Gasoline/diesel prices hit record highs

Originally Posted by Shonos

Ethanol is pointless, especially ethanol gained from corn. It raises the price on feed for livestock and humans. Since it's more profitable to sell corn for fuel, meat prices will go up as farmers sell less feed and raise less livestock. Everything that uses corn based products will rise in price since there's less corn for human consumption.

Switch grass would be a better source for ethanol, since it grows fucking everywhere and you don't lose as much energy as you would when using corn. But this wouldn't change the fact you still need twice as much ethanol to run an engine, so the distance you get on a gallon is even worst.

The government pushes ethanol, but you're right - it's not that great.

There's a reason they push for the ethanol, too. Corn lobby. My god, is that shit dirty business. Awful awful awful.

Deni is right, though. This country is "bloated" on oil money. (nice way to put it) It's hard to wean a nation off of that kind of thing.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Hydrogen currently costs MORE...FAR MORE than your silly Expedition sucks. And full-scale integration of hyrdrogen into the market, even if there were some kind of scientific revalation to make it way cheaper, would still cost us at the pump. Not to mention most Americans can't afford a new car of that calibre.

Not to mention, I don't want my car to explode.

How ya doing, buddy?

I just remembered another problem humanity is facing. If we cannot change how we live then we will need to find more resources. If the earth is out then we must look elsewhere, like the rest of our solar system.

But we cannot do that if we do not have the technology for it. We wont even be on the moon untill, what.. 2015? 2020? Space is such a nice, big source of resources. It's just waiting to be used up and no one seems to be looking into it.

A potential solution is up there and we are again dragging our feet. People ask what the point of space exploration is? How about the materials needed to let you live the way you do day in and out?

It saddens me too, because the way I see it.. by the time we have the knowledge and technology to get up there and mine the resources we need there wont be any materials left on earth to build the equipment to get up there.

I could also be exaggerating the problem and overly critical, but oh well. I know going up into space and mining some asteroid is easier said than done, but why does there seem to be no push for it? Why no research into it at all? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I cant seem to find any group thats trying..

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Why is nuclear electricity so unbeneficial. As far as I know, it just heats up water off of a beach front to turn the turbines? I thought the only conflict was the health hazard...which honestly, who gives a shit about? It's not like we aren't killing ourselves other ways.

Enlightenment please.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Regarding metals and such, the US still has fucktons of metals, but due to shit like NIMBY, folks don't want to drill, mine, or anything like that on US soil. Too much red tape and folks who get their panties in a twist over it. Getting to fusion would be dandy, but nuclear research isn't exactly fired up since folks are still wetting themselves over Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Canada and Russia have oil in amounts that dwarf the Middle East, provided we come up with means to get past permafrost (which is possible in the next few years given the cash going in to oil). Add to the fact that the political climate in both of those are much friendlier to the US, and you've got things a little more stable.

Space Exploration would be the best thing ever >=( Buuuuuut people lack foresight, and politicians are no different. We'd need another space race of sorts (sup china), but I don't know if we'd get that going. NASA's funding is abysmal. It doesn't even account for even close to 1% of the fiscal policy, which is disgusting given what it has provided for us technologically.

I side with electrical, but we'd need lots more coal burning and (preferably) nuclear power plants across the countryside for it to be feasible. Ethanol is illogical, since you'd need LOTS of corn just to power one car the same as a full tank of gasoline would. Wind and solar simply don't have that much oomph (it's a matter of flux. You've got stuff coming in, but you can't make it 1000x more effective on its way out). There was a severe caveat to biodiesel, but it escapes me at the moment. Maybe I'll remember it later Hmm.

Zeph --
People see Chernobyl and assume that it's how all melt-downs will go down. But there are a number of things around Chernobyl that folks don't notice:
1) It was deemed as poorly designed when it was built in the 1960s. It melted down in the 1980s.
2) It was deemed poorly designed by RUSSIAN engineers. These guys run things until they break, typically. A plant under these specs probably wouldn't have even opened in the states.
3) The personnel were quite lackluster in maintenance and such.

