow? What are your liabilities? Hope you have a few hours to go down to the government offices to look up the code (or the library) to read up on what you need to do to build your campfire. Oh crap, a CFL in your battery powered lantern died. Is there a disposal station nearby, what are your responsiblities for recycling/disposing of the lamp. I know there is Federal and State laws in place... Or are they laws, some might be rules imposed by the EPA at the federal level, or rules imposed by the state EPA. When was the last time those rules were updated, have they changed... etc.
Granted those are fairly mundane examples, but the concept that you are responsible for following the laws even if they are obscure is commonplace.
Slashdot Mirror
Both are big deals - Mars isn't believed to be geologically active, and life would be a massively interesting find for obvious reasons.
The seasonality rules out explanations like cosmic rays generating methane.
That's a fair response. I just thought it was fairly broad since I subconsciously eliminated the cosmic ray option since they did mention seasonality.
Ignoring the biological aspect for a moment. Geological just seems so damned broad as to incorporate pretty much everything on a planet. If it were a Jovian moon, I'd consider it less broad of a suggestion since you would then be eliminating seasonal influences from Jupiter in stating that it was just geological.
Actually here is what I do:
1. Find some trees that were knocked down over the winter or during a storm.
2. Cut it up, split the wood if possible.
3. Season it (it has to sit in a shelter for about a season or so)
4. use it.
Hardwood you buy is often pre-seasoned by baking it in a kiln! (Not sure what else the kiln is cooking or if it's waste heat)
If I were to cut down trees, I probably wouldn't even plant new ones. I just don't harvest enough to offset the number that grow on their own. I might put a deer fence around a sapling I want to preserve though.
When I do have to cut down trees, I try to cut down those that are in the areas where I'm planning on clearing an area for a road or trail or clearing. Then I DO remove the stump. You aren't off regarding the TNT. Though I will point out that there are items available to farmers which they use to fertilize their fields and power their tractors which works real well for stump removal.
FTFA: 'It could be geology or biology, but it is not coming from another source.'
Another source like what? Comets hitting the planet? Isn't geology pretty freaking broad for a category?
That's like looking at a rock on the Earth and saying "Well, we are pretty sure that it either formed here on earth, or it is a meteorite."
Thanks for the response. It's really annoying to have someone attack you personally especially when they completly misunderstood what you were saying.
In case he looks at this thread, he could read up on my topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
It's a basic topic for philosophy of law and government.
Two people meet and exchange keys. One of them broadcasts the message in some untraceable way (say, spray-painting it on the sidewalk). Everyone sees the message tomorrow, and one of them is able to read it with the key.
What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with anything I said.
Where is the threat of violence? You can say they only did this because of the violence, but there's no threat of violence in the message transmission itself.
Again, you aren't just barking up the wrong tree, you are barking up a light post in a city 200 miles away. I was talking about the derivation of power.
Now, you're head will spin, the little Libertarian hamster wheel inside will turn, and you'll come up with some plausible threat of violence that exists only in your blinkered mind. People like you are annoying, just like the people who think the whole world can be traced back to God. It's a cheap trick, and you don't even realize it. I could trace everything back to sex if I wanted to. Oh wait, Freud did and fooled the psychological establishment for decades in the process.
Umm... What?
Actually your wood-burning stove has zero CO2 emission. Where do you think the CO2 that is being released came from?
If you are talking about a long enough timeline you are correct, but in terms of energy conversion, it's fairly wasteful. If I lived there full time, I'd probably build a masonry system to pull the heat out more efficiently, but most people here use cast iron stoves with a relatively straight chimney. I also don't like the fact that it's a more serious fire hazard, and releases carbon monoxide INSIDE my house (I regularly check for leaks).
On a short timeframe, it's still putting out particulates and Co2 which would have been sequestered for a long time.
In general I agree, but I think this conversation does highlight the fact that we are getting a HELL of a lot of laws put into place because they sound good, but the situation is actually a hell of a lot more complex than simple popular legislation can fix.
Case in point is the effort to BAN woodburning stoves in some areas in order to be 'green' even though, as you said, they are more neutral than a lot of other options.
The irony is that I have a natural gas well on my property. I get natural gas for free, and while 'clean' it certainly isn't what people would prefer me to use when compared to the wood I harvest from my own property. (Typically I just use fallen branches. I have 40 acres of woods, so it's enough to support me)
Even from hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, or biofuel sources?
That's more of an argument FOR Nuclear Power rather than against incandescent bulbs.
don't have a source here, but i thought i read somewhere that the average can of tuna has more mercury than what's in a modern CFL.
So that makes it ok to use products which we KNOW will be disposed of improperly and thus will go into the food chain and eventually tuna 10 years from now will have even more mercury in it.
So 10 years from now, you will be able to say the same thing: a can of tuna has more mercury than a CFL. So use more CFLs.
It doesn't mean that CFLs are safe, it just means that there is a lot of mercury in tuna!
Switch to a high powered video card and monitor ... Higher power output, plus built in circulation fan.
I don't have a computer in my cabin.
