Is anyone else mad at science?

[Nique]

Ok I've got a serious beef with science. Yeah. All fields of study.

1) Technology: We're falling way behind expectations here guys. Sci-Fi movies have been telling you for years that there is a market for crazy stuff no one thought they would ever need, so where my flying cars at?! My dream controlling device? What's this - 3D television? Get that out of my face man where are my holograms!?

2) Medicine: Knock off this damage control garbage. People are sick of taking pills n shit. Get every scientist ever in the whole world to get togethor at, I dunno, a conference, figure out AIDS and Cancer, then move on to the next thing. It's called prioritizing, bitches.

3) Paleontology: If any field of study could benefit in literally everyway from some good ol' bullshit pandering, this one is it. We need truthiness here. Let us keep hold of our romance with the idea of big scary lizards. Dinosaurs don't care if we know that they actually had feathers or not, or if we think they are bigger than they were. Stop discovering this becuase you are casting ruin upon my childhood.

4) Space Travel: Nasa, WTF?

[Viridis]

So in short, you want your jetpack (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IWantMyJetpack)*TVTROPES LINK?



You'd just crash your flying car, anyway.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Like do you work in an office or somehing? Your budget for printing is probably higher than our budget for everything. I work on machines from he 70s that I repair for 2 years so they work for like 6 weeks to go with. My computer on which I run calculations coss like $4000 which is the absolute maximum we could hope to spend bu I've got to run gigantic massive calculations.
And we get paid fuck all.
You want progress, give us money.

[krogothwolf]

My computer on which I run calculations coss like $4000 which is the absolute maximum we could hope to spend bu I've got to run gigantic massive calculations.


Man, you are so lazy. Real scientists use Pen and Paper!

[Nique]

I'm just saying - Star Trek Communicators? Cell Phones. We can do this stuff, they're just picking the lame ones.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That's not a science issue, that's an industry issue.

[Fifthfiend]

Flying cars would be cool for like two minutes and then would be exactly as terrible in every way as ground cars. Teleporters might be rad if they do it in a way where you're actually being transported and not the way where you're being killed and then an exact duplicate of you is getting recreated somewhere else but we live in Universe Six-One-Shitty so if we ever got teleporters it'd be the murders-you kind.

[Amake]

I understand proper warp technology would be feasible if we could harness half the energy in the known universe. So it's really just a matter of time until we're done with roads.

The duplication-and-murdering kind of teleportation is really horrible. They might sell chumps on it by advertising some make-believe process that actually transfers your consciousness to the new body, and that's what the new body will believe, but let me tell ya, consciousness is an emergent property of the mind without any physical components and you can't teleport that any more than you can move the wetness of a body of water to another body of water. You're going to die, and no one will ever know.

[TDK]

Its been said but I WANT MY JETPACK.

[Nique]

That's not a science issue, that's an industry issue.

Touche'.

Teleporters might be rad if they do it in a way where you're actually being transported and not the way where you're being killed and then an exact duplicate of you is getting recreated somewhere else but we live in Universe Six-One-Shitty so if we ever got teleporters it'd be the murders-you kind.


Aren't they working with some quantum-level stuff to move other stuff to other places and stuff?

Would that still kill you though?

You're going to die, and no one will ever know.

:ohdear:

[Professor Smarmiarty]

consciousness is an emergent property of the mind without any physical components

Citation needed




Aren't they working with some quantum-level stuff to move other stuff to other places and stuff?

Would that still kill you though?

Well they teleport information. Are you information?

[Fifthfiend]

TDK you would light your own ass on fire even faster than every other joker with a jetpack would light his ass on fire.

[Archbio]

Citation needed

Your face needs a citation.

Why am I still made out of flesh and stuff, huh, science?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Your face needs a citation.

Why am I still made out of flesh and stuff, huh, science?

There ain't enough metal in the world to rebuild your body fatty.

[synkr0nized]

fuckin' magnets

[krogothwolf]

Man, I want to become SkyNet, why can't I yet Smarty?

[Wigmund]

All my expectations of the future have been met (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sGYULzoQCgA/RiR7L_dyCLI/AAAAAAAAAdU/2COTRQtZAk8/s1600-h/Ladies+Home+Journal+Dec+1900+paleofuture+paleo-future.jpg).

[Archbio]

There ain't enough metal in the world to rebuild your body fatty.

That's exactly why science was supposed to get our asses out to Mars: to mine the ore from another world to make me a cool robot body. It's just rocket science, not brain surgery. Try and keep up!

The new millennium sucks! What a disappointment! What's the difference between the old millennium and the new millennium? Nothing! It's the same load of crap with a '2' in the front. When I was a kid, I am old enough so that when I was a kid, I looked forward to the new millennium. When I was young, I said, 'I'm gonna live through a change! A massive change! Things are gonna be different! Things are gonna be great!' Screwed again! No flying cars! No flying cars!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

fuckin' magnets

There are a race of magnet people, known in the science community as the magnatars. The magnatars possessed great powers, able to bend spacetime to thier will to attract and repel objects. This power lead to great arrogance, however, and many a war racked the magnatar community. So the great Pole, the god of the magnatar, decreed that magnatars should seperate themselves- magnatars working together were too destructive to be safe. So early after birth magnatars are paired up with a mate and they live in little metal houses. Living with one person all your life, however, quickly leads to resenment and such that magnatars continually seek new partners and will use their powers to attract the houses of the opposite sex from great distances.

Man, I want to become SkyNet, why can't I yet Smarty?

Because you are a person.

[krogothwolf]

Because you are a person.

Man, why can't you make me into SkyNet? Aren't you a super awesome mad scientist?

Also Also......why do compasses work?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Man, why can't you make me into SkyNet? Aren't you a super awesome mad scientist?
I AM NOT ABLE TO DO THAT AS IT IS UNETHICAL.


Also Also......why do compasses work?

Muslims face mecca, magnetars face their god. Simple simple.

[krogothwolf]

I AM NOT ABLE TO DO THAT AS IT IS UNETHICAL.


Since when did Ethics ever stop scientists before?

[Nique]

Well they teleport information. Are you information?

...

...

Am I?

Stop messing with my head!

[Viridis]

All my expectations of the future have been met (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sGYULzoQCgA/RiR7L_dyCLI/AAAAAAAAAdU/2COTRQtZAk8/s1600-h/Ladies+Home+Journal+Dec+1900+paleofuture+paleo-future.jpg).
LIES
"A man or woman unable to walk ten miles at a stretch will be regarded as a weakling"
"No mosquitoes nor flies"
"There will be no wild animals except in menageries. Rats and mice will have been exterminated"

[Magic_Marker]

So in short, you want your jetpack (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IWantMyJetpack)*TVTROPES LINK?



You'd just crash your flying car, anyway.

Whelp, now TVTropes is open on my browser.

See you guys in a few months.

[Terex4]

If America develops the murders you and creates a duplicate body type of teleporter, you just know its going to go to the plastic surgery industry for recreating "ideal" bodies.

[Krylo]

...

...

Am I?

Stop messing with my head!
KIND OF!
If America develops the murders you and creates a duplicate body type of teleporter, you just know its going to go to the plastic surgery industry for recreating "ideal" bodies.

THAT IS NOT HOW QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT WORKS [/mordo]

Basically the quantum entanglement teleporters that folks talk about work by transferring all the information needed to perfectly recreate your body down to the electron, and once that is done at the new location your copy there will have all the thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. as the original you.

So you couldn't recreate an 'ideal body' as it would involve altering the information being transferred, which would fuck up the whole process. I mean, maybe eventually, but it wouldn't have anything to do with plastic surgery. It'd be some programmers isolating what data in the information stream represents your beer gut and altering it to 'six pack = true'.

Fun fact: It's what they use in Star Trek.

Funner Fact: There was an episode where Riker's original didn't get disassembled.

