2nd that. All these would make great "upgrades" in a videogame, but in real life none of them would be practical (or safe if even possible). Physics just doesn't work that way.
Maybe we'll see the hybrid tire for energy effeciency, but it would have to change state back to flat within milliseconds for fast braking in emergency situation.

@Crosswords
i am beginning to feel the stirrings of a man-crush on you.

look.
when it comes to money and economics schiff has made some great points and in 2004 was almost prophetic but when it comes to politics schiff appears to be a fish out of water and came to OWS with a self-righteous pre-conception and was rightly shown the error in his ways.

the argument about disbanding the EPA,the FDA or the DOE is a conflation.
we can argue the effeciency vs results but that is an entirely separate argument and has little to do with their actually designed roles and the necessity of those departments.

i do not understand those who keep touting the virtue of an un-regulated and "free" market.
unless you feel that indentured servitude,child labor and unsafe products that may harm or kill are perfectly acceptable.
it not only ignores history but conveniently ignores that uneven disparity that would be inevitable.
you think there is inequality now?
let a true free market become the mantra of pure capitalism and see what happens.
dont have resources and were not born in to an affluent family?
well go fuck yourself and make me a sandwich.

the game is rigged.
the system is fixed.
a CEO defrauds billions and walks away with 160 million in bonuses.
a man steals a pack of underwear and spends 30 days in jail,gets charged for the food and board and owes 500 hours of community service and a years probation at a 100 bucks a month.

all men are created equal under the eyes of the law?
i call bullshit.

"No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs. "

This is actually somewhat true. If breeds interbreed (derp, thats why they called breeds teehee?) there is very little chance of speciation occurring. Seperate a Great Dane a Chihuahua by a huge expanse of water for long enough though and eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring, or in other words, become a different species.

"Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record."

I'd like to see you define a "fully formed" species. Honestly, this really shows how badly you misunderstand evolution. You are a transitional species, we all are, every single living thing on this planet is in some sense transitional. This misunderstanding of evolution seems to stem from the belief that it all happens at once, suddenly one day a bird hatches out of a dinosaur egg. Honey, it don't work like that, its millions of tiny changes from one generation to the next.

"The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild."

Again, this somewhat true. Adaptions for a specific thing often come at a price. Its why we still see so many simple organisms sitting around, bacteria still exists and has not evolved into more complex forms because simple works for that bacteria. If there is no strong evolutionary pressure then why evolve? However, there is PLENTY of pressure to evolve, be it exploiting a new niche, adapting better to hunt new prey or to survive in a different environment.

I really encourage you to learn more about speciation. It seems you accept that species do mutate to better survive, but you don't believe that results in them forming a whole new species. Thats quite a reasonable position to take but there is plenty of evidence explaining how speciation actually occurs. Gogo read up on it, its fascinating.

"Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?"

No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs.

"When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?"

Yes, this was a dumb question. Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record.

"If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild.

"It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

that's the magic part..it doesn't ever happen.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?


Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?
Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?
It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.
If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!
If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)
Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

>> ^gwiz665:

Nuclear power is the best fast and effecient substitute for coal and oil. Ideally we'd all just use solar, wind and geothermal, but this is not an ideal world and we need to end our dependence (or lessen it) asap.


Why are those ideal? They are an eye sore and take up vast amounts of space, and at times, in what used to be nice habitats. Daming up rivers and strip clearing land for wind and solar seem to be a step backwards for the goal. In my mind, the ideal is a little power plant that powers the whole world. It seems thermodynamically speaking you have 3 options: To burn stuff that is energetic, to harness small pools of energy over large amounts of space, or to have a high level energy reaction that is potentially volatile. Fusion does seem like the answer once we get it, its volatility is unlike nuclear. The volatility of fusion, from my understanding, is trying to maintain the reaction. Catastrophic failure means a reactor restart, not a meltdown. So you get high energy density, stability (of power output levels), low risk, low pollution. The same is true of fission reactors, except they aren't "as" safe, or "as" clean as some of the alternatives. But the type of clean they ARE (low co2) is exactly what we want.

Nuclear power is the best fast and effecient substitute for coal and oil. Ideally we'd all just use solar, wind and geothermal, but this is not an ideal world and we need to end our dependence (or lessen it) asap.

Yes, but i also want CCTV presence in ALL public areas of major cities, with on demand streams.

Seriously. It will make prosecuting crimes and reviewing accidents more effecient, thus saving more money than we would spend on the systems. Use face matching to catch criminals, etc... The downsides are not really there. Ooh, someone could stalk you... how fucking important do you really think you are?!?! heheh. i dare someone to stay awake watching my boring ass all day.

It's not big brother... they use thermal cams to watch you when ur in the house.... Outside.. well that's just logical governing.. let people do what they want, but make sure they are accountable.

No biggie. It will only save society and the planet.

but.....guns and lawyers are just fine... No problems there. forget i said anything.

>> ^joedirt:
"Not a single drop of gasoline"
WHAT A DUMB CUNT!
You know how much more petroleum is wasted by converting to AC, transmitting to your house, then charing your car, then storing in DC batteries.

As stated before, very little petroleum is wasted by conversion, do you think mechanics operate on petroleum? Comversion to electric uses less petroleum than one tank of gas I would bet. I'm assuming you meant the conversion of the vehicle, not the conversion of the energy source.