And, at least where I am, I have a hell of a time trying to get rid of them when they die
Just do what 99.9% of everyone else does. They go in the trash where they can be sent to a landfill, the mercury can leach out and into the soil where it will enter into the food chain.
You save the planet by eventually storing all that evil mercury in your organs.
I guess that makes sense form a supply and demand point of view... but common sense says: how much light do I need in my apartment...
If all the rooms are lit to a reasonable level I am not going to go out a buy more lights and plug them in!
I go out of my way to turn off my incandescent lights. I use them in a few fixtures where they look better, or are required.
CFLs? I don't feel the pressure. Getting out of bed to turn off the lights downstairs isn't going to save me much cash.
haha. Yeah, that's what i thought. I actually switch out my CFLs to incandescent lightbulbs in the winter in my study because it is warmer. The study is a pretty small room and the lamp is close to me so it works out alright. I don't know about using heat balls in a large space though :p
I have a cabin in upstate NY. It is heated from a wood burning stove. I do the same thing. In the summer, I 'light' the cabin by opening up skylights and CFL bulbs. In the winter, with the much shorter days and VERY cold weather, the incandescent bulbs provide heat and are actually much more efficient than my wood stove.
The electricity comes from a hydroelectric source, which heats my home. Which beats my local natural gas furnace or wood stove in terms of efficiency, emissions, and saves me from cutting down any hardwoods on my property.
It's not enough to heat my entire house, but any time I meet the following conditions, it is the best solution:
1. If temperatures are below 60F and I'd light my wood stove or furnace.
2. If I require light.
Under those two conditions, Incandescent bulbs are more efficient.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing...
I say it like a man holding a raw steak while standing next to a hungry pit bull.
It is my in my best interest to ensure that the pit bull is well trained, leashed, and even though a steak is in my left hand, a stick is in my right.
Banks could not work without secure communication, no trade secrets could be kept, and so on.
Even though you say that such a thing can be accomplished without guns, anything someone wishes to do against the wishes of another (send a communication without someone reading it), will eventually trace back to a threat of violence.
Government is nothing more than a monopoly on the application of violence.
Wasn't the previous slashdot post about "Man gets 10 years for VOIP hacking [slashdot.org]" ? But when the gov does it it's all dandy and fine and necessary and indeed obligatory ?!?
In our current environment, it is fine and dandy.
That is the danger of ignoring the Constitution for things that just happen to jive with your goals, and then getting upset when someone else ignores the constitution for something you oppose.
It's why a liberal or elastic interpretation of our Constitution is a damned dangerous thing. Not because any individual goal is wrong, but our Constitution simply breaks down when you allow it to be interpreted in a flexible manner. It simply wasn't designed to be able to withstand such interpretations. The result is a bit like cutting a hole through a fence that surrounds your yard. It certainly makes it easier for you to go in and out, but it also means that you lose control over who else will use that hole.
The limitations on power in our Constitution simply fail if it is interpreted as a flexible document. Power should only be granted in very specific and limited ways. Especially when you are granting it to an entity that claims to be sovereign and universal.
The only real difference is that these birds are "cute and cuddly" t
So what? It's an evolutionary advantage. Humans like them, therefore we protect them. It's not like we get nothing out of the deal. I'd like to see one of these someday. I'm half convinced that some of the bans on private ownership of certain species is eliminating a huge avenue for rehabilitating some species. If it weren't for 'pet' species, a lot of the varieties of cattle that exist today would have long gone extinct.
A few thousand or few tens of thousands dead in late consequence of that existential conflict is a trifle. We are too easily impressed by small wars nowadays.
What do you mean we kemosabe?
Wouldn't it be nice if the people who felt it was acceptable to kill a few thousand people for their political goals were included in the total?
But then, wouldn't a lot of people simply wait to be pushed by the electric shweeb?
No. See my comment regarding the DC metro. In any urban area, there will be people in a hurry, they will be pushing as well. You can see this exact same thing on Escalators, most people will walk or even run up them. Never underestimate the untapped potential of a power commuter
Every 100 pods send an 'autonomous' with a simple electric motor. It clears the track and can serve to 'circulate' and expedite any backup.
You won't need a passing lane. And as for lazy commuters, take a look at the DC metro. There are enough people in a hurry that if you are lounging on the left of the escalator you will get yelled at to 'stand on the right'. And there are definately enough people in a hurry that they would gladly push anyone in front of them on these Schweeb things.
That said, every 100 have one go through at the max speed of 25 km/hr. It would be a very small cost (A 30 Watt electric motor) would basically guarantee a minimum speed and 'push out' any slackers.
How recently? Are we due for a big advance in rotorcraft in the near future due to new understanding, or is this a "we finally know why aspirin works" kind of discovery?
Ironically, we are due for... not a very big advance, because we now can state with conviction that as far as rotor aircraft are concerned, there is only so far you can take them because physics puts practical limits on their performance.
There are 'sweet' spots, much like Lagrange points with respect to gravity. It isn't that we CAN'T exceed certain performance parameters with rotorcraft, it's just that exceeding those parameters is VERY costly with respect to other parameters.