Three Mile Island was an ideal melt-down in the way that there was no major fall-out, no deaths, and no injuries. Some Jane Fonda movie (China Syndrome) came out literally two weeks earlier and folks went batshit after that came out and a plant melted down.

People know the dangers of dealing with a nuclear plant and take every step to prevent a large-scale fuck-up. A majority of France's power (over 80% I believe) is nuclear, but you've never heard of a single melt-down over there. The drawback to nuclear? Just keep it in check and you're golden. But just like mining, drilling, development, and other things, the "environmentally friendly" dig their heels in and block off lots of paths. Their hearts are in the right place and all, but they REALLY complicate shit. Nuclear is a fine example.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

When is the last time a nuclear power plant went online in the US anyway? Not for a while, right? Most of our plants are pretty old. Nuclear reactor designs have come a long way. They are much safer and cleaner. Now if we could only build them. Oh, what about the waste? We can't forget that. I dont think we have any way to fully re-use or get rid of the waste at the moment. Storing it in the ground will only work for so long.

I just don't see it as a solution in the US because of the public. No one wants it in their back yard. They will never get built, at least not in the amount we need to get off fossil fuels.

If we could shift to nuclear fission, and use that until fusion got off the ground I could see electric cars replacing gasoline vehicles and pretty much everything that uses fuel to move. This wont solve your problem with plastics and other materials that need petroleum, but it would help. Like I said before though, I really don't think that will ever happen.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Not to mention, I don't want my car to explode.

Last I checked the Pinto already had that covered.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Arainach

Psh, like there's any "accountability" now. When's the last time a politician was voted out of office for incompetence? Barring sexual scandal, I don't think anyone's paid attention to a politician's views in forty years.

I would RATHER have a system with unaccountable people who at least tried to do the right thing than a system with "accountable" people who act only in their personal interests without even pretending to care what was good for people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachov are all riding on a train when suddenly it breaks down. After a little while the four men get to talking about what they'd do to get the train working again.

Stalin: I say, we shoot the driver.

Kruschev: I say, we rehabilitate the driver.

Brezhnev: Why don't we put on the phonogram, draw the curtains, and pretend that the train is moving?

Gorbachov: Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. Let's all get out and push.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A socialist, a capitalist and a communist agreed to meet. The socialist was late. 'Excuse me for being late, I was standing in a queue for sausages.'

'And what is a queue?' the capitalist asked.

'And what is a sausage?' the communist asked.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will there be KGB in communism?

No, by then people will have learned to arrest themselves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the difference between the two newspapers "The Truth" and "The News"?

In "The Truth" there is no news, and in the "The News" there is no truth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a madhouse there was a propagandist highly praising the Soviet Authority. When he finished everyone applauded except for one man standing off to one side.

'And why aren't you clapping?' asked the propagandist.

'I'm not a lunatic, I'm the hospital attendant!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A patient asks the chemist to write down in the registry for him to see the eye-ear doctor. But instead he's told there's an ear-throat-foot doctor and an eye doctor but no ear-eye doctor.

'But I need an ear-eye doctor!' the patient insists.

'And what are you complaining of?'

'I hear one thing, and see another!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why have the newer models of TVs been equipped with screen wipers, similar to the windshield wipers on a car?

Because people are frequently spitting at the screen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lawyer, a surgeon, a builder and a communist were having an argument about whose trade was older.

'When God condemned Adam and Eve and exiled them from paradise,' said the lawyer, 'that was a legal act! So my profession is the oldest.'

'But please,' the surgeon said, 'before that God created Eve from Adam's rib. And that was a surgical operation! So my profession is older.'

'Forgive me,' said the builder, 'but a little bit earlier than that God created the world, he constructed it. So my profession is the oldest. Because as is known, there was only chaos before that.'

'And who created chaos?' the communist exclaimed triumphantly. 'Certainly, we communists!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is economic reform?

An injection into an artificial limb.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brezhnev called together a group of cosmonauts. 'Comrades! The Americans have landed on the Moon. We here have consulted and have decided that you will go to the Sun!'

