I realize I will probably be flamed for this but... A couple of points:

1) There is one type of person which is the most dangerous you can come across. It is people who suffer from White Knight Syndrome. Most if not all cops suffer from it; they seem to have a pathological need to do "what is right"(tm) no matter the cost for anyone else or themselves. As they have "right" on their side they can do no "evil" (That's what Black Knights and evil people do). That is also why they are the most dangerous people you can come across. All their actions are justified. They are the type who will shoot you with a smile on their lips because they are "vanquishing evil". Living in a black and white world is great... isn't it?

2) The guy is not resisting he is simply talking, as in being a civilized human being and not a barbarian, and therefore there is no justification at all for using violence. Instead of throwing the guy face first into asphalt the cop should have just asked him to sit down. But I guess that doesn't look as cool on those cop shows.

3) I have no respect for people who drink and drive but that is not a good enough reason to physically injure the guy as he is not physically combative. Be polite, tell him to sit down, explain why he is being arrested and then arrest him. Problem solved. Imagine a world where police are not militarized and actually behave like police should and not like mob enforcers. Do as we say or we will bash your face in, taze you, mace you and add resisting arrest to your crimes as you writhe in pain...

Ahh, Netrunner you have clarified that it does indeed seem that my knowledge is quite an antiquatedly incorrect thought process. Well the statistics from the New York Times definitely seems to make more sense of it all, and no I don't think we should abandon paved roads.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aimpoint:
There is something that deeply disturbs me about this
There are 2 issues that have been brought up, Social Security and Extending the Bush Tax Cuts
This video implies a guilt by association by associating the Social Security problems with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts is an easy stab at the Republicans, but the video is tying it together with Social Security to imply something more sinister like a "Rich stealing from the poor" scenario.
Umm, it's not guilt by association. If the topic you want to discuss is the deficit, the right says "cut Social Security and Medicare" while the left says "let the Bush tax cuts expire" to which the right says "taxes can't be raised, even if the tax cuts we passed exploded the deficit, not Social Security!"
That literally is a sinister plot to steal from the poor and give it to the rich. Cut taxes on the rich, and create a huge budget deficit, and then propose fixing the budget problems by cutting benefits to the lower and middle classes.
>> ^aimpoint:
The problem with Social Security is that people live longer, not something that was taken into account when it was first passed.
Wrong and wrong.

>> ^aimpoint:
Putting more money into it creates a situation where a larger share of money per paycheck will be required keep another program at status quo. Essentially its an added tax with No Benefit, say for if its not payed then money will be needed from other programs so if you don't pay up someone is gonna lose something.
The price of asphalt has doubled in recent years. Taxes will likely have to go up to continue maintaining roads. That's not an added tax with "no benefit", that's the cost of something that people depend on going up.
Perhaps you're in the camp that thinks we should abandon paved roads?
>> ^aimpoint:
The other situation involves Taking more money from Elsewhere and putting it into social security,
Like marinara said, not until 2037 would this be required. The social security trust fund has plenty of money in it, and social security is still running a net surplus, without changing anything.
Eliminating the cap on the payroll tax essentially fixes the entire projected budget shortfall -- the trust fund might run out just short of the end of the 21st century, assuming our projections about the economy 80+ years in the future are anywhere near correct (and that's a huge assumption).
>> ^aimpoint:
But the effectiveness of working 70 year-olds is unknown to me.

This is really the key issue with raising retirement ages into the 70's. Talking with people I work with, most of them find that headhunters and recruiters stop approaching them the second they hit 50. I kinda can't imagine what kinds of hoops someone would have to jump through to get a new job at 68 or so.
Back when people kept the same job for their entire working lifetime, maybe raising the retirement age made sense, especially with real honest to god company pensions still being around. Nowadays, companies treat their employees as disposable, and it's simply expected that people will change jobs every couple of years or so.
I'm kinda afraid of what the job market will look like when I hit 50, I can't even imagine having to compete against 30 year-olds for jobs when I'm nearly 70.

>> ^aimpoint:

There is something that deeply disturbs me about this
There are 2 issues that have been brought up, Social Security and Extending the Bush Tax Cuts
This video implies a guilt by association by associating the Social Security problems with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts is an easy stab at the Republicans, but the video is tying it together with Social Security to imply something more sinister like a "Rich stealing from the poor" scenario.

Umm, it's not guilt by association. If the topic you want to discuss is the deficit, the right says "cut Social Security and Medicare" while the left says "let the Bush tax cuts expire" to which the right says "taxes can't be raised, even if the tax cuts we passed exploded the deficit, not Social Security!"

That literally is a sinister plot to steal from the poor and give it to the rich. Cut taxes on the rich, and create a huge budget deficit, and then propose fixing the budget problems by cutting benefits to the lower and middle classes.

