exotic looks AND talent

go Lurgee... the unofficial Kimbra channel master
*kimbra
*lurgee

This one ?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Wow that's a large wall of text, @newtboy.
But yes, it appears that:
"Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae."
I guess that's why the video empathized that Calleja has been a biochemist for twenty years. i.e. years of research have helped developed a strain of algae with such properties
Apparently the electricity the algae produces is stored in a battery underneath the unit.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cete
ra/biochemist-creates-co2-eating-light-that-runs-on-algae-2012055/


>> ^newtboy:

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank. If the power is supposed to be coming from the algae, not the grid, how is the light supposed to be being powered without any algae in the tank? There is never ANY mention of POWER being produced from the algae in the video itself, and the few ways I've read this could be possible are NO WHERE NEAR being financially viable, just possible. They require specialty genetically altered algae (expensive) and reactors with exotic materials to capture electrons from charged algae (also expensive), and the algae must be exposed to light to become charged. If, as the written description claims, they have solved this problem and ARE generating electricity from nothing more than an anaerobic reaction without external heat/light/energy required, you would think they would have said so in the video itself, and made a HUGE deal about it. They did not.
If this really worked without outside electricity added, they could put panels of the algae and reactors outside and run the white light (now inside the algae tank) indoors as a living solar panel/light setup, I note they did not do or even suggest this.
Without the 'magic', unmentioned light/electricity generating portion, this is NOT a new idea in the least as he claimed, people have advocated using simple algae and micro algae to scrub CO2 for decades, and usually in sun light rather than electric light so it's better than carbon neutral. What this really seems to be is a filter you can put OVER a light to make it produce some O2, but it also gives off far less light. There is no indication whatsoever from the video that this is intended to produce light or electricity itself without external power. I can't see where the poster got that idea. Perhaps they are involved in the project and want 'investors' that can't see the difference and can't do any research?

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank. If the power is supposed to be coming from the algae, not the grid, how is the light supposed to be being powered without any algae in the tank? There is never ANY mention of POWER being produced from the algae in the video itself, and the few ways I've read this could be possible are NO WHERE NEAR being financially viable, just possible. They require specialty genetically altered algae (expensive) and reactors with exotic materials to capture electrons from charged algae (also expensive), and the algae must be exposed to light to become charged. If, as the written description claims, they have solved this problem and ARE generating electricity from nothing more than an anaerobic reaction without external heat/light/energy required, you would think they would have said so in the video itself, and made a HUGE deal about it. They did not.
If this really worked without outside electricity added, they could put panels of the algae and reactors outside and run the white light (now inside the algae tank) indoors as a living solar panel/light setup, I note they did not do or even suggest this.
Without the 'magic', unmentioned light/electricity generating portion, this is NOT a new idea in the least as he claimed, people have advocated using simple algae and micro algae to scrub CO2 for decades, and usually in sun light rather than electric light so it's better than carbon neutral. What this really seems to be is a filter you can put OVER a light to make it produce some O2, but it also gives off far less light. There is no indication whatsoever from the video that this is intended to produce light or electricity itself without external power. I can't see where the poster got that idea. Perhaps they are involved in the project and want 'investors' that can't see the difference and can't do any research?

>> ^rychan:

>> ^juliovega914:
I am guessing that the project is using a hybrid system, a powder propellant and an accelerating coil. Gets the acceleration of both systems.

Really? That seems unlikely to me.
Although I was wondering what the explosion was, but I figured it had some exotic explanation related to the vaporized metal.


The friction of the payload ignites the air as it fires.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/943-railgun-weapons.html

>> ^juliovega914:

I am guessing that the project is using a hybrid system, a powder propellant and an accelerating coil. Gets the acceleration of both systems.


Really? That seems unlikely to me.