'But we will burn up, Leonid Iljich!'

'Be not afraid, comrades, the Party has thought of everything. You
will leave at night.'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a question on Armenian radio for which there was no answer: If all countries became socialist, where would we buy grain?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the real ratio between the Pound, the Rouble and the Dollar?

A pound of Roubles is worth a Dollar.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brezhnev and Nixon took a trip by helicopter to inspect workers in the suburbs of Moscow. Nixon noticed workers' barracks with television aerials and exclaimed, 'You have surpassed us! We still don't have TVs in our pigsties!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it true that America comes in first place in the world for the number of cars?

It's truth. But the Soviet Union comes in first for the number of places to park.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Englishman, a Frenchman and a Russian are praising their wives.

'When my wife goes for a ride,' the Englishman says, 'her
legs drag on the ground. Not because the horse is small, but
because my wife has long beautiful legs!'

'I embrace my wife around the waist with only two fingers,' says the Frenchman, 'not because I have a big hand, but because my wife has a slim waist!'

'Before leaving for work,' says the Russian, 'I slap my wife's behind. And when I come back from work, her behind is still shaking. It's not because my wife has a big flabby ass, but because in the USSR we have the shortest working day in the world!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A customer asks at a shop, 'What's this, you don't have any meat again?'

'That's not true! There's no meat in the shop opposite. We don't have fish.'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A person is walking along the street in one boot.

'Have you lost a boot?' a passer-by asks.

'On the contrary - I've found one!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did the first Soviet elections take place?

When God put Eve before Adam and said: 'Choose yourself a wife!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the day of elections a voter received a ballot, but instead of lowering the ballot into the voting box, he began to read the surname of the single candidate.

'What are you doing?' his observer asked

'I want to find out, who I voted for.'

'Yes but don't you know that elections are secret?!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Nixon visited the USSR, Brezhnev showed him a Soviet phone of the latest technology in which it was possible to call Hell. Nixon called the Devil. The conversation cost only 27 Kopecks.

Upon returning to America, Nixon told everyone about the Soviet marvel. But as it turned out such a phone had been invented in America a long time ago. Nixon again called Hell, but this time the conversation cost 12 thousand dollars!

Nixon, understandedly upset, cried, 'But in the USSR a phone call to Hell costs only 27 kopecks!'

'Yes sir, but there it was a local call.'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The seven miracles of the Soviet Authority:
1. There is no unemployment, yet nobody works.
2. Nobody works, yet the Grand Scheme is carried out.
3. The Grand Scheme is carried out, yet there is nothing to buy.
4. There is nothing to buy, yet there are lineups everywhere.
5. There are lineups everywhere, yet everyone has everything.
6. Everyone has everything yet everyone is dissatisfied.
7. Everyone is dissatisfied, yet everyone votes 'Yes'.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is the Soviet Sun so joyful in the morning ?

Because it knows that by evening it will be in the West.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Lena, I have ordered that the border be opened,' said Brezhnev.

'What! Have you lost your mind?! Everyone will get away, only the two of us will remain!'

'Hmmm, and who's the second?'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why doesn't the USSR start sending people to the Moon?

Because they are afraid they will become defectors.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did the Supreme Soviet decided to invade Afghanistan?

They decided to begin alphabetically.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Who's your father?' the teacher asked Vovo.

'Comrade Stalin!'

'And who's your mother?'

'The Soviet native land!'

'And what do you want to become?'

'An orphan!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stalin informed Beria that his phone was missing. The next day
Stalin told Beria that the phone was found.

'But I've already arrested 25 people regarding this matter, and they all
admitted to the crime!' said Beria.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a prison:

'How many years did you get?

'Twenty-five.'

'For what?'

'For nothing.'

'You're lying! For nothing they give ten.'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Comrade,' asks the secretary of the Party Bureau, 'Do you have an opinion on this question?'

'I have an opinion yes, but I don't agree with it!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is democratic centralism?

It's when everyone together says, 'yes' and when everyone individually says, 'nay'.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Englishman, a Frenchman and a Russian once shared their opinions on what was happiness.