[BitVyper]

Still not sure why any of them ever set foot in a transporter again after that episode.

[bluestarultor]

I'd never use a teleporter. You know how TV signals used to get static and snow going through the atmosphere? Well, digital is a better example. Imagine you're a digital signal and you go through an atmosphere in such a way the picture breaks up. You are now, to spare you a worse image, scrambled eggs.

Sure, things like the Internet have ways of asking the sender to resend lost data, but a human body would take forever and a day to rebuild at that rate. Even if they compensate with some sort of algorithm to make a best guess instead, there will be degradation every time. You've just switched from being a DTV signal to being a JPEG. Maybe you won't notice at first, but do it enough times and you're a blob.

[Fifthfiend]

KIND OF!


THAT IS NOT HOW QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT WORKS [/mordo]

Basically the quantum entanglement teleporters that folks talk about work by transferring all the information needed to perfectly recreate your body down to the electron, and once that is done at the new location your copy there will have all the thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. as the original you.

So you couldn't recreate an 'ideal body' as it would involve altering the information being transferred, which would fuck up the whole process. I mean, maybe eventually, but it wouldn't have anything to do with plastic surgery. It'd be some programmers isolating what data in the information stream represents your beer gut and altering it to 'six pack = true'.

Fun fact: It's what they use in Star Trek.

Funner Fact: There was an episode where Riker's original didn't get disassembled.

Still not sure why any of them ever set foot in a transporter again after that episode.

See this is the shit I am saying, they are basically tearing apart your atoms and then building a new you in some totally different location, there is no fucking way I would get into one of those EXCEPT if they ever invented them it would be a condition of being able to do anything whatsoever in society that you were willing to get in one of those and like, basically just kill yourself over and over and over again.

Like supermarkets wouldn't even have doors anymore, they would just have teleporter pads and if you wanna go pick up some vegetables to eat so you don't starve to death or get gout, you just gotta hop on that teleporter and kill yourself and then a clone of you will pick up those tomatoes and then kill himself and then the second-derivative clone of you that gets back to your apartment will enjoy delicious homemade clone-tomato-sauce pasta.

[Nikose Tyris]

I think as a general rule, any time a teleporter fails and leaves an original copy behind, he should be shot and eliminated as soon as possible. He raises the background doom ratios exponentially.

[Nique]

Fun fact: It's what they use in Star Trek.

This is the trekkie in me coming out but the transporters actually break down the atoms and put them in a transfer beam, reassembling the same atoms in a different location. It's why it doesn't work over long distances, but it's also related the the recreative abilities of the holodeck and the replicator. The only reason Riker ended up with a clone is becuase the signal reflected off something and used whatever ambient energy to recreate Will Riker.

That, or the way they described it in the show left it open to interpretation. A better teleporter would encapsulate you in a sub-space bubble and 'warp' the physical 'you' to whereever the hell it was you were in such a hurry to get to.

[Krylo]

Man you guys are pussies.

It's not like you'd know you were dying.

As far as you could tell nothing untoward ever happened, you were just standing at home on your totally bitchin' teleporter pad and then you were standing at the supermarket.

I'd never use a teleporter. You know how TV signals used to get static and snow going through the atmosphere? Well, digital is a better example. Imagine you're a digital signal and you go through an atmosphere in such a way the picture breaks up. You are now, to spare you a worse image, scrambled eggs.

Sure, things like the Internet have ways of asking the sender to resend lost data, but a human body would take forever and a day to rebuild at that rate. Even if they compensate with some sort of algorithm to make a best guess instead, there will be degradation every time. You've just switched from being a DTV signal to being a JPEG. Maybe you won't notice at first, but do it enough times and you're a blob.

OOOORRRRRRR

They could just save the data at the original point until a successful teleportation had been confirmed and then wipe it. If there was any kind of issue, they'd just recreate you at the point of disassembly, explain there was an error on the other end, and suggest alternate pads near by.



That, or the way they described it in the show left it open to interpretation. A better teleporter would encapsulate you in a sub-space bubble and 'warp' the physical 'you' to whereever the hell it was you were in such a hurry to get to.

If you're Wesley Crusher, I guess.

[Wigmund]

That, or the way they described it in the show left it open to interpretation. A better teleporter would encapsulate you in a sub-space bubble and 'warp' the physical 'you' to whereever the hell it was you were in such a hurry to get to.

I think they did that in Buckaroo Banzai (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d682xV0n1YY). Unfortunately sub-space is full of malevolent critters that want to possess us and are all named John.

[bluestarultor]

OOOORRRRRRR

They could just save the data at the original point until a successful teleportation had been confirmed and then wipe it. If there was any kind of issue, they'd just recreate you at the point of disassembly, explain there was an error on the other end, and suggest alternate pads near by.

You, sir, deserve a medal for good program flow design. Have you ever considered programming?

[Krylo]

To be fair it really shouldn't even be necessary because you don't transfer data with quantum entanglement.

It's kind of... in both places at once. It's difficult to explain and I don't have a totally solid grip on it myself, but as I understand it these particles will react to each other's movements predictably even if they are light years apart--instantly. As such it allows for instant 'transmission' of data between any two points. But the data isn't really being transmitted, because it exists in both places simultaneously.

[TDK]

Okay, better idea. The teleporter makes the clone of you wherever you want to go without killing the original you. Then when that clone is finished whatever business you had there, it just gets killed.

There'd be problems with that too, though. Like the clone maybe not wanting to die, even though its the same as the original idea in terms of the clone dying.

[Krylo]

That's terrible.

You'd lose out on all the 'clone's experiences. Like what if you wanted to go see your girlfriend in Japan? You want all the memories of that experience to die with your clone?

This isn't eclipse phase. You can't just fork your personality and then recombine it at a later date at the cost of some possible stress.

Well, not YET anyway. But we can't teleport around yet either, so who knows.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Okay, better idea. The teleporter makes the clone of you wherever you want to go without killing the original you. Then when that clone is finished whatever business you had there, it just gets killed.

There'd be problems with that too, though. Like the clone maybe not wanting to die, even though its the same as the original idea in terms of the clone dying.

Not to mention that you'd lack memories of the things your clone did. You couldn't use this method of transportation for going to school or a business meeting because once it's over you don't know what transpired or what you were meant to learn.

[Krylo]

Man you guys are going to be like those crazy old people who are afraid of all the new stuff, like computers and wearing jeans outside of coal mines and t-shirts.

Your grand kids are going to roll their eyes at you so hard when you get into your antiquated petro cars or what the fuck ever, right before they teleport away to do some shopping in Akihabara, followed by popping over to Russia where the drinking age is lower and the vodka is fresher, only to pop over to watch the sun set from the eiffel tower, and still be home in time for dinner.

Edit: And while you are getting old and driving shitty antique volvos, I will be teleporting around the world if not the solar system/universe, with my bitchin' immortal cyborg body designed by our robot overlords that you're all too scared to partake of.

[bluestarultor]

To be fair it really shouldn't even be necessary because you don't transfer data with quantum entanglement.

It's kind of... in both places at once. It's difficult to explain and I don't have a totally solid grip on it myself, but as I understand it these particles will react to each other's movements predictably even if they are light years apart--instantly. As such it allows for instant 'transmission' of data between any two points. But the data isn't really being transmitted, because it exists in both places simultaneously.

Is it related to the whole thing where if you split particles down far enough, they still act as a single particle to outside stimuli? Because if you mean they'd split you totally in two, slingshot half of them wherever, and then that half would pull the other half, that might be workable and possibly not even fatal! :eek:

[Krylo]

That is exactly what it is to the best of my knowledge.

Except for splitting your particles. They'd just have entangled particles already at both places, and use them to transmit the data instead of normal data lines.

