I like most of his stuff, but this one in particular *quality

Acetic acid (C2H4O2) is what is most likely going to form for the extra CO2 absorption in the atmosphere into the oceans. And just like the egg here, it will dissolve the shells of microorganisms or prevent them from extracting calcium carbonate( CaCO3) from solution (ocean water)

No truer words have been spoken

In certain cases, this would cause an energy drain rather than boost. Infrared light is pretty much the electromagnetic form of radiant heat (thermal radiation). In many places in the world, it is usually the times of cold that more energy is used; as the heat deltas of a cold winter are much greater than the heat delta of a hot summer. So, heat from the sun, as sparse as it is in the winter, is still radiating into your house. Blocking it, and turning it into electrical energy, then turning that back into heat energy is most surely a loosing proposition. Depending on the needs of the user, this might inflict a greater cost than cost savings. So while there are times that blocking thermal radiation and turning into electrical energy would be of worth, it is a regional issue that has a lot to do with local climate swings and average annual temperature; the colder the average temperature, the more of a waste this could be.

Lead has the benefit of having a relatively low melting temperature among metals
(http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html). I would imagine the significantly higher heat deltas might cause problems with this kind of effect...dunno. Building my smelting furnace in a couple of months, I will get back to you on that with empirical evidence!

After I saw this, I bought some rare earth magnets online and went down to home depot and picked up a simple copper pipe and have the same little fun experiment. Want I want to do is to get a circular track, and it with a ball magnet inside and let it slowly roll around and generate a bunch of heat just by the magnet falling.

Good video, actually subscribed to their youtube channel as a result, thanks @pumkinandstorm *quality

Hmm I dunno, I was expecting the same thing, but he most likely would of run if he was expecting something dead and it started moving around and stuff. Insomuch as you can tame a wolverine, this one was surely not expecting a meal.

More power to my theory that is you can treat men's sexual lust more as an object than women given the right context...my bar tabs are other evidence.

Oops, I fucked it up

*quality

@oritteropo (oh ya, as an aside, if your a fan of Wigner, his pupal Alvin Weinberg was already thinking about the energy crisis back in the 50/60's, and wrote a great little diddy on it "ENERGY as an ultimate raw material, or problems of burning the sea and burning the rocks" http://energyfromthorium.com/energy-weinberg-1959/ They cut them from a different mold back then I guess.)

This is more narrative than fact, but it is a fun narrative; most notable the inverse square law came around 1687 and his calculus was claimed in 1666, but only published in 1696 long after the Leibniz/Newton calculus controversy had begun. Philosophy minded people always credit Leibniz with being one of the smartest people ever, and Science people with Newton and fall in line usually with how they feel about the invention of calculus and such. The facts are always a bit more complicated than simple, cause driven narrative like this, but he is pretty much known for this kind of stuff, so whatever, Ill just have fun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_mirror_telescopes

Check that crap out, ferrofluid mirror potential! What I wonder is are the optical properties of liquid metal any good. For instance, they are using gold in the James Webb telescope because it reflects nearly all infrared light. What would the optical quality of these metals be? Sometime tells me polished glass structures would be both higher resolution and use materials that are optimized to reflect the spectrum you are interested in. The Wiki seems to indicate the real advantage isn't in the optical quality, but the relative inexpensive in creation. Much like paying a hooker for 5 years of polishing your nob, polishing a mirror is costly.

I agree, and it goes beyond statistics and more to the core ideals that make a country. Fact is, even if I showed you clear evidence that soda pop basically kills people in the long run, that it has no redeemable value and is responsible for 10x the health related problems as guns, that still is absolutely no justification for passing laws about soda consumption.

The rule of law by statistical analysis and utopian/utilitarian calculus is very troubling to me. And while my personal decisions for my own well being use a form of this model, to start making laws based on this very relative and personal framework would be a travesty, and it is seemingly the only model I see used when talking about gun control both for and against.

It turns out, having the freest society might also be the most dangerous...but so the fuck what. What if it turned out that theocratic dictatorship results in the least amount of civilian deaths from guns, shall we burn down the vestibules of liberty and freedom for a single data point of valuation. Most arguments both for and against gun control come from this kind of marginal, statistical methodology that I find appalling in a discussion over laws.