http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/110121/%E2%80%98romney-girl%E2%80%99-video-shocks-republican-headquarters

>> ^deathcow:

Amazing album. Excessive heroin really helped their creative process.


Probably so, right up until it wore him down to a shell his former self and eventually killed him. R.I.P. Layne Staley.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

Hah, very funny.

Oklahoma resident here. They didn't leave much in indicating Senator Johnson's intent for the amendment. She was actually trying to get abortion opponents to fall into just the trap that Senator Shortey fell into. (Senator Shortey, by the by, is no stranger to introducing bizarre bills.)

Senator Johnson is actually pretty staunchly pro-choice.

>> ^Sagemind:
14 octave range? - Hardly. In fact she didn't hit any of the high notes in the song at all.
And there is no way her voice could hit the lower octaves.
Roy Orbison had a 3-4 octave range and was considered one of the best. I have no idea where the claim she can hit14 octaves - That's absurd
Soprano: C4 – C6
Mezzo-soprano: A3 – A5
Contralto: F3 – F5
Tenor: C3 – C5
Baritone: F2 – F4
Bass: E2 – E4
When you have an octave that means that the two notes are exactly 8 notes apart, hence the "oct" part in the word. This means that the octave of D is D. You count 8 notes from the starting note. i.e.
D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D= 8 notes all together
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Orbison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_range
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214233219AAvJ05T


I think a description revision might be necessary. Thanks for the input on this!

14 octave range? - Hardly. In fact she didn't hit any of the high notes in the song at all.
And there is no way her voice could hit the lower octaves.

Roy Orbison had a 3-4 octave range and was considered one of the best. I have no idea where the claim she can hit14 octaves - That's absurd

* Soprano: C4 – C6
* Mezzo-soprano: A3 – A5
* Contralto: F3 – F5
* Tenor: C3 – C5
* Baritone: F2 – F4
* Bass: E2 – E4

When you have an octave that means that the two notes are exactly 8 notes apart, hence the "oct" part in the word. This means that the octave of D is D. You count 8 notes from the starting note. i.e.

D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D= 8 notes all together

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Orbison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_range
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214233219AAvJ05T

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

My point still holds that to hold any descent amount of energy that they are producing when no one is using power requires a HUGE number of these things. This tech isn't really new, they have been using it for years, this is just a new formulation, tech has been around since the 60s. The problem is the same problem now as then, chemical energy density just isn't that great. If you are trying to use it as some type of regulator, fine then, but that isn't what he is talking about. He is talking about storing up volumes of energy that wind and solar make when people don't want it, then inject that to the grid when it needs it. You need this because renewables are unpredictable. To store any real volume of energy worth caring about, you need 10s of thousands of these. For comparison, a single 1gigawatt power station (a pretty standard size in the industry of power generation) generates enough energy for hundreds of thousands of people, even in the shade.
I'm not trying to be a negative nancy, I like advances as much as the next guy, I just don't like all this investment in renewables over real grid solutions. The energy density of wind and solar makes them impractical solutions for primary load generation, but that is all we hear about in today's energy topics. It is like talking about saving pennies when your trillion in debt. It bugs me, so perhaps I am harping to much on this
>> ^curiousity:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think this is even close to grid level storage, at all. For instance, in Austin this year, between 4 and 5 p.m we consumed 66,867 megawatts. For those who are counting, that is over 33k of these things. Lets talk about storing them. Each container would be 40x8x8 feet; or 2,560 cubic feet. Lets just say we need 1 hours worthish of power, so 33k of them. That is 84 million cubic feet! For reference, the Empire State building is 37 million cubic feet. So for one hour of power here in Austin, we would need about 3 Empire state buildings of liquid metal batteries, unless my math is wrong (someone check me!) If my math is right, this isn't even close to a grid level storage ability. Your going to need density on the order of 1000 better to even be reasonably sized at 84k cubic feet (about the size of a large factory, or concert hall).
The only reason to try and investigate battery grid backup is to address the issue of wind and solar being so energy inefficient, and volatile. It is a better solution to just have them generate secondary power and let new fission based technologies take hold; best of both worlds. Then again, I have a personal bias

I thought that he had clearly made the point that this investigation into grid battery technology was for the purpose of making those intermittent renewable resources reliable to the point that they could more easily attach to the grid. You are arguing that this isn't suitable for a purpose that he isn't designing it for.