[Magic_Marker]

http://www.gamesfree.ca/wg_images/img_gal/0m6kP7Fniw1tDbutr1qFFmIetgamesfree_ca_ex_wife.jpg

[Marc v4.0]

Re: Teleporters

I'm not really looking forward to being the first in line to have my atoms taken apart and then put back together, because I don't want to find out first hand if the process kills you and just makes a copy.

I am not ok with that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Basically the information passing relies on particles that are entangled which means that you cannot describe one particle without describing the other as well even if they are well seperated in space.
Normally in quantum mechanics a particles state is decided when you measure it. But if the particles are entangled when you measure one particle you already know the state of the other- this can be used to pass information.
It's as far away from making people teleporters as a bonfire is from the sun.
Also teleporters would be so ridiculously inefficient. Generic transport would pretty much always be cheaper.

[Krylo]

Basically the information passing relies on particles that are entangled which means that you cannot describe one particle without describing the other as well even if they are well seperated in space.
Normally in quantum mechanics a particles state is decided when you measure it. But if the particles are entangled when you measure one particle you already know the state of the other- this can be used to pass information.
It's as far away from making people teleporters as a bonfire is from the sun.Yeah, you need a way to translate an entire person into data, break them down, and then recreate them from said data on the other end.
Also teleporters would be so ridiculously inefficient. Generic transport would pretty much always be cheaper.

Fuck efficiency and fuck you. You are why we don't have flying cars.

[Fifthfiend]

The problem with the future is that the clean, limitless, easily transported energy source that makes the fantastical supertechnology society possible is the clean, limitless, easily transported energy source for the weapons that turn the fantastical supertechnology society into smouldering rubble and ash scattered across the universe.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah, you need a way to translate an entire person into data, break them down, and then recreate them from said data on the other end.

You'd not only need to be able to analyse every atom in a human body you'd also need to entangle them. We can't even do that shit to an atom yet.

Fuck efficiency and fuck you. You are why we don't have flying cars.

Like what is the point of a flying car? All the destinations you need to go to are on the ground. Like maybe if you want to fly ontop of a mountain?

The problem with the future is that the clean, limitless, easily transported energy source that makes the fantastical supertechnology society possible is the clean, limitless, easily transported energy source for the weapons that turn the fantastical supertechnology society into smouldering rubble and ash scattered across the universe.

Robots will fight all our wars in the battlezone!

[Fifthfiend]

Well you'd need one to get to the cloud cities.

I mean it ain't no kind of future if you ain't got cloud cities.

[Amake]

Obviously walking is the most efficient. I say everyone should either walk or teleport. No damn half-measures. Give us a logistic singularity where everything and everyone are everywhere simultaneously. Give us all or nothing.

PS. My main source on all matters of consciousness is, ironically, The Origin of Consciousness.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You could use space elevators which are way more futuristic than flying cars.



PS. My main source on all matters of consciousness is, ironically, The Origin of Consciousness.

I don't know that one. Who wrote it?

[Krylo]

Like what is the point of a flying car? All the destinations you need to go to are on the ground. Like maybe if you want to fly ontop of a mountain?

Well, I really don't care to do the math, but how much more space is there to move through in three dimensions than in two? Further, you could fly over trees, over/under other flying car traffic, and you wouldn't have to follow roads. You could merely go in a straight line to your destination, cutting the distance traveled ridiculously for long trips.

Plus they'd probably go faster. As flying things are wont to do.

SO--shorter distances, less traffic, faster movement. Yup.

Also: They're cooler.

[Fifthfiend]

Man you guys are going to be like those crazy old people who are afraid of all the new stuff, like computers and wearing jeans outside of coal mines and t-shirts.

Your grand kids are going to roll their eyes at you so hard when you get into your antiquated petro cars or what the fuck ever, right before they teleport away to do some shopping in Akihabara, followed by popping over to Russia where the drinking age is lower and the vodka is fresher, only to pop over to watch the sun set from the eiffel tower, and still be home in time for dinner.

Edit: And while you are getting old and driving shitty antique volvos, I will be teleporting around the world if not the solar system/universe, with my bitchin' immortal cyborg body designed by our robot overlords that you're all too scared to partake of.

Somewhere there's an angry mean-ass old man who's spent the last 50 years bitching to anybody who'd listen about how cars and highways and parking lots and malls were a stupid shitty idea that would ruin everything AND HE WAS RIGHT

SO--shorter distances, less traffic, faster movement. Yup.

Pffft, this isn't just wrong, it's wrong for the same reason that everybody who ever thought they could accomplish these things by building more highways was wrong.

[Krylo]

This is wrong for the same reason that everybody who ever thought they could accomplish these things by building more highways was wrong.

Building more highways DID accomplish those things, though.

Really, if there were fewer highways there'd still be just as many assholes with cars trying to get places. They'd just have fewer routes to get there and there'd be even more of them on your ass honking at you and not letting you switch lanes.

Yes there would still be air traffic, and it'd probably be regulated as hell in metro areas, but you'd have basically an infinite number of routes to choose from so the chances of ever seeing another flying car when outside of the confines of a community are pretty much zilch.

They'd be useless for getting around town, though. Take off and landing time would probably negate any advantages of flying.

[bluestarultor]

Cloud cities are overrated, anyway. The scenery never changes (even if the clouds leave, the world below will get boring) and you never get any weather to spice things up, which means all gardens and lawns have to be watered. Also, it's all fine and dandy while the clouds are fluffy and white, but the first gray one to meander nearby will send everyone scrambling so they aren't caught in the absolute middle of the source of all the lightning during thunderstorms.

Then on top of that it all gets ruined by having to put walls around the whole thing so some ass doesn't fall or jump or push a kid over the edge or something. I was assuming they'd be thick glass walls for the sake of the scenery, but you're still living in a glorified terrarium.

[Amake]

They'd be useless for getting around town, though. Take off and landing time would probably negate any advantages of flying. Wheel cars are already useless for getting around town. Flying cars should probably be banned from the get-go.

Tricky edit: What is this "rest of the world" you speak of? Here in Sweden public transportation sucks because every city worthy of the name has streets that are crowded with cars.

And sky cities obviously have technology to destroy clouds that look at them wrong. (This already exists.) And suicide booths to make leaping off the edge the more unpleasant alternative.

[Krylo]

you never get any weather

...But people only go outside to see/enjoy the weather when it is nice, so how is having nice 'weather' all the time a bad thing?

Edit: I love it when foreigners hate on cars because they have no idea what it's like living in the rest of the world where public transportation sucks and a bike ride to get to the other side of town would take an hour.

[bluestarultor]

Wheel cars are already useless for getting around town. Flying cars should probably be banned from the get-go.

And sky cities obviously have technology to destroy clouds that look at them wrong. (This already exists.) And suicide booths to make leaping off the edge the more unpleasant alternative.

The booths still don't prevent the snot-nosed kid from down the street from throwing your new bike off the edge or your basketball from taking a dive and possibly your best buddy in the process of chasing after it.

Actually, you know what? Screw walls. You need a bubble dome. People can't be trusted enough to not get zapped/fall/etc.

Edit: @Krylo: I dunno about you, but I played in the rain and snow as a kid. Aside from that, the air would be thin and it would be cold up there year round. Again, solution: bubble dome.


Edit again: I'll have to admit I somehow like the idea of a bubble dome better than being in the open, if for no other reason than that I'd be able to call it being inside all the time. It makes it more of an airship than a cloud city, though.

[Funka Genocide]

I'd just like to point out that most of you seem incapable of grasping the basic rudiments of physics in relation to the flow of electricity, namely the behavior of lightning and its interactions with bodies suspended in natural atmosphere. Also, totally overlooking the rather low-tech reality of physical and chemical grounding, which is a science we've pretty much all ready got a handle on.

Also, generally speaking flight is less fuel efficient than driving, it also produces more greenhouse gasses. For example, flying from philadelphia to boston (about 300 miles) produces about 184kg of CO2 per passenger, whereas driving that same distance would only produce about 104kg per car, so even if every single passenger on a full flight took their own car with no passendgers, the carbon footprint would be significantly less.

