Phi for All

But you could design shoes to be as efficient as a portable treadmill by making them a meter long and weigh 10 kilos each. What a workout!

Well thanks for the corrections, all. I suppose it's not enough that they survive when other forms of power generation fail. To be considered viable, apparently they need to be able to operate fully in all weather before folks appreciate them fully. What a shame these limited devices have to "feather" (sounds like a snowflake thing to do) and can't operate at full capacity during a hurricane!

Most of these articles we're seeing mention that the wind farms can be switched to "hurricane mode", which generates less electricity but "soon provides" full power again. https://yes2renewables.org/2014/01/20/wind-turbines-survive-hurricanes-what-a-blow-to-doubters/ This study also implies that wind farms operate during hurricanes, since leaving them on removes energy from the storm. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/offshore-wind-farms-could-protect-cities-from-hurricanes-16813

Way out. From what I read, the wind farms were designed to run in hurricane mode. Even this article mentions the turbines were still running and providing power with 110 mph winds.

Do you have any data on that, or are you relying on what private utilities tell you about public utilities of the past? In my experience, we had plenty of electricity and natural gas from our public utility, and now we get to pay 40% more (adjusted for inflation) since it was deregulated and purchased by a private company.

! Moderator Note This isn't a wishful thinking forum. It's not a wild-ass guesswork forum. It's a science discussion forum, and this doesn't come anywhere near close to qualifying. Please post science here, and find somewhere else to post this kind of stuff. Thread closed.

Actually, solar is so efficient now that the electricity produced by it is too cheap to attract people interested in maximum profit. This is why private solar companies will never be the solution. The most efficient thing we could do now is develop a public solar and wind utility to flood the market with cheap, not-for-profit based electricity. MANY manufacturing opportunities could become reality for investors if powering your products is no problem. Frankly, I'm sick of private businesses that need public subsidies in order to turn the profit their stockholders want.

Without claiming it's all their fault, I do think this is one area where the media (not necessarily journalists) are complicit. With the pace of the average TV news show these days, being able to use a single word that you know will create multiple emotional attachments to keep viewers from changing the channel is big money for them. The private profit side of the media is only too happy to use dismissive phrasing and coded buzzwords instead of actual informative language. And of course, Trump's condemnation of the media is a constant way of grooming the stories published about him. Anti-Trump? FAKE NEWS! Pro-Trump? Honest journalism.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-turbine-storage-electricity-appliances/ It's being done. If people stop looking at each renewable as non-viable, and looked at solar/wind/geothermal together, they'd see we're already cost-effective enough to move away from fossil fuels fairly quickly.

All the way. All the way + even a tiny bit more = burst. We can, yes. Those dispensing such gases can, yes. Those with an understanding of search engines can look it up, yes. You can't, no. Because you don't seem to be able to do research on simple science. This site is best used for science discussion, not asking to be taught science. Discussion is different than lecturing or teaching. Questions are wonderful, but it looks like you're using us to do research for you, instead of trying to learn science more deeply through conversation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2012/11/06/cubas-two-wind-farms-survive-hurricane-sandy/#3bfa8f267ad1

I really wouldn't put it this way. It's not a sin to disagree with Trump. He hates detractors, and thinks they hate him because he's always right. I'm sure he's developed a sense of whether or not someone is going to play ball with him, and those who won't get permanent condemnation. People like Obama, O'Donnell, and McCain.

Let's be clear here. There are people who are very good at making money, the way others are very good at carpentry, or cleaning, or computers. I'm not sure Trump is one of those, though. When you already have a lot of money, it's easier to make more just because you have the capital to take advantage of good deals and great ideas. Trump is probably a person like this, based on how many times he's filed for bankruptcy, and how badly he did running his casino business (where the odds are heavily in an owner's favor). Trump is a hater, and a narcissist. People like that hear someone criticizing them, and they have to trash them to their core, in order to remove as much of the sting of truth as possible. But I disagree that his condemnations are permanent. All one has to do is apologize and kiss the butt, and he's more than happy to parade that person around as an example of a convert. It's just that many people have integrity, and refuse to pucker for tyranny.

! Moderator Note You know, a speculation based on this much misunderstanding needs more research, more rigor, and a fresh start at a later date, after corrections have been made.

