CaptainPanic

What do you consider a moral obligation? I would not take you as a conscious objector, but on the other hand, are you? Were you ever in the military? If not, it's hard spelling out morals while using such a concept. A spotter picks up a sniper at 2,000 yds. The shooter gets into position and caps the supposed (bad guy). Morally, is this right or wrong? Be honest! and tell me your thoughts. An enemy walks into your camp, unarmed and with his hand folded neatly behind his head. But instinctively you bust a cap on him. Right, wrong? It's 2AM, you and your wife are lying peacefully in bed. Your door creaks open and the hulk of an intruder is standing only feet from you. Do you cover your head and pray, holler out, "Halt, who goes there?" Or simply cap the dumb s,o.b. and let the cops sort it out? No! morals can't be played out in todays court room settings. Our judicial system is a shambles and too dramatic to get things done right. And why?, there is so much money changing hands The game is better than drug trafficing and it's legal. Should the shooter in either of the instances not have shot the perp, but simply let him walk away, or feed him? Be your own judge. Should any of the three be prosecuted? I pray nothing like this ever happens in your life. With your concept of fairness, I can't imagine you making such a decision. Why do you change the topic from the death penalty to several examples where people die in cases of self-defense or war? That seems completely off-topic to me. I'm sorry, but I think that you are a very emotional man, and those emotions influence you a lot also when rational things such as the law are being discussed. I think that you think (too much) in examples. I do not get the idea that you see the greater picture. Your world seems a collection of anecdotes and examples... and you talk to God in your posts, which I just cannot accept as relevant at all. I cannot continue the discussion like that. Sorry...

The part that I really don't understand is that they use fuel cells. Fuel cells can turn hydrogen (with oxygen) into water and electricity. Why would they want to have electricity? Are they using propellors to move air? What's wrong with turbines? If it is true that they have fuel cells, and electric engines, this seems like a very heavy solution, and if you want to hover above the water, then weight is a much bigger issue than with ordinary ships.

It's really a pity that you guys are cancelling the plan. Europe (which admittedly has always loved the train more, and is full of socialist tax-loving hippies (*) ) has had the high speed rail for a while now. It works. It's quite cool to do the 510 km from Amsterdam to Paris in under 3 hours, comfortably sitting in the train, with a wifi connection and a place to buy drinks and food (which are free in 1st class). No airplane can beat that kind of time and comfort. An airplane might do the distance in 1 hour, but if you include the travel to and from the airport, the check-in or boarding time, the time you might wait for luggage... then the train wins on time and comfort. However, I understand the sentiment in the USA that it's a waste of money. The initial construction is very expensive, and the benefits are hard to measure. It's questionable whether the high speed rail will actually have a reasonable payback time. But in Europe business travelers love the train. It's so handy to have wifi connection while you travel. There is much more space, so it's much easier to work on the train than in an airport/airplane, for example because the tray-table will actually fit the laptop, and still have space for your drink. But such additional benefits for the economy are incredibly hard to measure... and are impossible to estimate beforehand. (*) I'm joking...

Anyway, I just mentioned that I see no problem at all with companies that borrow money for investments. And that would be a nice way to invest, and get interest based on actual (physical) growth of an economy. No problem so far. The problem comes from the fact that I, as an individual, lose money on debts. Other people invest in ME and my country (which I pay with my taxes). I pay interest. My country pays interest. And these people who invest in ME expect profit - which means I have to work to pay for their profit. I dislike that very much, but the system practically forces me to accept this. And the interests that these people get is a lot more than what I get on my humble savings account at the bank. My savings account gets me just a few % interest (about 3% I believe)... but if I borrow money, that will cost me at least 6%.

Also morally you have to draw a line somewhere. I still would like to get an answer... you can choose yourself whether you take a moral or a legal approach. You still should be able to describe a situation in which a criminal escapes the capital punishment, but only just. Also morally, I think the law should never kill someone.

A government is not about profit. A government is not a company. A person taking a loan to go on holiday certainly isn't about profit. And a person investing in a house is not after profit either. Real estate cannot be profitable forever (else it becomes the bubble that it now is). I totally agree that you must allow companies to borrow money to invest, and to make profit. But I disagree that governments and private individuals should be allowed a loan in so many cases.