Meaning that personal flying conveyances are an impossibility in a petroleum mandated paradigm. Considering the fact that our current carbon emissions are highly destructive to the environment with no means of mitigation other than cutting back, the economic factors of inevitable decline in supply and increase in demand as well as the safety and civic hazards inherent to overhauling the entire personal driving curriculum for both adults and young drivers, you can pretty much see that absent some miraculous new fuel source introducing flying cars to the market would pretty much be the most irresponsible thing anyone could possibly do at this juncture in history, even if they made such a thing economical to own and maintain for the short term.

The technology exists and has existed for decades, its the means of production, marketing and sustainment that elude modern minds, probably because there are like 7billion other modern minds for those minds to contend with.

[Fifthfiend]

Building more highways DID accomplish those things, though.

Really, if there were fewer highways there'd still be just as many assholes with cars trying to get places. They'd just have fewer routes to get there and there'd be even more of them on your ass honking at you and not letting you switch lanes.

See this is the part that's wrong. Building more highways hasn't ever accomplished that; more roads, more highways, and more parking requirements have pretty much only ever accomplished more cars, and more frequent use of cars, and ultimately dependence on cars, as you get more and more development that makes it impossible to do things or get to places without a car. Every highway expansion or new construction just leads to the highways being just as full as they ever were.

Edit: I love it when foreigners hate on cars because they have no idea what it's like living in the rest of the world where public transportation sucks and a bike ride to get to the other side of town would take an hour.

All of those things are because of cars.

[Kim]

@Krylo: I dunno about you, but I played in the rain and snow as a kid. Aside from that, the air would be thin and it would be cold up there year round. Again, solution: bubble dome.

Man, FUCK snow. I don't even need it to be snowy to remember that I fucking hate snow. Like, even in the middle of summer when it's over ninety degrees and I'm cooking like a turkey, I still have the presence of mind to know "This is better than it being snowy. Fuck snow." That's how much I hate snow.

[bluestarultor]

I'd just like to point out that most of you seem incapable of grasping the basic rudiments of physics in relation to the flow of electricity, namely the behavior of lightning and its interactions with bodies suspended in natural atmosphere. Also, totally overlooking the rather low-tech reality of physical and chemical grounding, which is a science we've pretty much all ready got a handle on.

Path of least resistance. Most lightning happens within the clouds, themselves, though. If you're in the middle of a charged cloud, you're liable to feel a tingle sooner or later. Lightning rods aren't magic. They would, however, provide a power source if you got a strong enough capacitor/resistor relay.

[Amake]

Battle Angel Alita offers more than just the vaguely fascist idea of suicide booths: It has a city that floats at a height of 3km by being attached to a three thousand kilometer shaft hanging on an orbital ring.

As for lightning, I think we have lightning rods for that?

[Krylo]

Tricky edit: What is this "rest of the world" you speak of? Here in Sweden public transportation sucks because every city worthy of the name has streets that are crowded with cars.

Unfair.

ALSO, There are basically people from three types of places that think owning a car is pointless.

The first live in areas like whatever city you are in/Manhattan (for a statebound example), where traffic is terrible. USUALLY in these places you also have subway systems to provide public transportation across the city, and biking or walking is faster to get from place to place within short distances. Which is hilariously ironic when you think about it: If all the people living there know driving is a shit way to get around because of the traffic, where does the traffic come from?

The second live in relatively ordinary towns/cities (traffic wise) that have good public transportation and can actually get on a bus in a timely manner to get where they are going.

The third live in extremely small communities where walking/biking is a viable method of transportation across town, or are lucky enough to have a work place, and a shopping center within walking distance.

The issue is that, while many other countries put a good amount of money into public works/public transportation, the US isn't one of them. Therefore any city that isn't a) so ridiculously crowded that the city actually bothers implementing a good public transportation option, or b) so small that you can walk the breadth of it easily, you kind of need a car.

The alternative to having a car for the vast majority of people stateside, and many people in other less advanced countries (India comes to mind, their highways tend to look about like ours), is to instead of spending eight hours working and then four to eight relaxing before going to bed for the next work day, instead have to wake up and then spend two hours walking/biking to work, work for eight hours, and then spend two hours walking/biking back home where they need to go immediately to sleep.

And don't even get me started on how ridiculous it would be to buy groceries for more than one person (or even one person really) if you're going to try to carry it all home by hand 10+ miles. Or even one mile, really.

AND REALLY I WOULDN'T SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE IT IS A STUPID THING TO GET ANNOYED AT, BUT one of you people brings it up every time someone mentions cars or driving in any syntax whatsoever. It is old.

[Sithdarth]

Quantum Teleportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation)

More on Quantum Teleportation (http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/)

The jist of it is basically that you have two tubes of entangled particles. You get into one tube and the particles in it react with your particles and cause both sets of particles in both tubes to change. Someone takes a series of measurements of the tube you stepped into which now probably contains a gas that used to be you. The results are sent to the other tube and the where at the very least an equal amount and type of atoms are and the measurements are "undone" (this is very technical) and you essentially condense out of the particles in the second tube. Unfortunately you must be destroyed in the first step because of Quantum information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information_theory) (so no Riker clones) and you can only teleport at light speed since the measurement information must be sent at light speed. The good bit is that if the second tube doesn't receive enough information to recreate you as long as it doesn't try and fail and as long as the quantum entanglement hasn't decohered while waiting for the measurements it can send a signal back to the original (and as long as the quantum system is still coherent) the original tube should be able to reconstruct you. Unfortunately quantum systems tend to decohere quickly and there is no guarantee the receiving pod will know if it can or can't reintegrate you successfully until it tries which would destroy you forever if it failed.

[Fifthfiend]

ALSO, There are basically people from three types of places that think owning a car is pointless.

Argh Krylo.

Nobody is saying that you are stupid for owning a car.

There are zero types of people you are talking about, because nobody here is saying that it is pointless for you to own a car.

I personally own a car. I do not own a car because it is pointless to do so. There is actually a huge important point to my owning a car, which is that I am utterly reliant on my car.

What people are saying is that it is really stupid that I and other people are utterly reliant on our cars, because requiring people to be so utterly reliant on their cars is stupid.

This does not mean that people are stupid for deciding to own cars! These people are making correct, entirely smart assessments, of the stupid arrangements, which require them to own so many stupid cars.

The issue is that, while many other countries put a good amount of money into public works/public transportation, the US isn't one of them. Therefore any city that isn't a) so ridiculously crowded that the city actually bothers implementing a good public transportation option, or b) so small that you can walk the breadth of it easily, you kind of need a car.

This is not actually an argument against the people you are arguing against. It is in fact the argument of the people you are arguing against.

Yes, the US spends no money on public transportation, and all of its money on highways and roads and parking lots. This is really stupid. It is in fact the thing that people who criticize cars and highways are criticizing.

AND REALLY I WOULDN'T SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE IT IS A STUPID THING TO GET ANNOYED AT, BUT one of you people brings it up every time someone mentions cars or driving in any syntax whatsoever. It is old.

If people are really bringing it up this often, it couldn't possibly be this hard to not misunderstand it.

[Krylo]

Krylo -

Nobody is saying that you are stupid for owning a car.

There are zero types of people you are talking about, because nobody here is saying that it is pointless for you to own a car.

I personally own a car. I do not own a car because it is pointless to do so. There is actually a huge important point to my owning a car, which is that I am utterly reliant on my car.

What people are saying is that it is really stupid that I and other people are utterly reliant on our cars, because requiring people to be so utterly reliant on their cars is stupid.

This does not mean that people are stupid for deciding to own cars! These people are making correct, entirely smart assessments, of the stupid arrangements, which require them to own so many stupid cars.