>> ^aimpoint:
The problem with Social Security is that people live longer, not something that was taken into account when it was first passed.

Wrong and wrong.


>> ^aimpoint:

Putting more money into it creates a situation where a larger share of money per paycheck will be required keep another program at status quo. Essentially its an added tax with No Benefit, say for if its not payed then money will be needed from other programs so if you don't pay up someone is gonna lose something.

The price of asphalt has doubled in recent years. Taxes will likely have to go up to continue maintaining roads. That's not an added tax with "no benefit", that's the cost of something that people depend on going up.

Perhaps you're in the camp that thinks we should abandon paved roads?

>> ^aimpoint:

The other situation involves Taking more money from Elsewhere and putting it into social security,

Like marinara said, not until 2037 would this be required. The social security trust fund has plenty of money in it, and social security is still running a net surplus, without changing anything.

Eliminating the cap on the payroll tax essentially fixes the entire projected budget shortfall -- the trust fund might run out just short of the end of the 21st century, assuming our projections about the economy 80+ years in the future are anywhere near correct (and that's a huge assumption).

>> ^aimpoint:
But the effectiveness of working 70 year-olds is unknown to me.


This is really the key issue with raising retirement ages into the 70's. Talking with people I work with, most of them find that headhunters and recruiters stop approaching them the second they hit 50. I kinda can't imagine what kinds of hoops someone would have to jump through to get a new job at 68 or so.

Back when people kept the same job for their entire working lifetime, maybe raising the retirement age made sense, especially with real honest to god company pensions still being around. Nowadays, companies treat their employees as disposable, and it's simply expected that people will change jobs every couple of years or so.

I'm kinda afraid of what the job market will look like when I hit 50, I can't even imagine having to compete against 30 year-olds for jobs when I'm nearly 70.

Part of the premise is that, since the cost of solar panels is coming down and the cost of asphalt is skyrocketing, at some point it will be cheaper to lay down panels than asphalt.

I'm still not sure this is all a good idea, but it's certainly an interesting one.

>> ^Jinx:

Still seems like a silly idea to me.
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to run Solar Panels alongside the road instead of making them the road. I mean, whats the advantage in driving on the solar panels? Ok, you could argue it kills two birds with one stone, but consider the cost it requires to make solar panels you can drive on...it start to become quite an expensive stone.

I see 4 major problems with this...

I see is tires running on a wet glass road. The glass is a lot flatter than asphalt, and so hydroplaning will be far more prevalent unless specific tires were made to cope.

Further, the cost issue will be catastrophic. Solar panels are very, very expensive. Manufacturing solar cells these days is a fairly dirty process, with many very hazardous bi-products. Producing enough solar cells to cover even just major roads would be problematic.

There is also a huge issue of light pollution. Upward facing LEDs replacing road lines is going light up the night sky to absurd degrees, especially in the already light doused cities.

And finally, there is the issue of shifting roads. No matter where you are, soil is always moving. Look outside at the nearest street and see if you can't find a crack due to soil shearing. This will be especially bad in certain geographic locations. Breaking of the roads will require challenging repairs and custom peices to be made. Further, if the roads are replacing power lines as was suggested, power outages would occur as a result of these road breaks, and restoring power will take as long as it takes to fix the road, weeks probably, longer if there is severe damage from natural disasters, earthquakes, etc.

I love the ingenuity, but it is just not practical...

Solar cells have reached 40% effectiveness, which is far more than any conventional energy source. The tech has come leaps and bounds from what you refer to. Nuclear isn't the answer either as peak uranium is about as close away as peak oil. The fact is, free photos rain down with a total solar energy hitting Earth at around 10^17 Watts, and that is just on the earths surface. Tapping into just a portion of that is worth it. Extra planetary collectors would fetch nearly double of their earth bound brethren. Solar makes to much since to ignore. In other videos, he talks about the cost, and it was about as costly as a second of equivalently maintained asphalt, and that doesn't even factor in the energy they provide as an offset.

The ball has to start rolling. As others pointed out, replacing all sidewalks with something like this would be a great start. Smart sidewalks have whole other neat set of applications! Hey Mr. Smart phone, why don't you sync up with the side walk and point me in the direction of that bar I am going to...I shall follow the sidewalk arrows until I arrive!

If you are talking about technological costs, the always goes down fast with time. Problem is there are about 20 different sets of competing technologies that are still viaing for dominance. We are only about 10 years away from paper printing, high yield cells. With a modular system like the one proposed, outdated units could be phased out for newer ones very easily. In the end, it takes a doer to get this done, it is easy to be a naysayer and poke holes in the boat. I mean, the internet, surely that would never work. Hurdles can usually be overcome, doing nothing can't be.

This is definitely one of those ideas that could only work on paper. Is it "possible"? Sure - we could make a bunch of glass roads. Would they work as billed? A little yes but mostly no. Would it be affordable compared to asphalt or concrete? Definitely not..

