I use slightly less than that myself on average, but we have solar water heating (supplemented with gas), so that's a good savings (especially since it also heats the hot tub), and we replaced all our light bulbs with led bulbs when they became feasible last year. Now, we usually read between 400 and 1000 watts during the day (depending on how many lights I have on, and if the refrigerator is cycled on or not.) That's running a big screen TV, computer, and often ps4 almost all day, every day. We also have electric stove and oven...and I weld, adding somewhat to our total.

Yes, my battery bank is only useful for power outages. It's enough to keep the lights on and the fridge from thawing, but not much else. We get about 3-4 hours out of it if I don't notice the power went out, but can make it all night if we conserve. Our system is grid tied, and first powers the home, then tops off the batteries, then sells any excess to PG&E. To date, I've never drawn the batteries down to zero...but we do have a small generator to supplement it when the power's out for days. The average home would certainly need more, but a 10kwh battery should be plenty to make it through an average night without AC (we don't have AC here).

My current system could not produce that much, but close. I live in N California, one of the foggiest areas in the US. Because we have a renter, an electric hot tub, dishwasher, and electric washer and drier, we use slightly more than we generate at this point, but my system is upgradeable to 6500 watts of generation (I have less than 1/3 of that now) when panels get cheaper...and when I can find space for more.

My system is not flat to my roof, and I have 2 strings of 8 panels. With the solar water tubes, it takes up most of the south 1/2 of my roof (1200 sq ft home). I could maybe fit 4 more panels up there and still be able to walk around them to clean them, but any more and I'll need some mounting structure. I really want to add a small wind turbine to generate at night or when there's a storm...solar doesn't work in the dark.

In America, we still have some rebates for people adding solar to their homes, but they are drying up fast. 15-20 years ago, you could almost do it for free if you got every rebate available.

We used to have about 1-2 weeks of power outage where I live per year, and that was part of why we did they system. We hated having no power and losing food every year, and also hated paying the ever rising cost of electricity. Before adding our system, we had $4-500 a month electric bills, now we have <$100 in winter and sometimes a negative bill in summer...we pay our bill once a year now, lump sum at the end of 12 months.
On to your second post....
I often think...electric cars were popular and the norm in cities before Ford came along. It's still astonishing to me that it was basically dropped for a century as a technology (with minor exceptions). I'm glad someone had finally gone back to it and is trying to fix it's issues. If I could afford a Tesla, I would have one.

I also agree, people won't adopt the technology as long as they have to sacrifice lifestyle for it. I said the same thing, but I found that I don't change my lifestyle at all with my solar system, I just pay lower bills. I determined that buying a system would pay for itself in under 10 years, with the lifespan of a system being about 20 years, that's 10 years of free electricity! That all assumes electric rates didn't go up, and they certainly have gone up...but not for me. You just need to be sure you install enough panels to supply all your power, and you're there.

The battery thing is really mostly for non-grid tied systems, or emergencies. Most people don't use batteries at night, it's simpler and cheaper to just sell power to the grid during the day and buy it back at night if you can, using them as your battery. Perhaps this battery will change that, but with lead acid, it's hard to make them worth the cost.

Panels aren't that expensive, really. In many areas, with rebates, they can be near free. (some companies will even give them to you and split the power generated off your roof). It's a myth that solar is expensive...when compared to non-solar. Mine are paid for by bill savings already (8 years + in) so I'm saving money with them now, and my lifestyle has not suffered in the least. I have lights on if its dark, I watch TV all day, and use the computer all day, have tons of electric devices I use, and soon will power a pond, etc. I often think that my life is a much better example of how you can be 'green' without much change than Gore's. He really doesn't seem to walk the walk, but he can sure talk the talk.

Yeah, one of "things that actually happen" myths.

I know you don't hold with that fancy book learnin', but we call them "facts".

She's reporting on a myth? ok

Pfft. The coins are attached.

Myth busted.