This is not actually an argument against the people you are arguing against. It is in fact the argument of the people you are arguing against.

Yes, the US spends no money on public transportation, and all of its money on highways and roads and parking lots. This is really stupid. It is in fact the thing that people who criticize cars and highways are criticizing.



If people are really bringing it up this often, it couldn't possibly be this hard to not misunderstand it.

That'd all be well and good if they were telling US Senators that making people own cars is stupid, or were being like "Hey, maybe you should tell your governor/mayor to put money into public transportation."

That is, emphatically, not what they are saying.

They have to say "Cars are useless" or "You should just walk" or "Buy a bike, problem solved!" etc. etc.

Which really does not come off at all as, "Hey it sucks you need a car," so much as, "Hey, you should do this other thing that isn't owning a car even though it is hugely impractical for you."

Edit: I was going to grab links, but then I noticed there's only one thread with driving in the title from this year, and hell if I'm going to go through every thread with the word car in it.

Edit edit: Also I am over tired and cranky, I reserve the right to be crochety for questionable reasons.|

Edit edit edit: Also again, the earlier was not at all directed at you it was directed at IQ and her 'wheel cars are already useless,' and recent posts elsewhere (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=1069467&postcount=26) that aren't like 'it sucks you need a car' so much as 'fuck cars'.

I really had no idea where you were going with the fuck highways and parking lots and malls and what not. Wasn't sure if you were like they're ugly or pollutant or the whole 'it's stupid because it makes you rely on cars' thing--which I didn't even put together, to be honest.

[Fifthfiend]

Man, FUCK snow. I don't even need it to be snowy to remember that I fucking hate snow. Like, even in the middle of summer when it's over ninety degrees and I'm cooking like a turkey, I still have the presence of mind to know "This is better than it being snowy. Fuck snow." That's how much I hate snow.

When I was growing up in southern California, in the town I grew up in, they had a thing called "snow day", where once a year at the coldest, maybe-all-the-way-down-to-50-degrees point of our winter, people would drive up to the mountains where there was snow, and haul a fuckton of it back to my neighborhood and fill a park with it, and everyone could pay five dollars to come spend a day playing in the snow.

That was exactly enough snow.

[Amake]

To clarify, there are certain places where driving is the worst way to get around. They're the ones I was thinking of when I mentioned towns and cities. When I picture the kind of place where cars are needed I think of villages and my Location. I don't think we need to argue over semantics now huh?

Re. Snow, I've had days when I had to walk through half a mile of two feet deep snow before the crack of dawn, and days when I had to bike similar distances with the road coated in perfectly smooth ice from supercool rain, but I don't mind snow. Kind of makes it a challenge to use shortcuts, and it's great to play in which we don't do enough these days. It does get old if it stays more than two months in a year though.

[krogothwolf]

Man, if you aint having a white christmas were everything is blanket in snow you aren't getting enough snow!

Also, you all are stupid for owning cars! You should totally own a Segway and get around that way! Cause Segways are the coolest thing ever!

Though on a serious note, cars are a good idea if you like to you know camp and stuff. Or like to buy things are drive them home like groceries for a family of 4 or 5. You guys ever try to hall a shitton of groceries on a bus? Then walk home with it after getting off? It ain't fun.

[bluestarultor]

Living in Wisconsin means lots of snow. It's just a fact of life. When you grow up with lots of snow, you play in it. Snowmen, sledding, snow forts, snowball fights, eating the stuff, learning to write your name when you're a teenager and think that kind of thing's funny, etc. When you have an abundant natural resource, you use it.

[Krylo]

Living in Wisconsin means lots of snow. It's just a fact of life. When you grow up with lots of snow, you play in it. Snowmen, sledding, snow forts, snowball fights, eating the stuff, learning to write your name when you're a teenager and think that kind of thing's funny, etc. When you have an abundant natural resource, you use it.

I don't know. I grew up in a combination of MN and WI and I pretty much think this:

When I was growing up in southern California, in the town I grew up in, they had a thing called "snow day", where once a year at the coldest, maybe-all-the-way-down-to-50-degrees point of our winter, people would drive up to the mountains where there was snow, and haul a fuckton of it back to my neighborhood and fill a park with it, and everyone could pay five dollars to come spend a day playing in the snow.

That was exactly enough snow.

Is entirely correct.

And if it weren't for the fun of smacking siblings in the face with snow balls I might even call this too much.

Edit: Although I guess sailing little stick/paper boats down the gutter after a rainstorm when I was like 8 was kinda cool, too. Don't think it really makes rain 'worth it' in and of itself, though.

[Funka Genocide]

Bluesy, I don't think there is such a thing as a capacitor/resistor relay in electrical engineering.

A relay is actually an application of an inductor, which would be considered the inverse electrical component of a capacitor in terms of its impedance in relation to frequency. (an inductor that is, a relay is nothing more than a magnetically operated switching mechanism.)

I guess you're talking about a basic battery circuit, but I digress. The magnitude of a lightning strike in terms of sheer electrical power coupled with its instantaneous nature makes contemporary methods of harnessing its power relatively useless. The majority of the energy must be shunted and therefore wasted.

The "path of least resistance" is correct in very basic terms, however what you really need to consider is an electrical difference in potential between 2 points. Lightning operates under pretty much the same basic principles as any simple electrical circuit. One side consists of numerous cations with free electrons while another side consists of an anionic counterpart replete with numerous "holes" and possessing a positive electrical signature.

Basically through some as yet not completely understood mechanism a thundercloud seperates itself into two distinct areas of positive and negative charge. Generally speaking the negative charge is closer to the ground. An equal yet opposite charge is subsequently induced in the ground, which promulgates an attraction between the two. A path of ionized air acts as the conductor between cloud and ground which eventually culminates in the brilliant flash of light as jagged "stepped leaders" from the cloud draw closer to the ground and eventually contact, completing the circuit and causing a return stroke. The path of least resistance is the ionized air channel created by the relatively low amperage leaders descending from the cloud.

Intercloud lightnig operates much the same, except the inonized air channel exists between cloud formations of opposite polarity, however the most important aspect is that inorder for this ionized air channel to even form their must exist an equal and opposite charge of sufficient electrical potential to create the channel in the first place.

What this all boils down to is that a floating city above the cloads will never be struck by lightning unless for some odd reason it engineers an artificial difference in potential.

A floating city within the clouds might be in greater danger of severe electrical storms as intra-cloud (that is, lightning which forms within a cloud between 2 areas of differing potential) lightning is the most common form of lightning, however one would suspect that a technological foundation capable of keeping a city perpetually suspended in air would have the ability to change the elevation as necessary to escape such conditions.

[Kim]

Living in Wisconsin means lots of snow. It's just a fact of life. When you grow up with lots of snow, you play in it. Snowmen, sledding, snow forts, snowball fights, eating the stuff, learning to write your name when you're a teenager and think that kind of thing's funny, etc. When you have an abundant natural resource, you use it.

I live in Idaho. I know what it's like to deal with lots and lots of snow throughout the winter, and I've had to work in that snow at early-ass times in the morning, which is why I can pretty much say from personal experience that snow sucks. Like, the snow Fifth mentioned I can get behind because even though there's snow you can pretty much just walk out of the park and be all "Fuck yeah! No snow!"

[Funka Genocide]

Everytime I see snow, I cry on the inside despite how damaging it is to my manliness.

[bluestarultor]

Bluesy, I don't think there is such a thing as a capacitor/resistor relay in electrical engineering.

A relay is actually an application of an inductor, which would be considered the inverse electrical component of a capacitor in terms of its impedance in relation to frequency.

I guess you're talking about a basic battery circuit, but I digress. The magnitude of a lightning strike in terms of sheer electrical power coupled with its instantaneous nature makes contemporary methods of harnessing its power relatively useless. The majority of the energy must be shunted and therefore wasted.

