So it's not okay to build a mosque near Ground Zero, but it's okay to build US military bases in Islamic countries?

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.

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....

I think the U.S. government (not just Obama, but Congress as well) has locked us into this war for two major reasons:

1. If we reduce troop levels in Afghanistan and then another Al-Qaeda attack occurs on U.S. soil, we will blame the administration for it, saying that they were "weak" against terror. However, if another Al-Qaeda attack takes place without troop reductions, then the administration will use that to justify increased troop levels in Afghanistan anyway. And if no Al-Qaeda attack takes place, they will attribute that to our increased troop levels in Afghanistan. So basically, no one has the balls to take the chance to reduce troop levels because of these reasons.

2. Also, we now know that Afghanistan is rich in mineral deposits. Just like in Iraq, our leadership is willing to shed blood for oil, gas, and mineral riches. I don't see how anyone can deny that this is one of our reasons for war there, though no one in power will ever admit to it.

We are a declining empire, with military bases scattered all across the globe, perpetually at war somewhere in the world, fighting for riches that go to corporations, while our country sinks further and further into debt.

But we've got books!

@blankfist, you said:

We're maintaining hegemony and military bases in 130 countries abroad... because we're stopping genocide in absolutely every one of those cases?

You sure are fond of Red Herring Straw men, aren't you? Is this a response to anything I've said about Afghanistan, or are you just trying to change the subject? I don't even think genocide is necessarily what would happen if we left Afghanistan, much less what would happen if we left Germany.

Oh, and you say we shouldn't get out of those sovereign countries because 'we broke it so we bought it'?

This is another of your favorite strawmen. Say my brother and I meet you on the street. He doesn't like the way you look at him, so he runs you through with a spear, and runs away. Do I stay with you, call a doctor, and try to make amends for what my brother did, or should I just pull the spear out, say I'm sorry, and go to dinner with my brother while you bleed out?

If you ask me to stay and help, what exactly is the moral imperative that calls on me to refuse?

I mean, I'm open to arguments like "what we're doing isn't helping them" or "it costs too much blood and treasure for us to give them the help they need" or even "the people asking for help don't have their people's best interest at heart", but the idea that there's some overriding moral imperative that demands we make no attempt to aid a country we've shattered seems very contrary to most libertarian philosophy.

We're maintaining hegemony and military bases in 130 countries abroad... because we're stopping genocide in absolutely every one of those cases? O RLY? Wow. We sure are a super awesome nation. Because if we weren't stopping genocide in every one of those cases, then I think those of us who are apologizing for Uncle Sam's war-lust should sit down and listen instead of upselling the few good things the defense spending accomplishes.

Oh, and you say we shouldn't get out of those sovereign countries because 'we broke it so we bought it'? It all makes perfect sense. The more we break, the more we have the right to occupy. It's all becoming so clear. If we can go into a country we don't currently occupy, break it, we can then occupy it as if we own it! That is awesome!

Okay, before we get a little too sidetracked by imstellar's schizophrenic simultaneous condemnation and endorsement of violence, let's see if we can at least agree that Joe Stack's complaints didn't start or end with taxes.

Flipping through, I would summarize his grievances with government as:

1. Failing to stop GM corporate bosses from mistreating their workers
   
2. Bailing out GM without forcing a change in management
   
3. Not passing comprehensive health care reform
   
4. Tax laws are overly complex
   
5. Tax laws disproportionately benefit Catholic churches
   
6. Tax laws disproportionately benefit big business
   
7. There are two interpretations of every law, one for the rich, and one for everyone else
   
8. His neighbor had his pension stolen by a mismanaged corporation, and unions and government stood aside and let it happen
   
9. Lobbyists from Arthur Anderson (of future ENRON fame) helped open a loophole for companies to deny benefits to employees on a long term basis (by keeping them on as "independent contractors")
   
10. The US government closed military bases in California without concern for the negative effect on the local economy
    
11. After 9/11 the government overreacted with draconian flight security requirements
    
12. The government fined him $10,000 for failing to file a tax return, then later he got screwed by his tax accountant
    
13. During the current economic crisis, no CEO's are leaping to their death from their executive offices, instead they're making all their middle- and working-class employees take the plunge for them
    

He then closes by quoting Karl Marx, and juxtaposing the communist creed with what he sees as the capitalist creed. Specifically, he says:

The communist creed: From each according to ability, to each according to his need
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed

I'll go out on a limb and say that the whole thing reads to me like a left-wing screed, not a right-wing one.

His chief complaint didn't seem to be that government does too much, but that government does things for the wrong people.

This doesn't change my assessment of him being a crazy person who killed a bunch of innocent people who should be condemned, but I find it kinda funny that people on the left and right are assuming he was an anti-government, anti-tax teabagger of some sort.

Must be the plane into IRS building thing. Fits into the general teabagger narrative too nicely.

What drives me INSANE about any person who complains about our "high taxes" and "the Dems are going to raise the taxes" is these folks are completely out of touch with how low their tax burden is compared to ten years ago, before Bush bushwhacked the tax code.

The American Voter is a child. They won't let military bases be closed even when the Pentagon says they don't want them. They won't let various other military spending programs be cut, even though the Pentagon doesn't want them, because they will lose THEIR jobs. They vote for their Congressperson who brings in all sorts of Federal dollars for street projects, and schools, museums, and what all.

The American Voter wants their goodies.

But god forbid we put the tax rate back to where it was in 2000. That is supposed to be some kind of an abomination.

