Roads shifting isn't a problem for glass, as long as the glass is made for that spec. Glass isn't a solid, it is more like a trapped liquid. As such, it shifts around depending on the structure of glass, it could be made to cope with different level tolerances for movement. So, it is more an application of engineering than some insurmountable problem.

The amount of light that WON'T be reflected back and instead harness would out shine any led I would suppose, though don't know.

There should be no doubt that solar cells aren't a clean tech in terms of it is an industrial process. But it is still much better than supporting the oil refining process for taring up the soil. However, the future of solar technology is moving away from large silicon sheets to small, cleaner applications.

Costs of technology are always high until they hit wide spread use. With that, comes innovation that you can't calculate for. Just look at food, or computers, technology is one of those things you can almost count on getting cheaper. And as the video points out, oil and oil based derivatives aren't cheap currently. If 2 things cost near the same, and one also pays for itself, then the math is in your favor

Glass isn't just made from silica nowadays. You can make mostly transparent glass for metals, salts, and other compounds. The result is, among other things, a blend of textures and groves, and other microscopic features. You could actually construct your glass to have microscopic barbs to yield you a greater net traction effect than most surfaces.

The point here is, like most technologies, it is just how you get it to work at what price point with how much functionality...not if. Going to the moon with a computer that is less powerful than your pocket calculator is hard, this is considerably easier problem

>> ^bcglorf:

Give them time, they're young.
You say that, but you don't really mean it.
Scientology shouldn't be given time to moderate itself, it should be labeled as the dangerous and destructive cult it is. It should be marginalized and ideally driven to the 'religious' status of Jedi Knights where it is at least understood that the foundation was a sci-fi work from a sci-fi author.
I must say, I'm pretty surprised we can't agree on that.
I can only presume your so keen to class scientology as a religion because that means all the more targets for your barbs against religion. The irony is that you're arguing for the recognition and legitimization of yet another religion. Wouldn't you rather be advocating for us to be heading in the other direction?
That's where I am and it frustrates me to no end when someone like you so helpfully jumps in to the defense of one of the most easily discredited cults out there.
Chop your idealism down a little and start for reform of 'religious' freedoms being limited to those belief systems that are willing to openly and freely share their beliefs and whose teachings include a minimum bar of tolerance.


Oh my god, are you new to the internet or something? I'm arguing, through sarcasm, that all religions should be marginalized and destroyed because they are all guilty of the types of things you want Scientology to be marginalized for.

Give them time, they're young.

You say that, but you don't really mean it.

Scientology shouldn't be given time to moderate itself, it should be labeled as the dangerous and destructive cult it is. It should be marginalized and ideally driven to the 'religious' status of Jedi Knights where it is at least understood that the foundation was a sci-fi work from a sci-fi author.

I must say, I'm pretty surprised we can't agree on that.

I can only presume your so keen to class scientology as a religion because that means all the more targets for your barbs against religion. The irony is that you're arguing for the recognition and legitimization of yet another religion. Wouldn't you rather be advocating for us to be heading in the other direction?

That's where I am and it frustrates me to no end when someone like you so helpfully jumps in to the defense of one of the most easily discredited cults out there.

Chop your idealism down a little and start for reform of 'religious' freedoms being limited to those belief systems that are willing to openly and freely share their beliefs and whose teachings include a minimum bar of tolerance.

I had to use one of these the other day. It lives up to the claim, I have to give it that.

For the love of god though... if you ever need to use one of these yourself, treat it from a safety perspective like it's a power tool. Like a circular saw or something equally dangerous. Because those hooks? Yeah. They are sharper than they look, even if they're plastic. And if you were to accidentally be overzealous with yanking on the Zip It or if your grip slipped and you drew your hand across one of the barbs... congrats, you've just opened up a cut that has all kinds of lovely microbes that you just pulled from your drain pouring into it. Good luck trying to keep that from getting infected.

Just a word of warning. I agree the Zip It is retardedly effective at what it does, though.

@silvercord, let me get this straight. Me giving my own opinion is a "filter"?
>> ^silvercord:

You used the filter again in your first paragraph when you wrongly guessed at why I pointed to Hanson's curriculum vitae. gbfunk did, after all, ask for a "conservative opinion," and not a "fair and impartial judge." I was holding up his credentials for two reasons. He is first a conservative and second, he has credentials to prove it. It is a valid conservative view.