Well, I'm a programmer, not an electrical engineer. You have a capacitor to store the charge, a resistor to control the flow of the charge out so it doesn't happen all at once, and the thing relays the power over the system.

Sorry if I'm confusing people. I know very little about that stuff and said what I thought made sense.

The "path of least resistance" is correct in very basic terms, however what you really need to consider is an electrical difference in potential between 2 points. Lightning operates under pretty much the same basic principles as any simple electrical circuit. One side consists of numerous cations with free electrons while another side consists of an anionic counterpart replete with numerous "holes" and possessing a positive electrical signature.

Basically through some as yet not completely understood mechanism a thundercloud seperates itself into two distinct areas of positive and negative charge. Generally speaking the negative charge is closer to the ground. An equal yet opposite charge is subsequently induced in the ground, which promulgates an attraction between the two. A path of ionized air acts as the conductor between cloud and ground which eventually culminates in the brilliant flash of light as jagged "stepped leaders" from the cloud draw closer to the ground and eventually contact, completing the circuit and causing a return stroke. The path of least resistance is the ionized air channel created by the relatively low amperage leaders descending from the cloud.

Intercloud lightnig operates much the same, except the inonized air channel exists between cloud formations of opposite polarity, however the most important aspect is that inorder for this ionized air channel to even form their must exist an equal and opposite charge of sufficient electrical potential to create the channel in the first place.

That's stuff I already have a basic grasp of.

What this all boils down to is that a floating city above the cloads will never be struck by lightning unless for some odd reason it engineers an artificial difference in potential.

A floating city within the clouds might be in greater danger of severe electrical storms as intra-cloud (that is, lightning which forms within a cloud between 2 areas of differing potential) lightning is the most common form of lightning, however one would suspect that a technological foundation capable of keeping a city perpetually suspended in air would have the ability to change the elevation as necessary to escape such conditions.

These two contradict each other. Either someone can get in the way of the path between the different charges or they can't. Assuming we're using some amount of metal in the design, you have a conductor that can get in between the poles or whatever you want to call them. Assuming people are standing on it, so can they, depending.

Regardless, rather than trying to fly around to avoid the storm, you can build the place with a bubble dome and avoid the issue. :P

[Funka Genocide]

I don't think you're getting this heh.

like, hmm...


<Upper Cloud City><Lower Cloud City>...<+Clouds><-Clouds>....<Ground>

What we have here is an innately charged source (the clouds) sandwiched between 2 potential dishcarge paths. While it is possible that the positively charged clouds could induce a negative potential in the lower portions of the cloud city and thus promulgate lightning strikes upwards, this does not affect the people or structure dwelling on top. The difference of potential must be induced or manufactured, something simply being metallic does no attract electricity to it. Of course metal is a much better conductor than air and were it appropriately positioned between 2 differences of potential it would become a portion of the path of least resistance, however assuming that lightning will form an ionic path to the nearest metallic object is overly simplistic. There are lmits to how far the electricity can travel through the air, and as such the path of least resistance is as much defined by the medium through which energy travels as it is by the magnitude and relative position of the poles of that power.

Also electricity is quite literally the flow of electrons, eletrons being sub-atomic particles. They can flow through pretty much anything so long as a sufficient difference of potential exists. Basically, a giant bubble dome is probably just as much proof against lightning as atmosphere unless its made from some extremely insular material.

[katiuska]

The first live in areas like whatever city you are in/Manhattan (for a statebound example), where traffic is terrible. USUALLY in these places you also have subway systems to provide public transportation across the city, and biking or walking is faster to get from place to place within short distances. Which is hilariously ironic when you think about it: If all the people living there know driving is a shit way to get around because of the traffic, where does the traffic come from?

To be fair, in places of upwards of a million people, if 1/5 of those people use the roads, then that's still a lot of fucking cars. Also, commuters are going to constitute a good percentage of travel, and they don't necessarily have a better alternative.

And the main problem I have with snow is a) spending an extra 20 minutes digging my car out of that shit, b) not driving into anything after I accomplish that, because my car handles like ass under the best conditions. It takes the enjoyment of being able to enjoy the pretty from the comfort of my window with the realization of "Aw fuck, I have to go out in that."

[bluestarultor]

I don't think you're getting this heh.

like, hmm...


<Upper Cloud City><Lower Cloud City>...<+Clouds><-Clouds>....<Ground>

What we have here is an innately charged source (the clouds) sandwiched between 2 potential dishcarge paths. While it is possible that the positively charged clouds could induce a negative potential in the lower portions of the cloud city and thus promulgate lightning strikes upwards, this does not affect the people or structure dwelling on top. The difference of potential must be induced or manufactured, something simply being metallic does no attract electricity to it. Of course metal is a much better conductor than air and were it appropriately positioned between 2 differences of potential it would become a portion of the path of least resistance, however assuming that lightning will form an ionic path to the nearest metallic object is overly simplistic. There are lmits to how far the electricity can travel through the air, and as such the path of least resistance is as much defined by the medium through which energy travels as it is by the magnitude and relative position of the poles of that power.

Also electricity is quite literally the flow of electrons, eletrons being sub-atomic particles. They can flow through pretty much anything so long as a sufficient difference of potential exists. Basically, a giant bubble dome is probably just as much proof against lightning as atmosphere unless its made from some extremely insular material.

I think you're not giving me quite as much credit as you could be, but whatever. I was arguing a special case in the first place with the assumption that the city would at some point be inside the cloud formation, between points A and B.

Also, lightning can travel up to 10 miles, so it's not like there's really so much of a limitation under entirely hypothetical situations.

I was arguing the worst-case scenario in which one potential just happened to be over some poor soul's head and the other just happened to be somewhere under their feet, which is how people get struck on the ground, while they just happened to be walking around inside a thunderhead. That's a lot of assumptions, but realism doesn't make for as interesting an alarmist post. XD

[Krylo]

b) not driving into anything after I accomplish that, because my car handles like ass under the best conditions. It takes the enjoyment of being able to enjoy the pretty from the comfort of my window with the realization of "Aw fuck, I have to go out in that."

Pro-tip: Don't mention that you suck at driving on snow around people who just admitted to growing up in the great white north. Unless you like it when we giggle at you.

But fo' serious, it totally is a bitch and I remember my first few winters driving. This one time I was at an intersection that was iced over and I wasn't experienced enough with winter driving to realize just how bad it was, and I went out, tried to make a left turn. I had stopped so I was going MAYBE like 5-10 mph. My car spun entirely around. Twice.

I calmly drove out of the intersection the direction I was facing, turned myself around to come at it straight on, and coasted through. I wouldn't have done that either, but it was right next to a bridge, and I was kind of unfamiliar with the town I was in so finding another way through would have been pretty futile.

[pochercoaster]

Growing up around snow has done absolutely nothing to make me appreciate it.

If you don't have to deal with the hassle of driving in the winter, you have to wait at the bus stop, in the cold, at 5:30 am, so you can make it to your shitty job at Tim Hortons. Of course the bus is going to be late, but you show up at your usual time just in case it's not. Consequently you spend about 20 minutes shivering, not counting the time it took you to walk to the bus stop. Then you get to work on the drive thru and stand by the window and freeze your hands passing out drinks.

When I worked at Country Style from 11 pm to 6:30 am I said fuck it, I don't care how ridiculous I look to the maybe 5 people I pass on my half hour walk to work, I'm buying some fucking poofy snow pants or I'm gonna die. I have archived my memories of walking to and from work in the winter as among the shittier parts of my life.

[katiuska]

Well, I grew up in Iowa. It's more a combination of the fact that I kind of suck at driving in general and the fact that my car's steering is balls. The one time we got into trouble was when my boyfriend got behind the wheel after some ice hit and didn't realize just how shitty it handled until he ran it into a tree.