Although I was wondering what the explosion was, but I figured it had some exotic explanation related to the vaporized metal.

i mostly agree with you, but i would say there are some pretty important difference between the typical lifestyle in the us and the typical lifestyle in other western nations.

for example, people in other western nations tend to walk more and depend on their cars less. even if it's walking to the nearest train or bus station, they still walked 200 steps farther than their american counterparts. this becomes more apparent when you look at the fattest cities in the US and at their public transportation method. houston used to be at the top of the list (it might still be, it's been a while since i've checked).. i grew up in houston, my husband still lives there. public transportation is a BAD. it's weird too because it's such a massive, populous city and every time they've planned a rail system, it gets shelved. it's super hot and super humid and super unsafe, so noone walks. houstonians. drive. everywhere. and. they. are. fat.

i can think of a lot more slight lifestyle difference that i think add up, but i just go too tired to elaborate on all of them. here's the bullet points.
-cultural attitude towards meals (europeans tend to spend more time and eat slower, which is proven to help you eat less)
-other western nations outrank the us in education (use your imagination to come up with the benefits of that)
-social safety net (an american with a $4/day food stamp budget is destined to be a bargain shopper-which means cheap, fatty, unhealthy foods)
blah blah blah >> ^packo:

>> ^spoco2:
Yeah, he may be schooled, but he didn't believe it did he? That's the problem with so many of these incorrect beliefs... you can't change their mind because they just don't believe what you're saying because it happens to be in line with the government.
Therefore must be wrong somehow.
Frustrating as hell to watch

i wouldn't call this schooling, because FRIST could barely string together a coherent point (partly due to Bill)...
what I find frustrating is Frist trying to say FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE isn't the problem... and he goes on to describe lifestyle and diet as the main cause of all the poor rankings the US receives in regards to healthcare
what it completely ignores is how the lifestyle/diet he's pointing out... isn't singular to the US... but is QUITE common in WESTERN NATIONS... the point of difference is the availability/cost of healthcare... because all it takes is quick glance at those 20 WESTERN NATIONS, that outperform the US at a much cheaper cost.... and you realize, while they ALL have similar lifestyles/diets... the US is the only nation without universal healthcare
that's not to say WESTERN MEDICINE as a whole doesn't fail at emphasizing prevention as opposed to treating conditions after they occur....
just pointing out the fact that the US diet/lifestyle... isn't exactly EXOTIC in WESTERN NATIONS
while UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE is EXOTIC ("scary") in the US

>> ^spoco2:

Yeah, he may be schooled, but he didn't believe it did he? That's the problem with so many of these incorrect beliefs... you can't change their mind because they just don't believe what you're saying because it happens to be in line with the government.
Therefore must be wrong somehow.
Frustrating as hell to watch


i wouldn't call this schooling, because FRIST could barely string together a coherent point (partly due to Bill)...

what I find frustrating is Frist trying to say FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE isn't the problem... and he goes on to describe lifestyle and diet as the main cause of all the poor rankings the US receives in regards to healthcare

what it completely ignores is how the lifestyle/diet he's pointing out... isn't singular to the US... but is QUITE common in WESTERN NATIONS... the point of difference is the availability/cost of healthcare... because all it takes is quick glance at those 20 WESTERN NATIONS, that outperform the US at a much cheaper cost.... and you realize, while they ALL have similar lifestyles/diets... the US is the only nation without universal healthcare

that's not to say WESTERN MEDICINE as a whole doesn't fail at emphasizing prevention as opposed to treating conditions after they occur....

just pointing out the fact that the US diet/lifestyle... isn't exactly EXOTIC in WESTERN NATIONS

while UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE is EXOTIC ("scary") in the US

A. Overly simplistic, and you're confusing to some degree what is Keynesian. A central tenant of Keynesian economics is counter-cyclical budget deficits. When there's a recession, the government should run deficits, and the larger the recession, the larger the corresponding deficit. That's been a non-stop, although admittedly abused, government policy since the Depression. Also, Keynesian economics had components in it for monetary policy as well. Keynes advocated for lower interest rates during times of recession along with increasing the monetary supply. Yes, he did believe that during more severe recessions that monetary measures would not be enough, but he nevertheless advocated for the various monetary policies. These align up with most recessions as far as what the gov't did from the Great Depression on. Just because Keynesian policies disappointed during the 1970's, the ideas were not altogether abandoned ever since. The simple fact of the matter is aside from 2007, there hadn't been a particularly severe recession since the 1970s, so it's reasonable to assume that direct employment wasn't deemed necessary, not that it was seen as bad policy in all cases.