Okay, so his CV was to prove that he was conservative, not that he was necessarily going to make valid points. Fair enough.

>> ^silvercord:
Not so by the way, the publication you referenced (The American Conservative Magazine), after apologizing for previous "rough treatment" of Hanson, goes on to call him "one of America’s premier public intellectuals." This, in an introduction to an article written by Hanson and published last November.

Wait, so his CV was about his ability to make valid points?

Let me try to make my point again without putting in the barbs, and see if you would like to respond to it directly.

The original request was for "a place to go where ... intelligent conservatives actually have valid points and constructive criticism on todays issues".

I read that as meaning that he's looking for somewhere, anywhere to regularly find commentary that:

1. Makes valid points
   
2. Contains constructive criticism
   
3. Discusses today's issues
   
4. Is written by people who are intelligent conservatives
   

I'm happy to concede that the article you linked meets that 4th criteria. I'll even say that there's an argument to be made that the 1st is met also. I contest that it meets the other two.

His CV has nothing to do with points 1-3.

You did vaguely attempt to address criteria #3 with this:
>> ^silvercord:
As to your charge that there is no critique of Obama's policies, I will leave that up to gbfunk to decide. While you may take a more legalistic approach to the word 'policy' in order to skate around some of our President's more glaring inconsistencies, I am certain the American public isn't as careful.

...but I read that as "you're right, I'm not talking about issues, but I doubt my audience will notice, so stop pointing it out."

Seriously, there's a ton to criticize about what Obama's doing without having to say "he's a liar". Hell, if the whole case you want to make is "Obama tells lies" you don't even have to dig into campaign promises. But that's not constructive criticism, and none of it is really about the issues.

For example, the statement "Obama bears responsibility for having permitted BP to do offshore drilling without having made enough of an effort to ensure that it would be safe" is a valid point. "Therefore, Obama should fire the people responsible at MMS, and put new procedures in place to ensure that oil companies follow the appropriate safety tests before operating a rig in American waters" would be constructive criticism.

I don't even know where to find the conservative policy idea to deal with what's happening in the gulf, or how they would try to prevent future problems.

All I know is that the right wants to say it's all Obama's fault, and it's Obama's Katrina, and it's not all that bad anyway so we should keep drilling, and liberals should have never blamed Bush for Katrina, and BTW, didn't Obama say during the campaign that he's opposed to offshore drilling?

Not really constructive, not really valid, and not really even about the issue. It's horrifying that so-called "intelligent conservatives" think this is the way they should talk about today's issues.

That's my point, and I daresay it was gbfunk's as well.

I use to do this on me go-cart all the time. Of course one day one of the neighbor kids thought he could do it and drove us both straight through a barbed wire fence!

>> ^grinter:
It would also be good to note that these aren't shrimp. They're amphipods; a very diverse group in their own right. Crustaceans, but more closely related to krill.


So lets pull another krill on the barbe!

^ To be honest, I'm going off of what I saw on hotforwords for the cop thing. I don't know if she's authoritative, but she did address the notion that cop was short for copper badges, but said that's not really the origin.

If you want a semantic battle, I'll waste a few brain cells on it. Let's start with the etymology of the word semantic itself:

1894, from Fr. sémantique, applied by Michel Bréal (1883) to the psychology of language, from Gk. semantikos "significant," from semainein "to show, signify, indicate by a sign," from sema "sign" (Doric sama).

In short, semantics refer to the method or process of how people communicate ideas. Normally discussions of semantics are about accurately conveying an idea or concept with words. For example, how do people know the difference between their, they're and there in spoken language? Why doesn't that kind of overloading create a lot communication issues?

A big part of the answer is context. With they're, their, and there, all you need to really know is the grammatical part of speech. Other concepts need a semantic context.

For example, let's talk about a red light. A red traffic light means stop, but a red light in other context might mean that your stereo is in standby mode, your phone is charging, or you're getting close to the whorehouse.

It can also be used metaphorically, as in "She told him she didn't want to see him anymore, but he just loves to run red lights."

I find that you can be selectively obtuse about these different ways of discerning meaning from words.

When I say "I am a liberal", I usually mean this, and not necessarily this.