It's a lot funnier 5 years later. Actually, I doubt he thinks it's funny now, but anytime he was like, "Man, you suck at driving," I could be like, "Yeah, remember the time you hit a tree?"

[Krylo]

Reminds me of when I hit a patch of black ice going seventy on the highway one winter. I pretty much thought it was funny as soon as the car hit the snowbank and stopped spinning.

My girlfriend at the time did not agree.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

You know what Science, I want my Net Navi damn it!

And a duel disk too.

And maybe some AT skates from Air Gear.

[Viridis]

You know what Science, I want my Net Navi damn it!

No, that's terrible. It's like we already have teleportation and you want us to go back to walking. It's the most cumbersome way to make the Internet work that you could think of.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

You having special AIs that can do anything you want them to do on the net from searching for files to downloads and regular system checks for you while your way simply by saying the word and not even having to be there most if not all of the time is a step backwards?

We practically already have it now. All we are missing is having everything online.

[Funka Genocide]

Its called google yo.

Also science has infuriated me by allowing most of you to reach adulthood.

(Sorry couldn't resist.)

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Forget it, it's hard for me to really explain. I guess having something along the lines of how the net works in Ghost in the Shell is what I had in mind.

MMBN was a bad example.

[bluestarultor]

No, that's terrible. It's like we already have teleportation and you want us to go back to walking. It's the most cumbersome way to make the Internet work that you could think of.

Its called google yo.

Also science has infuriated me by allowing most of you to reach adulthood.

(Sorry couldn't resist.)

Google doesn't cover it. Having a Net Navi means having a digital pal who can find you stuff even when you're not using the machine. It's the difference between using Google and telling someone, "Hey, I'mma take a shower. Could you use Google to sift through all the porn for my paper on Canada's history?"

Plus, you know, when your parents' Net Navi comes across all the terrible stuff in your search logs, you have someone to back you up in that your search was totally innocent and you were trying to do homework. Or, y'know, since we've got them lying now, totally hide your weird fetishes.

[krogothwolf]

You don't need a Net Navi to do that, just someone indebted to you so you can use em as a slave!

[bluestarultor]

You don't need a Net Navi to do that, just someone indebted to you so you can use em as a slave!

Well, yes, but eventually, that person's debt will be repaid, where a Net Navi can go wherever you go, do whatever you want in the computer, never eat or sleep, and never have any reason to terminate their service under normal circumstances.

Basically, you COULD have a fleshy human do it, but a Net Navi is just plain more efficient. Plus you can duel them and junk, which crosses an already dangerous line when you're using people. ;)

[Donomni]

I still want all cars to not run on oil.

Sadly, all hyrbids are probably all we'll get, considering the existence of Big Oil.

[bluestarultor]

I still want all cars to not run on oil.

Sadly, all hyrbids are probably all we'll get, considering the existence of Big Oil.

Don't kid yourself. Big Oil is already looking into alternative fuel for when the oil runs out in the next few decades. They'll be turning into Big Hydrogen and Big Corn Ethanol and others within our lifetimes.

[Magus]

Anybody still in love with Star Trek teleportation has not seen The Prestige (I kind of thought that just seeing the Star Trek episode would have been enough, but I guess I was wrong?).

Go watch that movie now.

*waits*

Watch that? Yeah, FUCK YOU.

Basically develop wormhole teleporting or go home.

[Krylo]

Pussy.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Guys I (SCIENCE!) has solved your snow problem. Move somewhere where it doesn't snow! Problem solved!

[krogothwolf]

Don't kid yourself. Big Oil is already looking into alternative fuel for when the oil runs out in the next few decades. They'll be turning into Big Hydrogen and Big Corn Ethanol and others within our lifetimes.

Big Soylent Green Oil?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Don't kid yourself. Big Oil is already looking into alternative fuel for when the oil runs out in the next few decades. They'll be turning into Big Hydrogen and Big Corn Ethanol and others within our lifetimes.

Considering they have held back car development/energy efficiency for the last 90 years- they've gotten pretty good at it.

[Geminex]

So what you're saying is, it's Big Oil's fault that we ain't got any flying cars?

[krogothwolf]

Considering they have held back car development/energy efficiency for the last 90 years- they've gotten pretty good at it.

That's stretching it for crazy conspiracy talk, even for you.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So what you're saying is, it's Big Oil's fault that we ain't got any flying cars?
No it's big oils fault that we drive tremendously inefficient cars. It's the Mayans fault we ain't got flying cars.

That's stretching it for crazy conspiracy talk, even for you.

It's not like people haven't designed vastly more efficient cars, think about the car you drive- it's still mostly mechanical, it runs by basically making a small explosion with quite a poor fuel and then using a small part of that explosion. It is ridiculous. Think about when the modern car was designed. Think about everything we have achieved since then.
People claim that efficiencies increase of 70-80% are easily achievable and it's not hard to see why. A car only uses about 10-15% of the energy it gais from burning gasoline which is a poor fuel and then it doesn't use that energy very well because it works on mechanical parts which could be replaced by electronics that will do the job faster and with less eenrgy.
But to do this we would have to replace all the car factories, rebuild them all, lose out on gas money and kickbacks, ithere is too much inertia which is why we still drive 1920s cars despite better alternatives having been designed in the 70s onwards.

It makes econoic sense for car companies and for oil companies not to innovate, they would lose out. And the car business requires such a massive startup that nobody has ever been able to compete, there are no grants for designing better cars.
Shit my research group works in the energy field, even today with all the concerns about global warming and peak oil, we can easily get millions of pound grants to work in oil technologies but our work in alternate fuels we scrape and safe just to get stipend funds. I've met people through these fields who have designed alternate transports and the story is the same everytime- they can't get the funding they need and they defineatly couldn't start a business- the car industry is not a profitable industry unless you are one of the big players- it doesn't fluctuate, it doesn't really change, it's not attractive to investors.

There are suggestions that the car indsutry is actually genuinely underhanded but they don't even need to be to maintain their position.

Edit: I'm sure I have some papers somewhere which Ican get later if you remind me but I mean just open your car and look at it. Turn it on and watch it run. Think about how stupid it is.

[Donomni]

That's stretching it for crazy conspiracy talk, even for you.

Not exactly. While more efficient, a normal car's engine is still just a more powerful/efficient combustion engine like the very first car made.

At this point in time, what with all the progress in all other fields(Hell, including other car features), it seems odd that oil is still the main energy source for cars, considering the already existing alternatives.

Not when you notice an entire industry trying to drag oil's use out as long as possible, of course.

Considering all the oil spills, I'd rather have Big Hydrogen or Big Corn or Big Whatever... just now instead of whenever the oil runs out.

[Geminex]

Considering all the oil spills, I'd rather have Big Hydrogen or Big Corn or Big Whatever... just now instead of whenever the oil runs out.
THIS JUST IN
CORN SPILL IN MIDWEST US
THOUSANDS CRUSHED BY COBS

It makes econoic sense for car companies and for oil companies not to innovate, they would lose out.
I'm gonna go ahead and call "market failure" on this one. It'd make sense for new, or even existing ones to innovate, because innovation, while posing quite an investment, would definitely serve to increase their long-term profits, since it'd give them a really strong competitive advantage. The problem is that they seem to be passively colluding and preventing such innovation. I blame the stock markets. Investors like to see dividends. They don't like to hear "Oh, yeah, we re-invested that money, you'll see it back, in, like, 30 years or so."

[EVILNess]

Can't Hydrogen Fuel cells explode if you don't handle them properly?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm gonna go ahead and call "market failure" on this one. It'd make sense for new, or even existing ones to innovate, because innovation, while posing quite an investment, would definitely serve to increase their long-term profits, since it'd give them a really strong competitive advantage. The problem is that they seem to be passively colluding and preventing such innovation. I blame the stock markets. Investors like to see dividends. They don't like to hear "Oh, yeah, we re-invested that money, you'll see it back, in, like, 30 years or so."