The electric grid is NOT petroleum based here in Cali., so the idea that you are using petroleum to power the grid, and then the car is just plain ignorant, you ignorant ....

What an ignorant fuck, compared to refining oil, shipping gasoline to gas station, then filling up a car. Even with a horrible burn ratio in a combustion engine (most of the energy goes into heat and friction), your petroleum goes a ton further.


Explain, goes a ton further than what? Please think in complete sentences, or at least complete thoughts. I can only assume you think the idea here is to take a small petroeum generator, refine and ship petroleum to the generator, run the generator to create AC power, transmit the power across a few hundred miles of lines, convert to DC (I like that you actually suggest charging the car and batteries with AC power in your thought process), and power the car and batteries. I ask, are you intentionally ignorant of the processes, or just retarded? Even if that was how it works, you ignore the fact that the fuel is refined for and shipped to both systems (generator and car), so remove that part of your equation. The motors used for electrical generation with petroleum are ridiculously more effecient than your car's combustion engine, probably by a factor of 4. The small amount of energy lost to heat in transmission and conversion to DC power is FAR less than the energy lost to heat by a car motor. Converting electricity to kenetic energy is far more effecient than combustion engines too. Even with ALL the losses you mention, which do not exist in every situation, electric vehicles are still ridiculously more effecient than petroleum vehicles.

>
WHAT A DUMB CUNT!

>> ^joedirt:
"because UPS is an integral part of a server."
Yeah, sure. And my spare tire pressure is a critical statistic I brag about my hotrod.
Duh, the UPS has nothing to do with server operation nor power efficiency. Look at the spare tire on that Posche!!!! Wow, that's hot.


When you get a flat tire on your "Posche", it only inconveniences you (and your passengers, if any). I'd say that's a maximum of 4 people being inconvenienced, maybe 6 if you have one of those silly "Posche" SUVs.
Now, take a look at google - a single data center has capacity for 45,000 servers, and each server probably handles 10s to 100s of simultaneous requests (being conservative). Now lets say the data center loses power, without the UPS, every request is lost.
30 seconds later the generators kick in, all the machines reboot in a few minutes, and facility is back online, but in the meantime you've just inconvenienced a million people. Not really good for PR....

So for a business like Google, a UPS IS an integral part of a server.

As far as efficiency - take a 10 megawatt data center, assume you have a central UPS (for reasons mentioned above) that is 95% efficient. That means you lose 500kW of power in the form of heat. If you replace that UPS system (as a whole) with one that is 99.9% efficient, you lose only 10kW of power to heat.

To put this in perspective, the average household in America consumes about 14,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.
That's an average of 1.6kW per hour. So by going from 95% eff to 99.9% eff UPS system, google saved 306 households worth of electricity.

The main reason for the effeciency gain is that you aren't going AC-AC-DC-AC-AC-DC, like a traditional server room, but rather AC-AC-AC-DC.
(AC = alternating current, like power lines ; DC = direct current, like batteries; hyphen represents a conversion, none of which are 100% efficient)

As far as I know, the main thing from keeping solar technology from hitting the main stream is the cost. Most would think that once the process hits main stream the cost would go down. And while that is true to an extent, there is a technilogical hurdal that still has to be passed before a significant reduction in price happens.

The problem with PV cells is the silicon crystal they have to make in order to harness the photons. The way it works is you have a peice of silica crysal. The thiker the crystal, the more power you can generate. But, like the microchip fabrication process, there is a potential for every micron of thickness you add, that the layer above could have a flaw and thus ruin all the sub-layers of silica below it. The fabrication process has to draw a line with yeild vs power output vs material costs. Right now, that still means relativly low power effeciancy (last I read, it's lower than a combustion engine). Granted, not using hydro carbon related tech, so it's greenish but it does create a lot of waste and heat waste.

The problem still lies in the fabrication process. And it's at the atomic level that the problem is. At the atomic level, there are a very few number of tools that manufacting labs have at their disposal, and even more things that we don't know why happen.

For instance, it was a resent discovery of what a gold atom looks like at the atomic level. Very important when you are wanting to build uniform crystaline units. What I am stating here is that atomic reasearch is very promising, but it is still just that, a promiss of something that is yet to arive. With that said, I think the main stream adoption of solar tech for main stream use is years, if not decades (booo) away.

As you might of guessed, you also have to consider wear and tear on the units. If they become impacted by FOD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage) then you are talking about some serious problems, like a complete or partial replacement of your potentialy 10k dollar investment. I live in texas, where we have at least one hail storm a year, CURRENT solar tech either has to add screen and shields that once again lower effectivness, or you run the risk of a total system failure...

Anyway, sorry for the rant...I enjoy tech talk

seems like it might have been more effecient to take it to an (illegal) chopshop. 15 minutes and you're done.

So far, it's not 100% believable. The water/gas hybrid thing makes me think that he's using the gas to generate power for separating his water gasses or something. They neatly avoid talking about how much gasoline is used in his car, but they point out that it's only 4oz of H20. Then again, if it is real..if it's more effecient overall to separate the gases and burn them again using fuel cells and gasoline generators....who knows?

I'd like to see programs about this kind of thing on DISCOVERY or something.