'I test happiness,' said the Englishman, 'when in the winter, after good hunting I come back home and with a glass of good brandy, I settle down in an armchair opposite a roaring fire.'

'For me happiness,' said the Frenchman, 'is when I'm in a good restaurant eating good food and drinking good wine in the company of a fine woman, and then - a night of passion.'

'How you understand happiness!' exclaims the Russian. 'For me happiness is when, after a wearisome workday, I come into my room in my communal home, where I live together with my wife, my two children and the mother-in-law, and during the night there is a loud knock at the door, and I open it, and on the threshold are two threatening looking creatures standing there and ask me "Are you citizen Paramonov?" and I answer them: "He's not here, Paramonov lives a floor above!" Now there is true happiness!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brezhnev and Nixon are standing near Niagara Falls with their bodyguards when they decide to test them. They both order them to jump into the falls. The American bodyguard refuses, saying, 'I have a family and children!'

The Russian rushes towards the Falls without thinking, but at the last moment he's stopped.

'How did you decide to do such a thing without even thinking?' asks Nixon.

'I have a family and children!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Russian business?

Stealing a box of vodka and selling it so as to have money to spend on drink.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

One East German policeman asks another:

'What do you think of our regime?'

'The same as you.'

'Then it's my duty to arrest you!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Soviet tourist examines the home of a foreign worker: a bedroom, a dining room, a children's room, a living room, a kitchen...

'We have all this too, only without partitions!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In prison:

'What are you in for?'

'I told a joke.'

'And you?'

'Listened to a joke.'

'And you?'

'For laziness! I was at a party. One person there told a joke. I went home wondering whether to inform right then or tomorrow morning? "All right," I thought," tomorrow morning will be fine." And I was taken away during the night!'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the specified theory of historical materialism between Socialism and Communism the intermediate stage is inevitably-alcoholism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I bet you'll get it right, though.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

He probably doesn't, Brady. All Arainach has revealed is that he wants an authoritarian government that decides for the people what's best for them. This whole illusion of being for liberty and freedom is just a facade.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shonos

It wont stop China, India, and other modernizing nations from using fossil fuels.

Actually, China is (Relatively speaking) a far, far greener nation than most other developed countries. Their CO2 production per capita is a fraction of the US, they recycle pretty much everything, build carbon neutral buildings and have very efficient production methods. The reason they buy up so much in the way of natural resources is because they want to control it all before the west squanders it.

Even by digging up Alaska (An expensive proposition) and invading the rest of the middle east (Not cheap either), America and the rest of the west will struggle to find a supply of oil to match their insatiable appetites in anything but the very short term. No amount of legislation can fight off global market forces for long and people will eventually be forced to reasses their priorities and start finding ways to rely less on oil. Whether that's through driving less and in smaller cars or buying locally sourced food and goods with lower delivery costs is personal preference but as demand for less oil-dependent goods rises, so the impetus to invest in these methods and technologies grows too.

People can complain all they want but if they're too lazy to change their ways, I have little sympathy for them. As a country that is so fond of capitalism, America shouldn't really be too upset when market forces determine that their petrol gets more expensive.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Shonos

When is the last time a nuclear power plant went online in the US anyway? Not for a while, right? Most of our plants are pretty old. Nuclear reactor designs have come a long way. They are much safer and cleaner. Now if we could only build them. Oh, what about the waste? We can't forget that. I dont think we have any way to fully re-use or get rid of the waste at the moment. Storing it in the ground will only work for so long.

You sounded completely opposed to the nuclear idea in your first post...

Why can't we just store nuclear waste in Antarctica? Does it require that much upkeep?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

He probably doesn't, Brady. All Arainach has revealed is that he wants an authoritarian government that decides for the people what's best for them. This whole illusion of being for liberty and freedom is just a facade.