B. It happened to me by the hand of Microsoft. I'm pretty sure they didn't have flunky MBAs. ;-)

C. There are a lot of similar issues involved. My point was only that you can't just tie requirements to it, and that's that. There are a huge myriad of issues that would come hand in hand with stipulations to unemployment. Your idea is still something I'd be onboard with if those devils in the details were addressed. I do see as an example that some people become unemployed because of structural changes to the economy that causes their jobs to never come back. As a case in point, textile factory workers who lose their jobs due to offshoring are suddenly in a position where market forces have no remedy. They lack the skills to get jobs in areas of growth such as more in depth computer skills, and likely lack the financial resources to get the education and training to get said skills because they're unemployed. This is a perfect example in my opinion where the market and free trade fail from time to time, and some force, likely the gov't, needs to step in for the good of everyone. These people would benefit from retraining, so they can get a good job, business owners benefit from increasing numbers of workers who can do the jobs they're needing people to do, and it becomes a win win situation.

D. The last time we tried no deposit insurance, it failed miserably. Banks lent money for people to buy goods and services they couldn't afford, and stocks on the margin. People stuck their money in banks anyway. The only difference is when fear hit the market after the crash, a lot of people, many irrationally, pulled their money from banks, causing a collapse in the banking system, which tanked the entire economy even further.

People lack the time and/or motivation to stay informed on all kinds of issues from local politics, to PTA meetings. I don't see how they could begin to assess what loans their banks were making as far as riskiness. And the typical American when it comes to finances? Yikes! Next to no savings, can't understand how much they should be regularly investing, etc. And it's not just the stupid people. Most Americans don't even know what a mutual fund actually is. How could they possibly make intelligent decisions about the riskiness of their banks' portfolios? I consider myself smarter than the average bear, but even I'd be paralyzed with fear selecting a bank based what little info I could find of their portfolios. Instead, I make sure they're FDIC insured, because that in and of itself entails objective benchmarks to even get that insurance.

And honestly, I don't see many people making decisions about their banks based on rates alone. As a case in point, very few people I know put money in online high yield savings accounts instead of the local credit union, bank, or large megabank, despite the fact that in most cases online savings account providers such as ING Direct pay 2-3 times the interest. I don't believe that's what caused the madness in the banking industry at all. At the very least, there's a massive list of causes well above FDIC insurance, and even if FDIC insurance did play a role in causing the crisis, it also served well in preventing runs on the banks in general that would have compounded the crisis further.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
A. Because we've been leaning on monetary policy as our intervention of choice. Direct employment has been called socialism for 30 years. That doesn't suggest a dominant Keynesian ideology. Really it's been this mix of monetarism and supply-side economics which morphed into some mutilated crony-capitalism.
B. I suppose it could happen, but it would take a rough business climate, or some flunky MBAs. In that situation I'd try to increase my business (i.e. make $200,000).
C. That's why we have food stamps. It isn't a perfect solution, but the kid starves if her folks spend the whole check on smokes too. Vices aren't the kind of "demand side" stimulus I'd like to see (one flaw in the Keynesian argument given the current living conditions of the American poor).
D. I really do believe that if the FDIC didn't exist, "the market" would not have allowed deposits to be leveraged by banks investing in exotic financial instruments. Like you said, even the bankers didn't know what the hell they were doing! Without the FDIC people would very quickly ask, "what the hell you doin' with my money?" Rather, since their money is backed by the government they ask, "what sorts of rates are you offering?" It's that pressure from the distorted marketplace that pushed banks into more and more leverage to stay competitive. Those rates were realized by making massively leveraged bets that were only possible by hedging with exotic instruments. Once upon a time people knew their banker. I think that's the best FDIC there could be. There might be some legal patchwork of the Glass-Steagall flavor that might make it work, but chasing down all the unintended consequences would be a challenge. Certainly figuring out how to unwind all the securitized mortgages that already exist makes that sort of policy direction seemingly prohibitive.
F-. Dude, Peter Schiff is a quack.

@heropsycho

A. Because we've been leaning on monetary policy as our intervention of choice. Direct employment has been called socialism for 30 years. That doesn't suggest a dominant Keynesian ideology. Really it's been this mix of monetarism and supply-side economics which morphed into some mutilated crony-capitalism.

B. I suppose it could happen, but it would take a rough business climate, or some flunky MBAs. In that situation I'd try to increase my business (i.e. make $200,000).

C. That's why we have food stamps. It isn't a perfect solution, but the kid starves if her folks spend the whole check on smokes too. Vices aren't the kind of "demand side" stimulus I'd like to see (one flaw in the Keynesian argument given the current living conditions of the American poor).