Sure. Work is not a right. But a proper reward for work is a right. Slaves have work... But only free people get a proper reward for the work they do. If you want to enable child labor - or at least lower the age limits - in a country with a few percent unemployment, then you basically just want to have different people to do existing jobs for less money. Instead of employing some unemployed guy, you employ a child. That means you lose (one bit at a time) the right to a proper reward for labor. The value of that particular job goes down, and so does the reward for it. In principle, the unemployed people can take up the jobs that 14-16-year-olds would do. I mean, youngsters have no diplomas, and anyone can do the simplest jobs. But older unemployed people are simply too expensive, and that's why people wouldn't mind to employ kids. The demand for child labor would instantly evaporate if the minimum wage for kids would be identical to the minimum wage of a 50-year-old.

Because America pays 6% of its total tax income to banks in the form of interest? The USA collects tax, and then gives 6% of that to banks... just because they borrowed money. I think that's enough reason. Technically, banks can be made non-profit... especially if they are very large (just like insurances can be non-profit). There are options to spend less on these mega-institutions that gobble up a lot of money. I'm not saying we must abandon the whole concept... but a little less would be a good idea.

In other words: we need some rules to make sure that the population doesn't get screwed or bullied... and that's what we call civilization. I completely agree. We gained all those rights in great moments. Revolutions that we still celebrate. Leaders whose statues decorate central squares in capital cities. We got the rights, because it was a matter of principle... And now, motivated by practical concerns or just fear, we give up those rights again. Fear from a bad economy (give up labor rights) and fear from terrorism (give up other rights)... We give away our civilization bit by bit... History taught us that we will keep doing this, until some new great leader comes along, who gives it all back. And that will then be celebrated for the next couple of generations. It's all the same thing. History tends to repeat itself.

True, I didn't take population growth into account... but in the Netherlands the population is practically stagnant, and the average number of occupants in a house has also been rather constant for the last 5-6 decades, so that shouldn't be of importance. If I would inherit half a house, and my partner would get another half, then we would have 1 house together... which is exactly what we need. The problem is tax and interest. If we would both just get half a house from our parents, and put our money together to buy 1 new house, then we'd be fine. No interest. No mortgage. However, such a large gift cannot be made without paying tax. So, in order to make sure that my parents get the mandatory half house, I must take a loan (and pay interest). I must compensate the tax by a loan. Also, nation-wide, cheap houses are being replaced by more expensive houses. That means that unless I wish to live in the exact same house as my parents, my parents can give me my half house. I lose 0.1 to tax, receiving only 0.4 of the house. But since I must buy a newer house in another location, it's worth only 0.2 new-house. (note: the numbers are just an example). And therefore, even if my parents would give me my share in their own house, it's not nearly enough. And I still need a massive loan, and therefore I need to pay interest. People oppose the tax systems, but take all the interest for granted... and I think it's weird.

There used to be a time when a house was transferred from parents to children... free of debt. All the accumulated wealth of parents could theoretically be transferred to children at some point. Somehow it is strange how each new generation is again getting a mortgage for a house. You describe the convention (what is normal)... but you give no argument as to why it is like that. The amount of money we pay to banks in the form of interest is staggering. I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the money going to banks is in the same order of magnitude as the tax we pay. I mean, we pay direct mortgate interest. Credit card interest. Student loan interest (not that much, but I'll include it). Interest to other loans. Our countries pay significant mounts of intrerest as well, and they use our tax money for it. The company where I work pays interest (which theoretically reduces the money spent on salaries or profit). I cannot imagine that even half of all that interest is really necessary, and I think that it would be economically interesting to try and find ways to reduce the interest we pay to banks.

I agree with TonyMcC: The debt of a country just says how much of the taxes will be given to banks (without anything in return). It's stupid that countries are in debt. I understand that in times of crisis the spending can exceed state-income, but this should be compensated. However, short-term political gain encourages politians not to increase taxes to pay off the debt. In response to the thread title: just a debt will not be a deterrentto spending - but a massive debt can at some point become paralyzing because you essentially hand over the finances of a country to the banks, and thereby the power of the country falls into the hands of the banks. And banks have other priorities than the total welfare of a country, because they're not elected. I would therefore propose that national banks get elected directors and management or that state banks are nationalized (because they're often not).