Capitalism != Liberty. Hell, Accountable Government != Liberty, as we've seen. Capitalism is not some perfect solution. Given the choice between absolute communism and absolute capitalism, I'd pick absolute communism any day, since governments are more inefficient at screwing you than corporations. A balanced system is needed, and we've leaned way too far towards laissez-faire, as indicated by the fact that, you know, our entire economy is collapsing. I'm not discussing governments that are real and/or practical. I already admitted that earlier in this thread. I'm discussing that, in absolute terms, I would prefer an authoritarian government that paid attention and cared over a 'free' one that continued driving us towards starvation, chaos, anarchy, and destruction any day.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Shonos

Space is such a nice, big source of resources. It's just waiting to be used up and no one seems to be looking into it.

A potential solution is up there and we are again dragging our feet. People ask what the point of space exploration is? How about the materials needed to let you live the way you do day in and out?

It saddens me too, because the way I see it.. by the time we have the knowledge and technology to get up there and mine the resources we need there wont be any materials left on earth to build the equipment to get up there.

I could also be exaggerating the problem and overly critical, but oh well. I know going up into space and mining some asteroid is easier said than done, but why does there seem to be no push for it?

Easier said than done is putting it extremely mildly. Space is not a 'nice, big source of resources'; it is an environment incredibly unfriendly to all carbon-based life, where even the slightest error can mean death and billions of dollars lost. The costs and logistics of even getting a few people up to the Moon are outrageous. Transporting materials into space currently costs many thousands of dollars per kilogram. To make any kind of space mining operations economically viable would almost certainly take many generations (I'm discounting the potential effect of approaching technological singularity and such, because who really knows what that would entail), and who exactly would be willing to make such a long term, enormous, incredibly risky investment?

I do believe there is some potential for space exploration and colonisation in the future, but humanity is not yet at a stage where it could be considered a realistic option at all. The costs outweigh the benefits a million times over. Also, space isn't some sort of emergency back-up variant, like 'Oh shit, we fucked up the Earth, where's the next closest planet?'. I believe that until we solve our problems on Earth (to a reasonable degree), there's no hope in colonising the space.

As for your concern that eventually there won't be any materials left on Earth to get to space, I doubt that. What materials are you talking about, exactly? Rocket fuel, maybe, but realistically speaking, the rocket propellants in use today are simply way too heavy and expensive to get anywhere at a reasonable pace, so whatever ships would be used in colonisation or mining operations almost certainly wouldn't run on conventional fuel anyway.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Space Exploration would be the best thing ever >=( Buuuuuut people lack foresight, and politicians are no different. We'd need another space race of sorts (sup china), but I don't know if we'd get that going. NASA's funding is abysmal. It doesn't even account for even close to 1% of the fiscal policy, which is disgusting given what it has provided for us technologically.

What has it provided for us technologically? Most of the NASA spinoffs seem to be either very narrowly used, or just part of natural technological progress that would have occured with or without NASA.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Arainach

I'm discussing that, in absolute terms, I would prefer an authoritarian government that paid attention and cared over a 'free' one that continued driving us towards starvation, chaos, anarchy, and destruction any day.

And let's not forget making the trains run on time.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Arainach

Capitalism != Liberty. Hell, Accountable Government != Liberty, as we've seen. Capitalism is not some perfect solution. Given the choice between absolute communism and absolute capitalism, I'd pick absolute communism any day, since governments are more inefficient at screwing you than corporations. A balanced system is needed, and we've leaned way too far towards laissez-faire, as indicated by the fact that, you know, our entire economy is collapsing. I'm not discussing governments that are real and/or practical. I already admitted that earlier in this thread. I'm discussing that, in absolute terms, I would prefer an authoritarian government that paid attention and cared over a 'free' one that continued driving us towards starvation, chaos, anarchy, and destruction any day.

Look at how dumb you are.

Authoritarian governments are never a better alternative to any form of democracy, since giving complete control to thinktanks is a recipe for disaster. New Jersey put birth control hormones in their waterways instead of extending deer hunting season, what makes you think that the Central Authority is going to come up with better ideas?

In real terms, absolute freedom is better than absolute authority because in free societies people are at least able to support each other communally instead of having their labor and lives dictated by the central authority.

