science debate

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:10 am

I thought brits used 120V ?

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:35 am

you mean 110v thats used on building sites and some factorys same has 440v but houses are 220v to 240v

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:43 am

unriggable wrote:I dunno, the Chinese are quickly catching up - having to build four coal-fired power plants a week to mantain power.

Sadly, both western europe AND China are WAY ahead of the US right now in implementing alternative energy. The Chinese government started several big initiatives last year to develop widespread hydro and wind programs, if I'm remembering those Discover and Sci Am articles correctly.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:45 pm

Colossus wrote:
unriggable wrote:I dunno, the Chinese are quickly catching up - having to build four coal-fired power plants a week to mantain power.
Sadly, both western europe AND China are WAY ahead of the US right now in implementing alternative energy. The Chinese government started several big initiatives last year to develop widespread hydro and wind programs, if I'm remembering those Discover and Sci Am articles correctly.

That would be expected, corporations have such a huge say in america that its nucking futs.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:09 am

Kid_A wrote:did somebody say robot sex?

I'd hit it.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:08 am

Maybe I need to do something about my monitor, but I could have sworn that that is a gathering of the Ku Klux Klan in your avatar, Kid A...

Joep the 2nd · Post by **Joep the 2nd** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:55 am

dude this is about the future of the world and you start yapping about an avatar?

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:40 am

Joep the 2nd wrote:dude this is about the future of the world and you start yapping about an avatar?

You're right, "dude". Sex with robots is far more important.

XenHu · Post by **XenHu** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:43 am

Stopper wrote:Maybe I need to do something about my monitor, but I could have sworn that that is a gathering of the Ku Klux Klan in your avatar, Kid A...

-X

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:29 am

could be worse. we could have the bible punchers in here Joep the 2nd

XenHu · Post by **XenHu** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:37 am

WL_southerner wrote:could be worse. we could have the bible punchers in here Joep the 2nd

I hope that wasn't a stab at me...

-X

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:16 am

na your ok XenHu ( pushes the knife in deeper in the back )

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:55 am

any way back to the subject, damming up rivers and streams has more advanties than disadvanties,i not talking about big dams just small ones just enough to run power mills will help to bring up the water table in the ground,
one thing i cant under stand when they build new building they let all that rain water flow striaght into strom drains then out into the rivers and sea, where they could build under ground storeage tanks and let the water soak in to the ground slowly

areon · Post by **areon** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:40 am

Stagnant water is not a good thing. If anything there needs to be less dams in the world.

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:33 pm

damming up rivers dont make the water Stagnant,water only becomes stagnant if there no circulation or no flow

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:12 pm

WL_southerner wrote:damming up rivers dont make the water Stagnant,water only becomes stagnant if there no circulation or no flow

Which is caused by dams.
Solar energy IMO holds a lot of potential.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:12 pm

Stopper wrote:
Joep the 2nd wrote:dude this is about the future of the world and you start yapping about an avatar?
You're right, "dude". Sex with robots is far more important.

Yes, and yes that is the kkk.

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:45 am

dammming up rivers and streams you still got water movement or you would not get any power from it, water will only go stagnant if there no water going in or out like in some levys and ponds

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:53 am

WL_southerner wrote: help to bring up the water table in the ground,

High water table = Salinity

At least we'll have lots of water when we starve to death!

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:02 am

High water table = Salinity umm thats only with in 200 meters in land from salt water, and thats only if it soft soil hard rock its alot closer,ie like the drinking well at new quay cornwall thats about 50 foot from open sea

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:04 am

Do you need water for lube? You do, don't you? Just imagine how much sex with robots you could have if you used all the water for lubricants...

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:16 am

WL_southerner wrote:High water table = Salinity umm thats only with in 200 meters in land from salt water, and thats only if it soft soil hard rock its alot closer,ie like the drinking well at new quay cornwall thats about 50 foot from open sea

Hmm, so your saying that a large percentage of Australia's farm land lies within 200m of the sea. The things you learn on the internet.

Actually, no. a large percentage of Australia's farmland has been rendered unusable from salinity and, suprisingly, quite a bit of it is very far inland.

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:20 am

thats only on the surface the soil acted like a filter tell me where do your drinking water come from

Roger Dodger · Post by **Roger Dodger** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:43 am

okay, robotics. one thing for sure is that robotics has killed the auto industry. maybe automation is good but, lots of people lost their livelyhood because of it. i know productivity and high demand is important
but, not on the blood sweat & tears of people.

The movie AI really got to me. especially after she activated him. when the bratty kid woke up from his coma. then he was discarded like trash. put in the woods and then she took off. yes, i know it is only a machine but, that did get to me. a sense of realism. the fact that the character was a child. i saw something about a woman that japan had made and, i was amazed at the amount of detail and she looked like a real person.

the other thing that amazes me is that dopey movie Simon. someone has actually made a digital picture person. i looked at how they did it and, if they can do this ? i mean, you can prob. make a whole movie using digitized actors. pay no one.

enough of my rants..... global warming.

there is always some crisis in this world of ours. don't eat eggs, eat eggs. red dye #2 bacon? good or bad? ozone depletion, ecology.
it is the newest thing now.

i am more worried about a terrorist attack than about global warming.
the immigration crap in the US is also something to worry about. why is it that south america/ mexico hasn't flourished like others. corruption?
there is no reason in the world why people should be coming to this country if wages and laws were equal there.

the bottom line is that, it doesn't matter. what's gonna happen will happen regardless of us.

where are you gonna run to? the fact is everybody is born & everybody dies. i for one will be 87 in 40 yrs. so, i'll probably be dead anyway.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:40 am

Roger Dodger wrote:where are you gonna run to? the fact is everybody is born & everybody dies. i for one will be 87 in 40 yrs. so, i'll probably be dead anyway.

No, you won't. Life expectancy will still be going up by then. Mind you, you might look a little haggard by then, but you'll still have an active sex life, what with all them robots. They won't be fussy.

science debate

science debate

science debate

Re: science debate

science debate

science debate

science debate

Re: science debate

science debate

Re: science debate

science debate

Re: science debate

science debate