Well... we go through these forums like we zap on tv, meaning at first I give a thread a glance of mere seconds. I initially classified this thread as one of those insane threads about free energy and stuff... and I nearly left it to search something more interesting. I'm afraid that (for me) the initial post did not distinguish itself enough from the real nutcases who spam these forums. However, the article is interesting. Thanks!

CR; Why? Work ethics and what's achieved by working is as much a part of life as education. Many, many kids that worked while under 16, also worked there way through College and many more that didn't, couldn't handle both. Today kids are coddled through K-12, then through College and now there given Health Care by law through their parent to at least 26 or if they will work for Government get their education paid for, in part. I don't know which is worse, people like this being in Government or the damage done to those young folks. There's plenty of time to develop work ethics. It can wait 2 more years. Having social institutions doesn't turn an entire population into wussies. In the age of 14-16, young people can learn a lot more by not being employed in mind-numbing jobs... you seem to forget that at the age of 14-16, kids have no diploma, no chance for an educated job. They'll be doing physically demanding jobs, because at that age, that's all they're good for. They cannot develop complicated things like creativity if they sit in school, then go to tire themselves to earn a little money, and then making a trade-off between a social life and sleep. You seem to forget the importance of material gain to people. If you do not limit the amount of time that children can work, then adults will somehow find a way to make children work a lot more. Also, a 14 year old will often think short-term: they prefer material gain (an iPhone) over a good education. You have to protect them against themselves and the adults. You must protect the children against short term thinking. Physically tired sleep-deprived youngsters simply cannot develop into productive adults. But if you envision the life of a factory worker... a drone, doing the same job every day, then I completely agree. You might as well lower the age at which the compulsory education or compulsory attendance ends. Kids will love you for it - they hate school anyway. Actually, I don't really understand you Americans... You already accept that you work much more than Europeans (less holiday, longer working weeks). You accept that you have practically no rights as an employee, and that you can be fired on the spot for no good reason (the so called at-will principle - unheard of in Europe). You accept that you have no healthcare, and you're proud of it. American education is very expensive and receives little state sponsoring, and you say that's good - compared to European education which is practically for free. And now you support child labor, and claim it's healthy for the development of children?? It's quite difficult to discuss the economy with you guys, because I feel quite an alien (a morally superior alien, too)...

The primary occupation of anyone under 16 should be education... and only education. Children of age 14-16 don't have time to work. The go to school. Then they do homework. And whatever time is left should be spent doing sports, doing their first futile attempts to flirt or just hanging out with friends. Of course, I immediately admit that it's not very profitable to send kids to school, on the short term. And why look at the long term if the next quarterly report is only weeks away?

Let me start by saying that I agree with you - all you say is correct. But you ignore the energy input into the system, which in the case of the bioreactors is substantial. IMHO, the two main problems are: - Compressors for CO2 addition and O2 removal - Cooling systems (there is no evaporation) Compressors I postulate that the closed bioreactors require more energy to operate than they generate in the form of biomass (based on the lower heating value of the algae after drying). I'm not in the mood to do the detailed calculations, they are not complicated, but might require two or three backs of envelopes rather than just one. The calculation must for a large part be based on the gas systems (CO2 addition and O2 removal). A smart design can overcome a lot of problems, but some things cannot be solved. You will always require a certain pressure difference to get the gas into your tubing. If the CO2 is not coming from a power plant which offers pressurized stack gas, then the CO2 also will have to be compressed. But especially oxygen removal is troublesome because the oxygen can inhibit oil production (or growth in general?) at concentrations lower than the solubility (i.e. oxygen must be stripped out with a carrier gas, and it is unadvisable to wait until it comes out by itself in the form of bubbles). Cooling The tubes of the bioreactor heat up. The tubes will obviously be made from a transparant material, rather than a reflective material. Since the algae only absorb (in a best case scenario) 15% of the sunlight (1-5% is probably more likely on large scale), a lot of heat will be created. Since the system is by definition closed, the only possible cooling is an external cooling system! A refrigeration system is out of the question because efficient refrigeration systems might have a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 5-6 but that is not enough. Since the heat input by the sun will be about 5 times higher than the energy of the sun that is actually converted into algae, the refrigeration system alone will likely require the same energy as the total output in the form of algae. Summary You end up with a massive length of tubes full of highly turbulent water with about 1% wt algae. At several intervals you have sterilized gas bubbling through the liquid phase to remove oxygen, requiring a secondary gas pipe network. And you need cooling, requiring a tertiary cooling network. Obviously, you can also build many decentralized oxygen/cooling stations... which will ruin your economy of scale. I haven't done any calculations, but my chemical engineers' gut feeling tells me that such a system is an economic disaster.