Also in case you didn't get it before, those jokes were all told by Soviets under Communism, which is for all intents and purposes the kind of system that you're proposing. An absolute authority which means well. (in theory)

Quote:

What has it provided for us technologically? Most of the NASA spinoffs seem to be either very narrowly used, or just part of natural technological progress that would have occured with or without NASA.

Not a whole lot, tbqh. At this point megacorporations are the entities most likely to attempt space development since the trend in international politics is tending towards the denationalisation of space entirely. What point is there in government space programs developing outer space beyond immediate scientific curiosity when they can't even claim moon rocks?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Don't rag on NASA. My mom's Kirby vacuum uses NASA technology.

The salesman said so.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Actually, China is (Relatively speaking) a far, far greener nation than most other developed countries. Their CO2 production per capita is a fraction of the US, they recycle pretty much everything, build carbon neutral buildings and have very efficient production methods. The reason they buy up so much in the way of natural resources is because they want to control it all before the west squanders it.

They're a far greener nation on average because so many people there don't have TVs, cars, radios, or anything of the sort that would actually use energy. Their "recycling" methods are very shoddy, and cause massive problems to the communities that spring up around those areas. It's mostly people that take apart dangerous equipment without any protection for themselves, so they can recycle it because it's worth barely enough for them to make a living off of. A number of those recycling centers in China and other poor areas actually get a lot of technological waste from westernized countries, because our laws don't have any stipulations on how things will be recycling, just that they need to be "recycled."

As for NASA, it's not just what they've done in space for us (satellites, communications advancements, computer advancements, new materials used in everyday products, etc), but things they've been funding on the ground in research facilities as well. And saying any of those inventions/discoveries would happen eventually anyway just calls into question the entirety of basic government-funded scientific research.

And multi-national space exploration is bullshit. Just look what happened to the International Space Station.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

You sounded completely opposed to the nuclear idea in your first post...

Why can't we just store nuclear waste in Antarctica? Does it require that much upkeep?

Sorry, I guess I came off the wrong way then. It is not that I am opposed to nuclear energy, it is that I simply do not see us shifting to an energy system that mainly uses nuclear power. I just don't think the general population will be accepting it for a long time.

I am very doubtful of any new energy or fuel sources we have currently. I would love it if we would use them, but the majority of our options just wont work with how things are right now..

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

And saying any of those inventions/discoveries would happen eventually anyway just calls into question the entirety of basic government-funded scientific research.

Well, no, that's not what I meant, but perhaps that government funding would be more efficiently used to specifically focus on such inventions (research), rather than getting them as a potential side effect of space programmes. I mean, not that I think NASA shouldn't have a larger budget, but it's also not hard to see why most people don't view space exploration as a priority right now.

How ya doing, buddy?

Well, the thing is, the government allocates that money to NASA, then NASA allocates that money to various companies, universities, and its own divisions in a quest to come up with various solutions. Along the way, there's usually a bunch of baby steps which have to be taken to solve the Bigger Problem, and those are typically the things we see trickle down into our every day life.

I agree that going through NASA to fund a lot of the research it does isn't necessarily the best way to distribute the funds, but you're not going to get congress to create yet another party to distribute money out for research than they already have (current biggest ones I'm familiar with are the National Institute of Health, Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and all the various military affiliated organizations (DARPA, NRL, etc)).

A lot of funding for solar technologies, recyclables, high-tech polymers/plastics, and such come out of funding from NASA much in the same way we get radar, noise-filtering/signal processing, ultra-strong materials, and high temperature alloys from military research.

I know I'm kinda wandering around topics, but one last note. Science usually isn't done to one really specific end. It's one of those things where you need to sprinkle a lot of seeds and hope one of them will be able to take hold, since each technology which is going to be the next big thing actually has ten hurdles to overcome before it can be. You just need to hope that you've either invested in enough projects that all ten of those things happen to be discovered at around the same time (and someone recognizes they can be put together), or you completely lucked out and put tons of money into what happened to be the best one.