Ahh... well thank you for clearing up what he really meant beyond what he said. I guess I only had to go off of what he said.

My point still holds that to hold any descent amount of energy that they are producing when no one is using power requires a HUGE number of these things. This tech isn't really new, they have been using it for years, this is just a new formulation, tech has been around since the 60s. The problem is the same problem now as then, chemical energy density just isn't that great. If you are trying to use it as some type of regulator, fine then, but that isn't what he is talking about. He is talking about storing up volumes of energy that wind and solar make when people don't want it, then inject that to the grid when it needs it. You need this because renewables are unpredictable. To store any real volume of energy worth caring about, you need 10s of thousands of these. For comparison, a single 1gigawatt power station (a pretty standard size in the industry of power generation) generates enough energy for hundreds of thousands of people, even in the shade.

I'm not trying to be a negative nancy, I like advances as much as the next guy, I just don't like all this investment in renewables over real grid solutions. The energy density of wind and solar makes them impractical solutions for primary load generation, but that is all we hear about in today's energy topics. It is like talking about saving pennies when your trillion in debt. It bugs me, so perhaps I am harping to much on this
>> ^curiousity:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think this is even close to grid level storage, at all. For instance, in Austin this year, between 4 and 5 p.m we consumed 66,867 megawatts. For those who are counting, that is over 33k of these things. Lets talk about storing them. Each container would be 40x8x8 feet; or 2,560 cubic feet. Lets just say we need 1 hours worthish of power, so 33k of them. That is 84 million cubic feet! For reference, the Empire State building is 37 million cubic feet. So for one hour of power here in Austin, we would need about 3 Empire state buildings of liquid metal batteries, unless my math is wrong (someone check me!) If my math is right, this isn't even close to a grid level storage ability. Your going to need density on the order of 1000 better to even be reasonably sized at 84k cubic feet (about the size of a large factory, or concert hall).
The only reason to try and investigate battery grid backup is to address the issue of wind and solar being so energy inefficient, and volatile. It is a better solution to just have them generate secondary power and let new fission based technologies take hold; best of both worlds. Then again, I have a personal bias

I thought that he had clearly made the point that this investigation into grid battery technology was for the purpose of making those intermittent renewable resources reliable to the point that they could more easily attach to the grid. You are arguing that this isn't suitable for a purpose that he isn't designing it for.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by jonny.

Hi, welcome to the Sift

*discuss for spam content (although I must admire the obvious way in through the compo back door)

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why you would bother to 'prove' that Britain is not socialist? The liberalsift majority favors worldwide socialism. Is it because socialism always has to pull up stakes and move elsewhere when the original plan falls apart?

I'm not excluding the US of A. We're almost as bad now.
Why, here's what happens when you elect a socialist to the White House:
Regulation Nation: New study finds Obama’s regs cost $46 billion a year

Indeed. Why try to prove a negative? The burden of proof is on you. Not that I expect you to take up that burden; you never do.

Why you would bother to 'prove' that Britain is not socialist? The liberalsift majority favors worldwide socialism. Is it because socialism always has to pull up stakes and move elsewhere when the original plan falls apart?


I'm not excluding the US of A. We're almost as bad now.

Why, here's what happens when you elect a socialist to the White House:

Regulation Nation: New study finds Obama’s regs cost $46 billion a year

Some videos and links to get us started:

http://videosift.com/video/Canada-Election-Fraud-how-to-take-action

http://videosift.com/video/Robocalls-Largest-Eection-Fraud-in-Canadian-History-RMR?loadcomm=1#comment-1411571

http://vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/03/07/robo-call-scandal-origins-inside-conservatives%E2%80%99-voter-suppression-school

Here's the Facebook to coordinate cross-Canada protests: https://www.facebook.com/events/181631648613672/

This shit keeps getting worse. Apparently methods of voter suppression are part of the training that Conservative Party campaign managers receive. http://vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/03/07/robo-call-scandal-origins-inside-conservatives%E2%80%99-voter-suppression-school

Stop defending Obama. He's done nothing for jobs.

I was listening to a podcast today:
http://blackagendareport.com/content/listen-black-agenda-radio-progressive-radio-network-glen-ford-and-nellie-bailey-%E2%80%93-week-febru

It was memorable when David said "How can you argue that we can't attack Obama? We've gotten nothing from him. And we're supposed to remain silent because he can't have opposition?"