If you're trained to look for coins, you might miss the bus that races towards you at 80 km/h. All the good coin-finders therefore have gone extinct... which might explain why you keep finding them: You're a mutation who is much better at it than the average person. This is a joke. ---------------------- On a more serious note - a banknote or a coin is something that should catch everyone's attention if it is in plain sight. People do look where they're going (the pavement might be uneven, so everybody looks down sometimes). Everything that it not in your or anyone else's direct path is probably unnoticed by most people. But if you start looking in such places, then I don't understand why it took you so long to start finding notes. The higher the frequency or value of your findings, the higher the chance that someone else wants you to find money. Finally, I spot the low value coins quite often too: 5 cent especially is too worthless for many people to pick up... People think it's dirty to pick up money. Maybe the Brittish have finally gone so paranoid that they stopped picking up money?

Depends who you're chatting to, doesn't it? Chatting is a communication tool, so if you can achieve your goal with the tool, then I would suggest that it is perfect. I mean, chatting is an alternative to for example calling someone (on the phone), emailing or seeing someone in real... All those can be a complete waste of time, or very useful

Sulphur has multiple origins... but a lot of it comes from exhaust gases. Both crude oil and coal contain a lot of sulphur (up to 1% wt). In modern refineries this sulphur is removed so that the cars can burn sulphur-free fuels. In power plants, the sulphur is removed from the flue gas. SO2 is what is found in the flue gas. I believe that the SO2 can react to SO3 in the presence of ozone. This SO3 can then react with water to form H2SO4, which makes the rain acidic.

Please describe the situation in which a convict should only just escape the death penalty, and get another punishment instead. Where do you draw the line? You must draw a line... You cannot base a justice system on incidents and emotions. You have to write down the law. If you wish to discuss this in a science-forum, you must expect that we ask you to make things a little concrete. What you do until now in this thread is nothing more than a display of emotion regarding this particular convict. That's all nice, but now I ask of you that you make a clear proposal when the death penalty is justifiable, and when it is not justifiable. I personally draw that line at killing nobody at all. I want to know where you draw the line.

There are two types of algae-agriculture: One is the open pond systems that have slow moving water. The other are closed systems made of tubes in which a highly turbulent suspension of algae is transported at high velocity, with CO2 addition (using compressors) and O2 removal. I don't believe in the latter. Too complicated. Too many parameters. And it simply costs too much energy to operate. I've noticed that the production of such algae biofuel reactors are often overestimated in commercial publications (if you read something about it, calculate back the production based on insolation - there's a lot of BS in this business). The former (the open ponds) is more realistic. The algae in this type of reactor aren't much more efficient than ordinary plants... but the process also requires little energy. Harvesting and drying are the main problems. Both systems are often land-based, and therefore in direct competition with other agriculture and nature. In the end, all bio-based energy systems will become a problem because the world population just keeps growing exponentially, and meat production keeps growing fast as well. The earth's surface area will become a bottleneck at some point, and other systems (wind power and to some extent solar power) are much less in competition with food. Algae are nice, but if the research cannot provide a system that is profitable within 5-10 years from now, the algae have missed their opportunity. Food should always go before energy.