For example, consider what happens when you move forward in a helicopter. The rotor that is advancing is advancing at Vrotor+Vaircraft. The rotor that is retreating is retreating at Vrotor-Vaircraft (with respect to the air)
So when a blade is perpendicular to your aircraft, consider it's velocity relative to the air. Let's say your blades are rotating at 300mph and your aircraft is moving at 300 MPH. (I think 279 mph or knots is a bit of the maximum velocity where you start to run into problems. I can't remember the exact numbers if it was 180 or 280, but for the sake of this discussion, it exists) There is a period of time when your retreating blade has stalled along its entire length. Now, imagine what happens as the velocity of your helicopter increases. The area in which your blades are stalled increases (at least in the y direction)
Now as I said, I've probably grossly oversimplified this example (and misrepresented some items) but in general, rotorcraft are interesting because the more we know about them the more we realize that a lot of our current designs have managed to fall into the sweet spot of design.
Knowing this, advances to rotorcraft are going to come in the form of advanced control systems, dynamically adjustable vibration control, and materials advances.
I'd say that improvements to vibration dampening systems is the area where we can see the greatest improvement in the form of gain per dollar. A lot of mass is wasted in the form of pendulums and other really weird systems that are on board to keep the helicopter from ripping itself apart.
Here is a link to a video that almost every person who works on helicopters has viewed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2tHA7KmRME
It shows a CH-47 and the effects of ground resonance. (I don't actually think what happened in the video was intended, I think it was a transmission test or some other activity and ground resonance just 'happened'. I could be wrong though)
But basically, vibration dampening costs a lot in the form of mass. Less mass there means more fuel, or more equipment, or greater payload capacity. As computers advance, we could see more dynamic controls that adjust dampening response based on feedback. Though they may not want to mess with something that works.
I just remember working on a helicopter before where if I could eliminate a washer from a system, I'd get a bonus.
Bees would violate the laws of aerodynamics for fixed wing airplanes. Fortunately for them they operate more like a helicopter and get more sufficient lift by beating their wings. Do people still seriously believe this?
Speaking as someone with experience with Helicopters. Designing those damned things is more an art that is reinforced by scientific knowledge. There are a lot of things about rotor aircraft that until recently have been way too complex to model. So in a manner of speaking, we did not know the aerodynamics of bees if you set your definition of know to be an exhaustive knowledge of the physics.
A rotor spinning in place you could model, but add in any bit of wind current and motion and it became an aerodynamic mess.
What, like gliders which normally require a second aircraft to give it a lift? Even though not 'practical' they do fall into the range of affordable for enthusiasts.
If by "accident" you mean something like King Kong, Megatron or Cloverfield monster picking up the car, tearing off the roof and then holding it upside down until the occupants of the vehicle fall out.
In real life, accidents are usually not that colorful, most of them being just the vehicle impacting another moving or stationary object.
He was being sarcastic. That arguement is typically one used by people who 'fear' wearing seatbelts for fear of getting trapped. (Or is that just a strawman that has replaced the actual people who didn't want to wear seatbelts. 20 years ago I heard that same 'excuse' when being told that it was a myth during my safety classes)
That said, you are actually underestimating the risk greatly. Being thrown from your car in real life IS very common for people who don't wear seatbelts. In a rollover situation, if you aren't wearing your seatbelt, it is more likely for you to have some part or all of you exit the vehicle than it is for you to remain in the vehicle.
Cars don't flip fast enough for the centripetal forces to keep someone pinned in their seat (disregarding nascar, etc) You are going to slam to the side, and then up. Without a seatbelt, that sideways slam will have you likely partially outside of the window, and if the rollover continues, the next way gravity is going to be pulling you is towards the roof of the car. If at that point your body is already partially outside of the vehicle and since most car doors slope in as they approach the roof, your likely path is OUT of the vehicle and not back in.
Ignorance is an excuse as long as there is no law classes in the public school system. You cant assume people just 'know' law
This is just a guess, but I'm not sure it is physically possible to know all the law anymore.
State, Local, Federal, Treaties... they all change, and some of the items being changed are thousands of pages long. Not only that, but written in legal language which is NOT readable by your normal citizen.
Let's say you go on vacation to some state park and decide to build a campfire. Is there a fire moratorium in effect? What do you have to do to make sure that your campfire is to code. Are there also local codes which you have to follow? What are your liabilities? Hope you have a few hours to go down to the government offices to look up the code (or the library) to read up on what you need to do to build your campfire. Oh crap, a CFL in your battery powered lantern died. Is there a disposal station nearby, what are your responsiblities for recycling/disposing of the lamp. I know there is Federal and State laws in place... Or are they laws, some might be rules imposed by the EPA at the federal level, or rules imposed by the state EPA. When was the last time those rules were updated, have they changed... etc.
Granted those are fairly mundane examples, but the concept that you are responsible for following the laws even if they are obscure is commonplace.
This is old news. The 5th Dimension called this years ago in their song when they sang,
'This is the dawning of the Age of the Archos.'