Solar power is just one of those things that people refuse to admit is just a pipe dreams because the idea is so romantic. It conjures up mental images of the Jetsons where power is free and everyone is flying to work on their solar powered suitcase cars. The brutal reality of solar power is that it is incredibly expensive, terribly inefficient, and hobbled by battery technology which itself is about one step away from pointed sticks. The limitations make solar power unlikely to ever have any role except as a tiny niche of the energy market.

If you look at most freeways, they gradually slope across the surface for water drainage. So no they are not perfectly flat, but the goal for people preparing subgrades is to make the surface as even as possible while maintaining the desired grade. If the surface is really even, that means there will be the minimum amount of overage on materials when it comes to asphalt. If they prepare it properly, the machine can be set at 2-3-4 inches thick and lay all day at that depth, and when they move over to the next lane, they can lay the same thickness and maintain the grade without having to adjust. That's the goal, it meets the specs of the job and doesn't cost them in overages on material....and if they are majorly over...someone screwed up.

Now....I'm pointing out flaws in this roadway because if they were to use his design and it failed miserably there would be less chance of them ever doing it again. So what's the fault in putting it in applications where it would see more extreme conditions in a lower traffic zone to get a proof of concept? Or hell even put it on a bike path or sidewalk, if it holds up superbly for a few years......move onto a military base to see how well it holds up to extreme abuse of their heavy machinery.

Just slapping it down on a highway because that would be cool is a sure fire way to kill this prospect dead in it's tracks for a long time to come. Prove it lasts, prove it provides savings, and prove it's as safe as or better than current materials under all possible road conditions. Highways may be the goal, but it isn't the first step on an unproven concept.

Personally I think if they did this on bike paths, they'd have more luck pushing it forward..because bike paths are all about the green initiative...so if they can also kick some energy savings back to the city while testing their product. No one loses there if the materials work, and if they don't.....at least it's just a bike path that needs re-surfaced.



>> ^Payback:

Most of you keep talking about how the road needs to be perfectly flat. Well, they don't. Otherwise the concrete pads of the interstates would need to be perfectly flat. These are 3x3 squares. Every video game character you play is made up of squares and triangles. A spiked ridge between the LED/P-V "pucks" would take care of any water caused splipping.
Just because you can find fault with the guy's "ultimate" roadway, a ton of the ideas could be implemented without full conversion.
How about using those LED/P-V pucks on highways to merely to show where the lanes are at night? They could "pave" the centre and shoulder areas to provide power for streetlights and not affect the traffic surface.

Not sure where up north means to you. In Ohio they might redo a road (freeway/highway) every 5-7 years unless there is some sort of catastrophic problem like supports failing or someone striking the supports. Most of the roads go longer than that for full replacement. They obviously do pothole patching and small resurfacing on roads that need it at least once a year, although this has become more of a potluck thing with the economy. Lots and lots of side streets are going un-repaired while they redo entire neighborhoods using the stimulus money. Which...this is happening because they funnel all the money through 2-3 huge road crew companies like Kokosing and these guys aren't going to hire on 4x the crew to complete the jobs quick...they will stretch it out until the economy improves so they can keep who they have working.

I can't comment on how strong this glass may be, but a lot of those "unbreakable" screens break and those "unscratchable" screens scratch. So if all it takes is a focused amount of pressure, a screwdriver or big pointy rock being run over by a loaded semi might be all it takes.

Newer finish layer asphalt, when it's black or a really dark grey is pretty flexible. Especially if it's a hot day outside, it'll flex into nearly an L shape before breaking and folding in the size a man could carry. And in truth most roads freshly installed are made up of probably 3-4 layers of asphalt, 1 or 2 base layers (rockier than finish), and probably 2 finish layers..if not more. Depends on how many times they have to redo it to make the surfaces of all the lanes smooth.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

They have crazy glass man. This ain't your bay windows. You are talking titanium level resistance to heat and cold, fracture and the like. Like he said, we know LOTS about glass. It is less about "can we", and more about "how we". 15 Years for a normal road is pretty unlikely in most of the country. Up north, it is about once a year because of the extreme ice and water damage. This on the other hand could power its own deicing system most likely (which he talks about in other videos, this is old news). It is great to see that he has a working model now. I don't know if I like the idea of wireless in there, hackers and what not. I would still keep tethered control to all that, which shouldn't be hard at all. I don't know that it is reasonable for it to act like a bridge and not a road. If the water washes away its support base...like a normal road, it collapsing is par for course, roads shouldn't be over-engineered to be bridges unless the cost is free. Also, if the road has power, you could have pressure sensors on it to feel for road imbalance issues which is much better than having to deal with potholes. I wonder about traction issues in rain. It could channel water much better than asphalt, but what if it is saturated? Then again, running my own hand against this glass surface with a lot of weight has a pretty high resistance.