Grow up, Voters. You get what you pay for. And right now, we are selling ourselves dirt cheap to China with our mounting debt.

I knew we were in trouble when Bush's response to 9/11 was to say to the voters -- keep shopping. I knew we were in trouble when we went to war, and for the first time in American history, cut taxes during wartime.

We are children.

Are you alluding that I may be a Conservative, NetRunner? You're trying to paint me as a Conservative any time I bring up the Constitution based on its original meaning? I guess you get your reasons for doing so based on my comment above right?

I didn't know conservatives were for ending the war, reducing the strength of the executive branch, ending signing statements, revoking the Patriot Act, cutting military spending, and closing military bases abroad. It's a new one on me!

>> ^blankfist:
Or 6, Democrats should recognize the executive branch was never designed to be as powerful as it has become, reduce the executive branch's powers and once again give the majority of power back over to congress, stop signing statements, end the wars, revoke the Patriot Act completely without simply altering its text, cut military spending drastically, close (at least a majority of) military bases abroad, recognize income tax is a direct tax therefore unconstitutional and revoke the 16th Amendment, and recognize I'm an adult and no longer need a "nanny".
There. I'd vote for that one.


That's option one. You don't seem to understand that hiding behind Constitutional originalism doesn't fool most people. It's a roundabout way of saying that no matter how many people want progressive policy, it's all unconstitutional and people who try to enact it are in violation of the supreme law of the land.

In other words, roll over and die, because conservatives deserve permanent rule.

I think trying to pin expansion of executive power on Democrats is quite the overreach. I'd agree that they haven't done anything to reduce it, but that's a wholly different critique. I'd also agree that they should do about half of what you say (stop signing statements, end wars, revoke patriot act, cut military spending).

You do need a nanny pretty badly though.

Or 6, Democrats should recognize the executive branch was never designed to be as powerful as it has become, reduce the executive branch's powers and once again give the majority of power back over to congress, stop signing statements, end the wars, revoke the Patriot Act completely without simply altering its text, cut military spending drastically, close (at least a majority of) military bases abroad, recognize income tax is a direct tax therefore unconstitutional and revoke the 16th Amendment, and recognize I'm an adult and no longer need a "nanny".

There. I'd vote for that one.

hey next time the news stations are doing a report on rainbows and cute little gophers prances around I'll be sure to directly send you a link. People around the world will watch this, it brings the start of a story and as it unfolds people around the world will see it happen. Maybe it hits you on some personal level but people will see it and know the five W's. better to get it out then to bury the event because it makes you sad.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
Crazy people on a military base isn't news. Maybe he went off his medication, but it's not news. no vote.
Man everyone seemed shitty yesterday. It's a miracle more people don't fly off the fucking handle IMHO.
Anyhow this is obviously news, but it's the worst kind of news. The anxious scary stuff that nobody can prevent anyhow. And one even can stretch out for weeks of fearmongering, until the next one comes.

Crazy people on a military base isn't news. Maybe he went off his medication, but it's not news. no vote.
Man everyone seemed shitty yesterday. It's a miracle more people don't fly off the fucking handle IMHO.
Anyhow this is obviously news, but it's the worst kind of news. The anxious scary stuff that nobody can prevent anyhow. And one even can stretch out for weeks of fearmongering, until the next one comes.

I think with the amount of money saved on trimming the fat from a bloated government we'd be happy to open up our pocket books to paying for a well trained emergency response system and educating the youth. I don't mind paying taxes on things that'll directly affect my neighbor and myself.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
True, I'd also say my version of the government is pretty much what I'd expect them to do. But, unfortunately it isn't what they do. Spreading hegemony and nation-building is not in the minarchist handbook.

Minarchists tend to believe the government's role should be small and only to rule as set forth in the Constitution. Not more.

We're not fighting to overturn fire departments and police departments right now. There are larger fish to fry, and maybe after all of the other more egregious big government dick-fingering we can take a longer look at those departments and start to figure out a better, possibly voluntary, solution.

You're a minarchist and don't even know it.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Is that written in the minarchists handbook, or is that something left up to the individual minarchist to decide? I think your idea of the government getting the fuck out of 130 countries abroad with 700+ military bases and turning to protecting our rights to liberty, property, safety is just a matter of the government doing what it's supposed to. I don't think there should be a name for that other than "doing your fucking job". It really does infuriate me when I see this massive controlling entity that was set up to aide us. The fact that we can't do anything about it infuriates me even more.

True, I'd also say my version of the government is pretty much what I'd expect them to do. But, unfortunately it isn't what they do. Spreading hegemony and nation-building is not in the minarchist handbook.

Minarchists tend to believe the government's role should be small and only to rule as set forth in the Constitution. Not more.

We're not fighting to overturn fire departments and police departments right now. There are larger fish to fry, and maybe after all of the other more egregious big government dick-fingering we can take a longer look at those departments and start to figure out a better, possibly voluntary, solution.

You're a minarchist and don't even know it.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Is that written in the minarchists handbook, or is that something left up to the individual minarchist to decide? I think your idea of the government getting the fuck out of 130 countries abroad with 700+ military bases and turning to protecting our rights to liberty, property, safety is just a matter of the government doing what it's supposed to. I don't think there should be a name for that other than "doing your fucking job". It really does infuriate me when I see this massive controlling entity that was set up to aide us. The fact that we can't do anything about it infuriates me even more.