For the sake of the discussion, I'll play the role of the opponent... (although now that I read back what I just wrote, I fear it may be seen as trolling or flaming - sorry). I think that the tower is not awesome at all. It is much too expensive for what it does (it's just a building after all), and not very efficient. It will not look good in any city, wherever. Cities are square, and such an organic looking monster looks great in a picture... but try to imagine this monster in Manhattan. It will be hideous as soon as you imagine all the other square buildings next to it. also, all the rooms in the building will not be square, but the geometry of our furniture and a lot of other stuff (screens, books, shelves, even our coffee machine) is made of straight lines, which form squares. So, if the room doesn't follow this convention, then the surface area of the room cannot be fully utilized... which reduces the efficiency of the building, and makes it unnecessarily expensive. Then the building materials... Natural materials (like the fly's wings in the top right corner of the tower picture) are grown - and nature simply does it like this. It originates from something very small, and then grows and grows until the final thing is ready. Nature wouldn't be able to make a straight line even if it wanted to. However, a building is built by men, using materials from factories. a lot of small components must be put together to form a large structure. I bet that this tower uses a lot of unique components, which will make it a logistical nightmare and a financial disaster. The building is also made of 'smart systems' which are utilized in a dumb way... the surfaces are nearly vertical, which reduces the photovoltaic efficiency by 30% or so... this will increase the energetic payback time with more than 1 year! Nature never intended to be so inefficient. It's unnatural to attempt this. If you wish to copy good ideas from nature, then use the idea of repeating the same things over and over again. For example, a tree has many many leaves. All are the same... so, of we make a factory for small elements - the leaves of the tree - we make a lot of the same ones. Only, nature grows leaves on the tree, so although the initial design is the same for all, the actual leaves differ a little from each other. But unless you're a really smart designer, the tolerance for small differences in components is very small... It is easier to keep all the components the same. Finally, I wonder what company would want to be housed in such a mad building. In short, I can see what makes you enthusiastic, but I hope that this kind of building is never built in my region.

Do you want to discuss the errors by the judges? Are you suggesting that according to the laws in the country/state where this murderer committed his crimes, he must be put to death? I have no idea about the laws, so I cannot participate in such a discussion. Or do you wish to discuss whether a serial killer can be put to death? I am against the death penalty in all cases... for reasons that have been explained much better than I can by those politicians who abolished it many years ago in every country in Europe, and many others outside Europe. Sorry that I do not provide a link... It basically comes down to the point that death is a final thing, and cannot be changed. A dead person cannot be made alive. There is no perfect justice system... every justice system will make mistakes. If the death penalty exists, then the law will kill innocent people. Obviouly, this guy with 49 confessed murders is not going to be one of those mistakes. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and the safest line is to draw it at no death penalty ever. Put that guy in jail for the rest of his life...

The good The acceleration on the runway, followed by the G-force at actual take-off is awesome. The view from the window on a clear day is fantastic. The feeling of speed, when you can spot another airplane going in another direction, is mind-boggling. You can reach most of the world within 24 hrs because of airplanes. That must make it a good invention? The bad You sit with 100-400 people crammed into a tiny space. At least 3 people invade your little bubble of privacy for the duration of the flight. No matter how clean you are, you stink if you get out of the airplane. The food sucks. The chairs are too tiny. Waiting at the airport makes it all much slower than necessary. Getting to and from the airport is often a hassle, especially for early or late flights. Airport security sucks. And I haven't even started about delays and cancelled flights. Not a nice experience. The ugly Airplanes are terribly polluting. Perhaps not per traveled kilometer per person - but because you'll travel really far, you will still pollute. Airplanes bring the exhaust gases, including all the particulate matter right into the higher parts of the atmosphere... contrails from airplanes are even able to turn a lovely clear summer day into a hazy partly clouded day. Any invention capable of ruining a nice summer day must certainly be terrible?? Just a little rant about flying. I'm about to leave on another flight (for work)... I thought I'd just get this out of my system before I leave. Any thoughts?

A regular keyboard (qwerty) is definitely the fastest for me, and often speed matters... For normal writing, I use anything that I can find. I've lost and destroyed too many good pens to bother with those (I agree that fountain pens rule). I only use pens that are given as free gadgets (at conferences, symposia, etc.). Free pens are the only cost-effective way for me to write. I treat pens like lighters or socks - I seem to lose them faster than I can get new ones.