However, I don't really think being a liberal necessarily is in conflict with being a liberal. I too have a strong devotion to individual liberty, I just think there are more fundamental human rights than you do. But I also think there are limits to rights, and that there's no root violation of "individual liberty" if you have taxpayer subsidized, compulsory social insurance, any more than if you have a taxpayer subsizied, compulsory fire department.

But I don't need to express all of that if what I'm really saying is "I don't think liberals like to be told to think." There's no real doubt about who I'm talking about when I say "liberals". My semantics are clear.

If one wanted to respond to such an assertion, they would take on its semantic content. In other words, they'd say "broad generalizations like that are bad", or "bullshit, liberals are all zombies that do what George Soros tells them to", or even address the implication, such as "conservatives don't like to be told what to think, either!", or "I believe what I believe, and if Rush Limbaugh agrees with me, then I suppose he's on my side."

Incidentally, here's a good etymology of the word liberal. Personally, I'm using the original root definition, "befitting free men, noble, generous," when I describe the people who believe in this. When I'm referring to anti-tax zealots, I'm usually dancing around this, but I can also come up with more scathing barbs as the situation merits.

Cats tongues are abrasive as somewhat of an evolutionary throwback. When wild cats eat they use those barbed tongues to literally 'lick' the meat off a carcass. Wild housecats undoubtedly still use their tongues this way and its also why a cat in your arms all comfortable might be licking your arm and then bite you softly.

Funny video.

My life according to: Bob Dylan (duh)

Are you a male or female? Ballad Of A Thin Man

Describe yourself: Motorpsycho Nightmare

How do you feel? Sittin' On A Barbed Wire Fence

Describe where you currently live: Drifter's Escape

If you could go anywhere, where would you go?: Desolation Row

Your favorite form of transportation: From a Buick 6

Your best friend is: The Man In Me

You and your best friends are: Knockin' On Heaven's Door

What's the weather like? Shelter From The Storm

Favorite time of day: New Morning

If your life was a TV show, what would it be called?: Man In The Long Black Coat

What is life to you: I Threw It All Away

Your current relationship: Lay Lady Lay

Your fear: You Ain't Goin' Nowhere

What is the best advice you have to give? It Takes A Lot To Laugh, It Takes A Train To Cry

Thought for the Day: I Shall Be Free

How I would like to die: Shooting Star

My soul's present condition: Forever Young

My motto: I'll Be Your Baby Tonight

Getting shocked by a tazer doesn't scare me. The barbs however scare the HELL out of me.

(English translation follows)

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Les_Cowboys_Fringants:Le_Gars_De_La_Compagnie

Depuis le début du siècle
Des gars courageux ont coupé le bois du Québec
Partaient à l'automne, passaient l'hiver dans des camps
Revn'aient voir leurs femmes quand arrivait le printemps.......
Les Américains flairant la bonne affaire
Sont v'nus faire la piasse dans l'bout de Trois-Rivières
Ça va nous faire d'la job pour les Canadiens-Francais
B'tissez vos usines pis nous on vous donne la forêt!

Pendant des années y'ont coupé comme des défoncés
La demande est trop grande pour s'qu'la forêt peut donner
Mais cé pas ben grave
Y'ont des chums au gouvernement
Fa'qu'y sont r'montés au nord
Continuer la coupe à blanc...

Les Amérindiens ceux qui chassent de père en fils
Ont voulu leur parler
Y s'sont fait dire rentrez chez vous
C'est pas avec vous autres qu'on va faire des b'n'fices
Pour nous un caribou c'est ben plus beau sur un trente sous

Et le gars d'la compagnie rit dans sa barbe
C'est qui le con qui a dit que l'argent poussait pas dins arbres ?

=====

Since the turn of last century
Brave lads have been logging the forests of Quebec
Leaving in the fall, spending winter in the camps
Returning to their wives when the spring would come again
The Americans could smell a lot of cash
Came to make a buck at the town of Trois-Rivières
It'd mean jobs for us, the French-Canadians
Build your factories and we'll give you the whole forest

Year after year they cut down trees like men possessed
Asking too much more than the forest could provide
But it was no big deal
They had friends in government
So they headed further north
And kept up their clearcutting

The aboriginals, who were hunters, man and boy
Tried to have a say
But were told to take a hike
It's not from your kind that we're going to make our profits
For us, your caribou looks better minted on a coin

And the company man is laughing to himself
Who's the fool who said that money doesn't grow on trees?