It's mostly, we can get a massive profit in 30 years when none of us are going to be here anymore or we can get a reasonable profit year to year and get sweet bonuses and dividends. There is 0 incentive for a company to innovate like that. While in theory somebody would do innovate o ake control of the market with new products (that is how it is supposed to work) that is not how things actually work.

Can't Hydrogen Fuel cells explode if you don't handle them properly?

Your fuel tank can too. It's called- being fuel.

[Geminex]

Mind you, there's a different between "handling improperly" for a current fuel tank (which involves puncturing it and setting it on fire) and "handling improperly" for a hydrogen fuel cell (which'd involve exposing the hydrogen to an uncontrolled amount of oxygen). The latter are less safe than the former.

Though, if you're gonna restructure your automotive industry to specialize on hydrogen-fuel-cell powered cars (which I'm not saying we should, I far prefer simple battery power), making them safe to use isn't, I think, that big an issue.

While in theory somebody would do innovate o ake control of the market with new products (that is how it is supposed to work) that is not how things actually work.
Yeah, but that's just the government failing to exercise necessary control. I'm all for a free market, but one where inefficiencies are addressed and counter-acted by a central allocative force.

[EVILNess]

Your fuel tank can too. It's called- being fuel.

Well, I mean like in a terribly tragic we need a new town kind of way. I read that somewhere a few years ago, and I don't know if it's true or not.

[Geminex]

Nah. The function of hydrogen fuel cells would be to store enough energy to let the car drive for an appreciable distance, say, 1000 KM. I don't know how much energy that'd take, exactly, but it certainly wouldn't be enough to do more than cause, say, a 10-foot crater where your car used to be. And that's if all the fuel goes boom.

Sure, if you have enough hydrogen in one place and it explodes (that is to say, comes into contact with oxygen), you can do quite a bit of damage. But unless we start making hydrogen-fuel-cell powered aircraft carriers, there really wouldn't be a viable reason to pile up that much in one place.

Edit:
Though I didn't consider distribution centers. There's obviously be plants were water is reduced to make hydrogen, and that would be stored and transported in quite large quantities. But I'm thinking that, in those situations, safety would be the utmost priority. And even then, a fuel truck's worth of hydrogen probably couldn't react with enough energy output to level a town. There's not much more of a risk than there is with current fuel, I think, if appropriate precautions are taken.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I have a tank of hydrogen bigger than a car could fit in my lab and if it were to explode it would burn my lab but that's about it. Like it's no a big enough risk that I even have explosion hazard on my door so I wouldn't be too worried.
The idea behind hydrogen fuel tanks is not only to use hydrogen which is a much beter fuel but to get the energy in a useful way- ie minimise wastage. So what would happen is you hsould end up with less explosive potential than a normal fuel tank because you are carrying less "energy" as it were.

[Geminex]

but to get the energy in a useful way- ie minimise wastage
Ah?
*looks up*
Oh yeah. Duh. They create a current, don't they. Much easier to use that than to harness explosions.
Though from what I read, high voltage can be quite difficult to achieve effectively.

What sort of efficiencies are we potentially looking at, here? Like, what percentage of the stored energy can actually be converted to kinetic energy?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Edit: Efficiencies at the moment top out at about 60% (in a car) but it is expected that 70% is possible (the theoretical efficiency is about 83-86% but you lose a lot converting to mechanical power).
A hydrogen fuel cell is a battery, it produces power like a battery does. Drawing more power decreases the efficiency-generally it is stressed as current- drawing more current increases your losses.

[Bifrost]

Big Soylent Green Oil?

I remember seeing a machine that could do that a few years ago. I can't remember the name of the publication, though; one of my SCIENCE! teachers had it.

I've always wondered why it didn't catch on. I mean, it's not like we use our bodies post-mortum, and even if people went BAAAAAWWW you can use any organic material to make bio-goop, which means you can chuck old food and dead animals and such in there.

Maybe it was just too inefficent.

On cars: I am not going to drive a car that would ensure my demise if I get into a crash. Which I will. Because spaz-flailing affects everything I do.

...Granted, the number of drunk drivers will probably plummet after the first few booms, so there is that. I just want the petroleum/corn/sugar cane gas option to still be there.

[bluestarultor]

Hydrogen cells don't explode. That would involve storing it as a compressed gas. Hydrogen technology rather works much like how our blood carries oxygen. We use chemicals to bind it and release it later. The most you'll get out of a crash with one is probably covered in a black metallic powder.

[krogothwolf]

Man, I got all excited with doomsday cars and now you all just had to ruin it with your science again. Damnit! Now I even madder at science!

[Bifrost]

Hydrogen cells don't explode. That would involve storing it as a compressed gas. Hydrogen technology rather works much like how our blood carries oxygen. We use chemicals to bind it and release it later. The most you'll get out of a crash with one is probably covered in a black metallic powder.

Hollywood, why did you lie to me? :crying: I thought I could trust you when it came to exploding things! /terrible soap opera acting

Seriously, though, I did not know that. The powder could still be Unpleasant depending on how much of it gets in you, though, even if it's not a skin irritant. :ohdear:

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Hydrogen cells don't explode. That would involve storing it as a compressed gas. Hydrogen technology rather works much like how our blood carries oxygen. We use chemicals to bind it and release it later. The most you'll get out of a crash with one is probably covered in a black metallic powder.

Umm what?
There are plenty of speculated ways to hold hydrogen but often they do just compress the fuel. WHile things like CNTs are far more efficient they are way too expensive. Commonly they use metal hydride or various crystalline materials ( which are reasonable but also expensive) but plenty of companies just store it compressed in a tank.
Like I know some of the cars made by Honda do, others as well.

[bluestarultor]

Hollywood, why did you lie to me? :crying: I thought I could trust you when it came to exploding things! /terrible soap opera acting

Seriously, though, I did not know that. The powder could still be Unpleasant depending on how much of it gets in you, though, even if it's not a skin irritant. :ohdear:

It's really no worse than, say, sand, I'd imagine. I saw an interesting program a while back, but I don't recall who it was from and frankly don't feel like searching for it.

It's seriously just an elderly couple doing it, though. They started out with the exact same compound as laptop batteries use and improved from there.


Edit:

Umm what?
There are plenty of speculated ways to hold hydrogen but often they do just compress the fuel. WHile things like CNTs are far more efficient they are way too expensive. Commonly they use metal hydride or various crystalline materials ( which are reasonable but also expensive) but plenty of companies just store it compressed in a tank.
Like I know some of the cars made by Honda do, others as well.

Wait, what? Hydrogen cars are on the market? I mean I knew Greenland or someone was using them for energy independence, but that's not what America will eventually have to look forward to.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's really no worse than, say, sand, I'd imagine. I saw an interesting program a while back, but I don't recall who it was from and frankly don't feel like searching for it.

It's seriously just an elderly couple doing it, though. They started out with the exact same compound as laptop batteries use and improved from there.


As I've just said, some cars do use compressed hydrogen. A lot of the common hydrogen material is fairly toxic so I wouldn't go rolling aroud inn it either. And at some point in your cell yous got to have some form of hydrogen gas which is mildly exploside.
As I've said, risk is small- yo ucan design tanks with safety vents which basically help the tank to rupture safety - the biggest problem is a small puncture that lets in oxygen and ignites gas while keeping it contained. If you vent it into air there is no real problem.
And shit you are driving around right now with explosive fuel. Risk is there but exaggerated.


Wait, what? Hydrogen cars are on the market? I mean I knew Greenland or someone was using them for energy independence, but that's not what America will eventually have to look forward to.
Yes, they have been for for a while now. There is just very few places to fill them up. But you could buy one in America if you wanted. A few countries have public transport on them- like Australia and NZ have some buses running on hydrogen because they can have a refuelling point at the depot.