D. I really do believe that if the FDIC didn't exist, "the market" would not have allowed deposits to be leveraged by banks investing in exotic financial instruments. Like you said, even the bankers didn't know what the hell they were doing! Without the FDIC people would very quickly ask, "what the hell you doin' with my money?" Rather, since their money is backed by the government they ask, "what sorts of rates are you offering?" It's that pressure from the distorted marketplace that pushed banks into more and more leverage to stay competitive. Those rates were realized by making massively leveraged bets that were only possible by hedging with exotic instruments. Once upon a time people knew their banker. I think that's the best FDIC there could be. There might be some legal patchwork of the Glass-Steagall flavor that might make it work, but chasing down all the unintended consequences would be a challenge. Certainly figuring out how to unwind all the securitized mortgages that already exist makes that sort of policy direction seemingly prohibitive.

F-. Dude, Peter Schiff is a quack.

Bloody hell Hamilton is creepy. His emo laden wording of things, his near god worshipping of her, his bizarre looks towards her.

'Premier exotic dance establishments'? Really, you're going to try to make it sound classy? It's a strip club for fuck's sake.

When she's asked how much she'd been exposed to drugs prior to the whole bunker thing, and says, virtually nothing... 'just pot, meth and cocain'... in who's world is that virtually nothing?

[edit]

Wow, and the beginning of the accompanying article is such dribble:
"There is no facile synthesis of the events that transpired at the Wamego missile silo between October 1 and November 4, 2000. The available information is a viscous solution of truths, half-lies, three-quarter truths, and outright lies, the fractionation of which yields no pure product. "

Um, you do know that "strange fruit" is a reference to the lynching of African Americans, right?>> ^Arkaium:

I'm a fan of Billy Holiday, so I'll say I would have also enjoyed the title "Strange Fruit"
I've had an exotic fruit that was green, slimy and seeded (like a cucumber) on the inside, but I can't remember what it's called. Anyone know? It's starting to bug me now...
EDIT: It's the Kiwano melon. And it's delicious, imo.

You've presented a thoughtful and considerate reply, DerHasisttot. Thank you.

The most basic argument I have presented is the erosion and eventual fading out of a particular population, and this is the crux of what I would like to focus on. The premise can be applied to any element of biodiversity.

The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.

My assumption was correct in that you, as most people, would find justification for mobilizing efforts in ensuring this particular population is given a chance to exist. For whatever reason, you have deemed this species of duck worth your concern and you do not hesitate to voice your consternation. Another assumption I will make is that the same can be said of any population that contributes to the precious diversity of our world and faces existential challenges. Whether it be a rare beetle, some exotic bush or the giant panda.

I like to think a noble feature of humanity is our desire for fairness and that we should not stand by while something is endangered. We both probably share this in common.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.

Just as you should care for a particular duck, it would not negate your concern for other types of mallards, waterfowl or any other species. Your sense of justice would be shared equally.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

If you can not grasp this sympathy you display for a bird and apply it to another context, you are intellectually dishonest.

On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

Beautiful voice, if a bit different from what I'm sure most of us are used to. It has to take real control to project like that and hit those exotic vibratos.

But seriously... Lip synching is so 2010.

Thanks for the quality and the link! I absolutely agree about the subtle racism towards foreigners coming from Islamic countries (and "3rd world" countries in general). It comes up also when some liberals see everything bad happening in ex-colonies as solely the fault of colonisation; as if the only people who can fundamentally influence society are the Westerners.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I completely agree. Islam sets pits various liberal principals against one another - respect and tolerance for other cultures, and sympathy for the massive loss of life Muslims have suffered at the hands of the west on the one hand - disgust at the brutality and misogyny of segments of Islam on the other.
Complicating matters is that most westerners are fairly ignorant of Islam, and most representations of Muslims in the media (both news and entertainment) are usually fairly racist.
I think the double standard between criticizing Christianity and Islam is because we feel more comfortable criticizing the well known religion of our own culture than we do a foreign and exotic religion of another culture.
I also think there is some subtle liberal racism mixed in as well, seeing Muslims as primatives not subject to the same moral and ethical codes that we sophisticated westerners are.
There is an interesting debate that touches on some of these issues here: http://videosift.com/video/Religion-Politics-and-the-End-of-the-World

quality writing.