"As ancient sea-slugs begin to crawl...

Through ragweed and barbed wire."

Possibly one of the best lyrics of all time.

Interesting. Which country do you live in?

In reply to this comment by EDD:
I live in a post-soviet nation which just last year ranked lowest in terms of quality of health care in the EU - and for good reason. I couldn't explain our system if I wanted to, it's that chaotic; made up from remnants of soviet infrastructure and new institutions that were created in the 90s, but suffice to say that one pays for other folks' medical care in taxes AND when one has to make a doctor's appointment/perform a procedure as well - unless they have full insurance (which more often than not people don't). I'd say up to half of the population do not have the social benefit of employer-covered insurance and less than half of all the uninsured have a privately purchased health care plan. There is a national health service in name only - it just doesn't do what it's supposed to. The prices for the services are generally reasonable, the problem is that the country's welfare sucks, with the majority of pensions being below the minimum consumer basket(!!!).
Having said that, people sometimes have to wait months to get government-funded surgery, but that's line-based waiting and usually for transplants afaik, because there just aren't any. While there are private clinics, I've never heard of anybody having to wait longer in a state hospital because of bureaucracy or because they couldn't afford to pay extra - that's just wrong.

Now, as far as a public health care option is concerned I can say this: as an Eastern-European country we have our fair share of soviet-sympathizers, but they're the minority. However, even people that could now be called nationalists often reminisce about how great Soviet health care was - nobody paid a single dime and everybody got the same treatment (almost, actually - ruling party members were usually taken to military hospitals - I wonder why...). Anyway, QM can spout his BS all he wants, but socialized health care works, and the fact that it worked for the Soviet republics doesn't mean that it goes hand-in-hand with communism, it means that it just plain WORKS.

As far as the US is concerned, I just sifted this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Health-Insurance-Insider-Speaks-Out-on-Fear-Tactics

Other great stuff from Bill Moyers:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1887246-bill-moyers-journal-money-and-the-news

*edit - what dag said. I'm kind of shocked at how any of the rich assholes that oppose public health care in the US haven't given the concept of herd immunity a single thought, or, that the opposition hasn't called them out on this. Then again I suppose the assholes expect their kids and grand-kids will be living in barb-wire fenced environments to keep the 'common folk' away.

I live in a post-soviet nation which just last year ranked lowest in terms of quality of health care in the EU - and for good reason. I couldn't explain our system if I wanted to, it's that chaotic; made up from remnants of soviet infrastructure and new institutions that were created in the 90s, but suffice to say that one pays for other folks' medical care in taxes AND when one has to make a doctor's appointment/perform a procedure as well - unless they have full insurance (which more often than not people don't). I'd say up to half of the population does not have the social benefit of employer-covered insurance and less than half of all the uninsured have a privately purchased health care plan. There is a national health service in name only - it just doesn't do what it's supposed to. The prices for the services are generally reasonable, the problem is that the country's welfare sucks, with the majority of pensions being below the minimum consumer basket(!!!).
Having said that, people sometimes have to wait months to get government-funded surgery, but that's line-based waiting and usually for transplants afaik, because there just never seem to be enough of those around. While there are private clinics, I've never heard of anybody having to wait longer in a state hospital because of bureaucracy or because they couldn't afford to pay extra - that's just wrong.

Now, as far as a public health care option is concerned I can say this: as an Eastern-European country we have our fair share of soviet-sympathizers, but they're the minority. However, even people that could now be called nationalists often reminisce about how great Soviet health care was - nobody paid a single dime and everybody got the same treatment (almost, actually - ruling party members were usually taken to military hospitals - I wonder why...). Anyway, QM can spout his BS all he wants, but socialized health care works, and the fact that it worked for the Soviet republics doesn't mean that it goes hand-in-hand with communism, it means that it just plain WORKS.

As far as the US is concerned, I just sifted this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Health-Insurance-Insider-Speaks-Out-on-Fear-Tactics

Other great stuff from Bill Moyers:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1887246-bill-moyers-journal-money-and-the-news

*edit - what dag said. I'm kind of shocked at how any of the rich assholes that oppose public health care in the US haven't given the concept of herd immunity a single thought, or, that the opposition hasn't called them out on this. Then again I suppose the assholes expect their kids and grand-kids will be living in barb-wire fenced environments to keep the 'common folk' away.