Rabid reaction? You got voted down multiple times for suggesting the couple buy their wedding cake in a different state and have it shipped where they needed it. You got voted down for first claiming nobody could know what was in the gay couple's minds, and then making up motivations by which you condemned their actions as political and divisive. You were filling in the motivations of the couple in this case based on your personal feelings and very little else, and that probably came off as prejudiced. Hardly rabid reactions. You're convinced you're only stating your opinion, but the way you do it looks more like drawing conclusions based on misunderstanding and personal bias. And you obviously do put some value on your reputation, since you seem to view dissention regarding your conclusions as a rabid reaction.

None of that should allow you to not only guess at the motivations of the buyers, but then condemn their actions based only on your guesswork, and be taken seriously. As has been pointed out, despite your incredulity, buying a wedding cake is neither a criminal activity nor a political one, especially when the couple was already legally married in another state. I'm still not seeing why the politics of the time should have steered this couple away from Masterpiece Cakeshop. Did you realize that's the name? Not "Devout Christian Cakes" or "Not For Gay Use Cakes" or even "Master Race Cakeshop". I also think it's ludicrous for you to suggest they should have bought a wedding cake in MA and have it shipped back to CO. Who would do THAT?! It's clear you really want to be right about this. OK, more evidence that you just want to be "right" about this. That was no hint, it was a mistake you should own up to, you know, since you're human and all.

But you're quite obviously claiming that your intuition is guiding you in your beliefs about gay people in Colorado. Your opinions are based on your hunches, and that's where I'd like to see a bit more rigor backing you up. It's plain you didn't know a LOT about the couple in question, and yet were making up motives they allegedly had in their search for a cake. When facts were pointed out, you didn't seem to take them into consideration and continued to favor your own made up interpretation over the evidence.

Forgive us, this is a science site, so we were hoping for quite a bit more rigor in your asserted opinions. Otherwise, what meaning do they really have?

Brazilians of lives (OK, it was Portugal, but this was part of my favorite Bush II joke, and it leapt to mind).

It's in your own words, so I don't know why you don't see it. I gave examples of times when enjoyment IS a decision. Now you seem to be moving the goalposts. Your earlier statements were much more unequivocal: "What I'm saying is that one doesn't rationally choose to gain enjoyment from a thing or not, it is an experience which arises from the interaction with the thing." I gave you examples that counter what you said above, and now you're saying "may not" and "could" instead of "it is" and "one doesn't". I objected to your asserted statements. Besides, making a conscious decision to enjoy something is done regardless of the outcome. Your day may turn out shitty, but it started with a smile and a decision to make the extra effort to have a great time. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Personally, I have to take some extra time to decide to enjoy any experience that starts out standing in line waiting. If I don't acknowledge that queueing turns my mood sour and take pains to counter it, it can ruin a good concert or Comic Con. I rationally choose to gain enjoyment from many things.

He must eat pie 22/7.

It wasn't an impression so much as a direct quote, you see. Except when one goes to a movie one has been excited to see. Or when one looks oneself in the mirror before work, smiles, and sets out to make it a great day. Or when one is waiting for their child to be born, and vows to love it unconditionally always. Except when one decides they hate another person so much that they'll never enjoy ANY experience that involves that person, ever. Or when one chooses never to try any dishes with a certain ingredient one didn't care for once upon a time. Or when one can't see the good in participating with fellow humans to achieve a mutual goal and instead becomes a lonely hermit. Oh wait, there's a lot of times one rationally chooses to gain enjoyment from a thing, or not. Even discounting anticipation as a rational choice, emergence is an even better argument against suicide. Like dimreepr's tomorrow-will-be-different approach, searching for all the possible emergent properties one could discover as one interacts with life is an argument that would seem to be finally objective, and universal to all people. You're unique, and interaction with you produces other things that are far greater than any of the things separately.

Reaction is a much more precise term to use for what you're describing. Why is choosing to do things you find enjoyable NOT a rational decision?

I would urge you to reconsider the use of the term "instinct" for what you're describing. I thought I was moving closer to understanding your issue until you brought this up. I don't think humans have much in the way of instincts. We have a higher intelligence that's much more sophisticated, an intelligence that's capable of determining its own path to happiness, as well as deciding NOT to pursue anything that would give a life value, meaning, and enjoyment.

So we need to remove any meaning, enjoyment, or value from a person's life in order for you to explore whether that life would be worth living? I suppose that means the basic physics aren't relevant either? Is there anything else you feel needs to be stripped from this individual before you can decide if they should live?