They know to float and hold their breath due to a natural response, which you can emulate by blowing in their faces, to which they have the same reaction. They also flap their arms and legs in a swim-like motion so that a layman might think they know how to swim.

Actually they are not strong enough nor understanding of the concept to hold their head above water to breathe. Your advice is misleading and it could be dangerous if taken in the wrong way. Babies cannot swim and are at significantly higher risk of drowning than older/stronger (even non-swimmer) children, and they're naturally shaped and weighted to float face down.

Suggesting that we have an unnatural, unnecessary fear of babies drowning in the west sounds like jenny mccarthy new-age nonsense.. we have a rational fear of babies drowning because they are at risk of drowning for aforesaid reasons, which is aside from whether this video is safe for a baby or not... some people take their babies on bicycles and in cars in at least equally dangerous environments.

No offence intended, but drowning is a serious risk for small children, and what you say is a hazardous myth... babies will survive being submerged for a short period of time, and will not try to breathe when submerged. They cannot swim and will drown if not retrieved quickly.

Not so; the biggest increase is in the secular. One area that remains in the religious majority, however, is the poor, the lost, the desperate and the frightened. But, as education and intellect increases so, too, does the need for answers to serious questions without resorting to myths and brainwashing.

I took her video to be more skeptical of his historical claims, his assertions that he rediscovered them, and that modern techniques isn't valid, than if the trick shots work or not. She goes to show many of his techniques are still in use in some cultures.

Like others said, even from a fairly small knowledge window, it looked like trick shots. Back in the day you would have had to film on expensive film making hundreds of shots to get one that worked, it would have been more complicated to do this. Now with video, it is easier than ever to record it as many times as you need to get the shot that worked.

Would his technique work while hunting or on the battlefield is the main question. Take an arrow through the armor joints in the knee or whatever from his technique won't kill, but probably will hurt enough to take you out of the battle, which would be the point. Would it put a deer down though? Doesn't seem there's enough draw strength to really kill the deer or large game, rather it would torture the animal for an overly long period of time before it might finally die. My understanding of modern archery is to put the game down as quick as possible to minimize suffering.

We need to see him doing his things live. Don't let the myth busters do it, have him do it, in situations that would represent a battlefield. Have armored mannequins moving, some still, have him use his techniques, see how many of his shots would have taken that soldier out of the battle. Unfortunately, you can't safely test having him under fire at the same time since that puts a level of stress on top of everything. Have a deer mannequin and see if his technique would be effective at the sort of range you need to be at to avoid startling the deer, again at a stand still and in motion (generally you are going to wait for it to be still enough to fire anyhow in that case since it is rarely a matter of life and death to kill the deer or other game).

That all said she keeps saying archery is about what works, and it does seem to work for the situation he's in. The question is as I noted above would it work in hunting or the battlefield and even if not, would it work on regular archery targets live without many repeated filming attempts. Would it work at an Olympic style event better than modern techniques? If it could do better, or even near as good, as modern ones at competitions, then, even if it fails at hunting and battlefield situations, it could still be valid.

As an aside, the videos I saw of him weren't trying to sell anything specific beyond him perhaps. I haven't bothered to Google him up to see if he's selling stuff, or just demonstrating things for now. If he's not selling people on teaching in person or via video or whatever, then all the more reason to suspect he's just showing off trick shots the same way basketball trick shot videos do. In which case the historical research could have been lazy just because it was more in jest than anything meant to be taken serious. He could have been pulling a poe in that regards.

You are most likely correct that that is not what most people think, because most people simply don't think.

Wow...so any mystic, people generally regarded as useless for any other profession, should be given more weight than anyone who ever graced a stage, no matter what other credentials they may possess? I don't believe that is what most people think, not even most religious people.

Any functioning eye can see itself if you have a mirror. A sword can cut itself if you melt/bend it. ;-)

It seems that you think god had the option to create a perfect universe, but chose not to. If 'he' is omniscient, he does know how it will turn out. (side note, all BUT ONE of those infinite possibilities would be imperfection, but why would 'he' not choose perfection?)