Let's just take solar power, for example. There's hundreds of ways to try and harness solar energy. Some people are trying to mimic photosynthesis that plants use, some are making multilayers of differently doped silicon, some are doing multilayers of different semiconductors, some are working on ways to create very cheap photovoltaics so you can have moderately inefficient solar cells that are extremely cheap to manufacture, others are working on extremely efficient materials that are very expensive, so instead of covering your whole roof with the material, you use a postage-stamp sized piece, but you then need to cover your roof with (hopefully) inexpensive light collectors that'll push all of the light onto that little area. Even within that subset of collectors, there's a plethora of ways to try and go about collecting the light, and all of that is being looked into by hundreds/thousands of people worldwide.

Then let's look at fuel cells. You need methods of storing the hydrogen, you need methods of dispensing the hydrogen quickly and safely, you need to determine what kind of fuel cells you're going to work on, you need to figure out what operating temperatures you want to be running at. Each of these options gives completely different opportunities for research into completely different materials. An electrolyte which is good for methane fuel cells might be useless for hydrogen fuel cells.

One of the biggest problems facing these new technologies is that nobody knows what's going to offer the most promise in the next 5, 10, 20, 50 years. Think about how hard it was to decide if you were going to buy a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player. Now imagine if instead of just those two, you had 200 technologies to choose from, with none of them having any media released yet. That's the situation funding agencies are faced with today.

Sorry for the massive post, I just think this whole problem is a bit misunderstood by most people. It's not just like Civilization where you put 30% of your income into and you're guaranteed a breakthrough. Sure, lots more money will help expedite the process, but experiments still take time, and we'd still need to train the people to conduct these experiments.

I was speaking idiomatically.

In case you were addressing me before, Racin, I was referring to the benefit of NASA as far as consumer goods went, which is how the issue is always framed.

The net benefits from scientific advancement and international communications were all well worth the investment.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

What do you actually define as a "consumer good," though?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

You'd think a trade-in would be considered here, NP. I mean, if it's really killing your wallet, get rid of it. Makes sense to me. Not that it's my business, but you're bitching about it. So imagine there's a solution to the problem, if you really want it.

I've inherited a car from my folks that's a little gas-heavy. But fuck if I care. High gas prices or not, maintenance costs just as much, insurance half as much, and licensing fees probably a quarter as much. I'd rather have the gas-third of my costs grow than pay all that cash for a newer car AND spend more insuring it AND face faster depreciation.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

What do you actually define as a "consumer good," though?

At first I thought this was pretty self-evident until I started to doubt myself in thinking of consumer goods from a pre-information age perspective. Then I realized no wait you're probably just fucking with me, because global communications are a service and not a good.

What I was hinting at before is that NASA haters like to beat Tang and Temperpedic mattresses into the ground as if NASA programs have resulted in no other benefits to consumers or the world at large.

NASA on the net is worth it I guess, I dunno, they're just grossly inefficient and bogglingly retarded for a bunch of smart people.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I actually sat through a boring ass presentation on thermoelectric materials today. Apparently they were originally developed for spacecraft since they don't involve any moving parts and have super-high reliability. That technology is now trickling down into these cars that have coolers built into them. Sure, it's a stupid luxury now, but once these materials get even more efficient we'll be able to draw more than just a hundred watts off of the heat that's wasted from our combustion engines (or power plants, or anything else that releases heat when it runs).

I think the reason why NASA seems so inefficient is because they're doing so much pure research, which generally has very little immediate and obvious benefit to it. I mean, my research group has been getting money from NASA for years, and we're the only people in the world that can actually make a profit off of what we're researching. So far its most popular use has been in golf clubs and metal baseball bats. Also, they're inefficient because I don't think the smartest people want to work at NASA anymore. It doesn't pay as well as other jobs, you've got government bureaucrats breathing down your neck, and it's just not as "sexy" as it was back during the Apollo program. I'm hoping this is something that the recent proclamation of us wanting to build a moon base/go to mars will help fuel, though I really doubt it.

If we want to solve all these technological problems we really need to start making a career in science a lot more attractive than one in investment banking or any of these other really high paying careers that don't create wealth, but only shuffle it around.

How ya doing, buddy?