They have crazy glass man. This ain't your bay windows. You are talking titanium level resistance to heat and cold, fracture and the like. Like he said, we know LOTS about glass. It is less about "can we", and more about "how we". 15 Years for a normal road is pretty unlikely in most of the country. Up north, it is about once a year because of the extreme ice and water damage. This on the other hand could power its own deicing system most likely (which he talks about in other videos, this is old news). It is great to see that he has a working model now. I don't know if I like the idea of wireless in there, hackers and what not. I would still keep tethered control to all that, which shouldn't be hard at all. I don't know that it is reasonable for it to act like a bridge and not a road. If the water washes away its support base...like a normal road, it collapsing is par for course, roads shouldn't be over-engineered to be bridges unless the cost is free. Also, if the road has power, you could have pressure sensors on it to feel for road imbalance issues which is much better than having to deal with potholes. I wonder about traction issues in rain. It could channel water much better than asphalt, but what if it is saturated? Then again, running my own hand against this glass surface with a lot of weight has a pretty high resistance.

What do these common road contaminants/applicants do to it?

Oil, salt, rubber, tar (because we're not going to be able to do all roads at once obviously), rocks, dirt, rust flakes, hydraulic, transmission, anti-freeze, various other car fluids, gasoline spills, diesel spills.

If an accident occurs how easily is the glass scratched, how much damage can it take before it needs a full replacement.

When replacing/repairing them, how long does it take? Is it cheaper to repair/replace them than it would be to maintain asphalt. How long do they last? Asphalt can go 10-15 years on parking lots if maintained and not overly abused via spills. Roads vary due to traffic and how smooth they are, plows eat them alive when they begin to hump/buckle or become misshapen in some way.

If one breaks or is damaged....does it affect the power generation? How much so? Will it take out city blocks of power like a power line going down?

What if a water main bursts under it or near it....will it support the weight if the foundation is washed away? Will it heave up in a big panel making the surface uneven? Will it breaks the other panels when it does this? Or cause some other damage due to the feed being broken?

How does it handle snow, ice, dust, fog, mist. Extreme temperatures. Can they be salted and plowed or do they self-clear snow somehow?

Most cracking and uneven-ness in road surfaces comes from the foundation below it, some people call them structural cracks..like the foundation of your house might get because of settling. It's also a telltale sign of problems below the surface of the road, masking that problem may not be a desirable quality even though it makes it a more convenient road surface in the meantime. It's like pothole versus sinkhole problems....I'd rather blow out a tire than have my car swallowed by the road.

If they keep this primarily to freeways they can avoid most issues with water mains, gas lines, sewer, etc. But they'll still have storm drains and the underground pipes associated with them, not as much of a big deal if they leak...but if they were to be plugged and a big rain came it can cause havoc with roadways above and below the surface...they don't plan for the water to start flowing up from beneath the roadway.

Finish grade asphalt and concrete work is pretty fast moving stuff when everything else is ready. It's all the sub grade work that takes months and even years.

Be great if it worked, but maybe they should start with sidewalks or bike paths...military base applications...they see some heavy equipment rolling through there, if it lasts through those....

Not only does it have to follow contours of the land, but these panels would have to be able to deal with subsidence of the layers of earth under the foundation due to constant rolling point loads from trucks (since cars weigh nothing compared to a fully loaded truck). Asphalt/bitumen can elastically deform and still be a via road surface (i'm sure everyone's noticed 'channels' in the road). Couple that with the need to remove surface run-off water when it rains. True you could make the top road surface bumpy, but once those bumps are worn down you cant re-surface without replacing a whole panel.

On top of that, what happens if the micro-processors suddenly crap out, or some of the LEDs blow. In the first case, any road markings would suddenly disappear, or conversely the road would suddenly light up blinding drivers. In the second case, you'd either have to replace a full panel, or have "acceptable defects" where a certain number of LEDS can blow and the panel won't be compromised.

If they manage to get this to work, kudos to them, but i just can't see it happening with what they've been showing. Would seem to be easier to harness the thermal energy of roads rather than solar energy acting on the roads.

Ooof. Good thing that wasn't asphalt.

The scenes where he does crazy shit outside on asphalt, concrete, brick and so on are WAY more impressive than the padded-gym-and-buddy-helping-him-with-spotting bits because if he screws up, he gets hurt.

The inside stuff does look pretty and I sure couldn't do those stunts, but they're not same as raw hard-surface parkour.

Gotta wonder if some of these people aren't drunk but dehydrated and suffering from sunstroke/heatstroke. It'll make ya do some do some strange things. Gotten to the brink of it myself, while working on a asphalt crew in high 90 degree weather with a comfortable 100% humidity.