The elegant function of the universe is no proof or even indication of any intelligence behind it, but is only proof of elegance of the laws of physics/nature. No intelligence or designer required for this elegance, and I think the need to have an anthropomorphized "creator" take credit is just a way to feel that somehow humans (which most would say 'he' created the universe for, and/or are made in 'his' image), and therefore you are, in some way, very like the 'creator' and deserving of misusing the universe in any way you see fit.

Non theists do not get mad at god anymore than you get mad at Santa for not bringing you what you want, or leprechauns for not handing you their gold. We get mad at people acting ridiculously, giving credit to phantoms for explainable events, confusing fact with myth, confusing impressionable undereducated people, wasting valuable time with nonsense and non sequitur (often simply as a method to obstruct change), and standing in the way of progress, both scientific and societal. We don't think god fails our standard (except the standard of reality or the requirement of actual existence), we think the very IDEA of god fails along with every definition or description...every time it's examined honestly....no matter which god you choose to examine.

That there was a man named Jesus with a small 'religious' following (Koresh had more followers at his death) executed by Romans...probably not a myth.
That he was born from a virgin that god screwed while she was firmly engaged (Joseph shoulda been quicker getting a ring on it, I guess?), preformed 'miracles', died by choice, or 'for us' (rather than 'was murdered by the state for doing religion wrong'), waked on water (unless it was frozen, then I can too) healed sick, disabled, and blind (but never ever an amputee, what's up with that, Jebus?), was an articulate friendly vegetarian zombie in his later days, and all the other magic stuff attributed to him....that's all the myth part...and is totally unnecessary to impart the good lessons he tried to teach, like inclusion, acceptance,tolerance of, and love for even those who looked or thought differently...or the golden rule...treat others as you would have them treat you...but those are the lessons remembered the least by his fans (and he has very few actual followers).
I prefer Aesop.

The Jesus myth isn't one taken seriously by many scholars. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that Jesus is a historical figure.

The Lord Of The Rings was written by a real person, who was eye witness to many actual events and also a professor, lexicographer, and scholar.
The bible is a fantasy novel of various myths complied by a pagan emperor as a political tool to consolidate power.

This was a panel called "The Storytelling of Science". Couldn't fit it in the tags.
https://origins.asu.edu/events/science-myth-and-reality

Your video, the myth of choice:how junk food marketers target kids, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 21 Badge!

This reminds me of something that my high school Chemistry teacher told us one day. He told us about how gasses require a certain percentage of oxygen to ignite, so, that if you were to fill up an airtight room with 100% hydrogen, such that no oxygen was present, you could open a door to that room and light a match at the threshold without fear of an explosion. Theoretically the gas in the room would only burn at the door-shaped barrier between the hydrogen and the oxygen on the other side. I remain dubious and I want to see Adam Savage risk his life to bust that myth.

Also, actually related to this video: the guy doing the demonstration,Theodore Gray, has an awesome website if you're into chemistry.

Because the Christian religion is based not on myth, but entirely on a historical claim, which is that Jesus was raised from the dead. I believe that He was, that there is good evidence to believe that He was, and it has been my personal experience that it is true. The central claim of the Christian religion is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul made this comment:

1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
1 Corinthians 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1 Corinthians 15:19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
1 Corinthians 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

The bible tells us in John 3:3 that we must be born again. We are born again when we place our faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, when we believe that He paid the price for our sins on the cross and that He was raised from the dead. When that happens God sends the Holy Spirit to dwell within us. The Holy Spirit transforms us from the inside out and makes us new people.

In my personal experience, this has happened to me. When I was baptized, I went into the water as one person and came out a different person. I had been transformed on the inside in an instant, losing a lot of baggage and depression and gaining a perpetual sense of Gods presence, and an inner peace and joy that was never there before. I didn't expect this, or anything, to happen. It is a fulfillment of the truth of what the scripture says happens when you are born again.