npts2020

Seems to me that it is mainly anti-scientists that cannot find any evidence of evolution.

......True, but American and English can seem to be two entirely different languages sometimes.

I don't know if this is helpful but it brings to my mind cycles like the food chain, birth/death, nitrogen cycle in ecological systems etc.

At this point in time, most cosmologists believe the universe will expand forever (in human terms) until in something like 10 to the hundredth power years there will be a uniform steady state of immeasurability (or nothingness to some). Of course this view is always subject to change as we get better and different measurements of the universe around us.

Yep, and even more around one on an aircraft carrier (bigger reactors) but afaik that is the only place any ship has large lead components.

I have read in Scientific American that it will take about 40,000 square miles of solar panels to provide half of all of America's energy needs in 2050. By coincidence there are about 40,000 square miles of roadway in America according to USDoT. I would like to see the entire road/rail system automated, enclosed, and powered with wind and solar energy. I don't think that it will be practical to put solar panels anywhere on the road, they will have to be elevated above or beside, as pointed out by others. You would have to figure out places where it would be a waste to put a solar panel because of lack of direct sunlight, though (between tall buildings in a city, behind a mountain, etc.). All of the technology required is in existence today and only needs to be refined for this specific application. I haven't written much in the past couple of months but if you are interested here is much of what I have written about automated transportation, if you are interested. I recommend starting with the oldest posts first.

Thanks for the info one and all. The single google search I did was not very successful but you guys have managed to give me enough to think about.

Another system I kind of like is where instead of voting for a single candidate (you could anyway if you liked) you vote for all acceptable candidates with the highest total winning. That way you could vote for both John McCain and Bob Barr with no penalty for doing so. The problem with this system is correlating vote totals with voter turn out, IOW there would have to be high confidence the system couldn't be rigged.

Actually, in the American dialect of English they are considered the same to the point that Webster's gives "chiefly British spelling of analyze" as the only definition for analyse.

Thanks for the clarification Klaynos. That's what I get for depending on memory and not looking it up. Now that I have looked, it seems as if the shortest lightpulse is under a femtosecond, aiming for around 600 attoseconds. I have a related question that may be better answered in the biology forum, is there any shortest pulse of light that is required to be visible to the human eye or will any visible light be detected?

I would be the last one to tell you that such a thing is impossible. The problem is that springs are more suited to applying steady smaller force over a longer time than applying the sudden large force from stopping and starting that is required for operation of vehicles large enough to carry people or freight. I will have to think about it for a while but I don't believe many small springs would have any energy advantage over a single large spring.

ecoli; You are correct that banks would not be able to function by retaining all of their deposits. The real question is how much of those deposits should have to be kept in reserve (IIRC it was 10% but may have been changed when banks were deregulated). IMO as soon as they allowed banks to do things like trading in derivatives, the amount of "reserve" became meaningless. Here is an FDIC summary of the derivative market from 2003 that pretty much explains what is happening now. Basically,1) banks were given permission to go into the derivative market according to a complex risk assessment model come up with by federal regulators. 2) some banks jumped in with both feet, notably; JP Morgan-Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Bank One, Wachovia (I wonder if any of these 5 banks are in trouble) 3) the risk assessment models are prone to widely variant outcomes with even small changes in some of the variables, and I would think also have more susceptibility to manipulation 4) the derivative market grows so quickly, it dwarfs (all?) other financial markets and even regulators can't assess the total value of the market (the best current estimates I can get range from a little more than $300 trillion to well over a quadrillion dollars U S) although $500 trillion is most often cited. How can anyone claim to be regulating a market they don't even know the value of? 5) the inevitable situation that is the result of the above that we are faced with today. I feel like I have a fair grasp of what derivatives are but can anyone tell me why they are necessary? It seems to me like it is just a back door of being able to borrow more money than you are able to borrow to begin with, i.e. the subprime lending of the corporate world.

buttacup's middle reference pretty much covers the transportation uses. From the looks of it nothing has ever been put into production, which is in agreement with what little I have seen written about the subject.

You can build a device to measure events down to the nano-second (maybe even pico-second by now) range. Your eyes would notice no period of time when there wasn't light at that speed of flashing. After about 8-10 cycles per second, afterimages remain in your eyes longer than the light is off. As I stated above, flourescent lights turn on and off 60 times a second (50 for those on 50Hz grids). By the time you have gotten to this relatively slow on/off speed your eyes will not notice any increase in the frequency.

iNow; allowing 1:7 leveraging would be a far cry from what exists now. As you point out, many (I believe most) of our financial institutions (and others) are operating in the 1:20-30+ range, which is exceeding the approximately 1:20 leveraging of the average financial institution just prior to the Great Depression. Thus far I have seen no concrete proposals for addressing this situation and very little discussion of it. It seems to me that the main thrust of all of the "bailouts/giveaways" has been to keep the derivative markets, which have been the lever for many if not most of these companies, from completely crashing. If there is $500 trillion+ of these IOU's out there how much of that amount will we have to put up to be able to make any significant difference and where does the money come from and how will it help?

Bascule; The problem with your scenario is that the craftsman did work his whole life to get the money to build that factory, he just did it by proxy (i.e. his parents, neighbors, etc. worked enough to accumulate the required wealth to do it--savings). This leads to one of the conundrums of economics I have never seen adequately explained, how can you have more "credit" available than there has been wealth produced and why don't they seem to be interconnected? As long as people have faith in the system it doesn't seem to matter but there has been enough Enron/AIG/Bernie Madoff/Lehman/WaMu/etc. scams in close enough succession to shake that faith. As long as there is a back-door way of manufacturing money, derivatives and government "printing" in our present case, it will be nearly impossible to keep from ending up with financial "lever" that doesn't end up so long (assets to debt ratio) as to break at the first shock. The question I have for any takers is, how long is it prudent to make the lever? IOW what kind of assets to debt ratio should financial (and maybe other) institutions be allowed to have?

Much as I would like to see light shed on the activities of the Bush2 administration, I tend to agree with waitforufo that it isn't going to happen. Even if the Dems in congress had the intestinal fortitude to do it (they probably don't), there is a strong recent (past 50 years) history of glossing over possible criminal activity of the outgoing administrations. Iran-contra was the last time anything close to this magnitude was in popular consciousness, what happened then?

This is all well and good but the devil will be in the details, especially giving all of the terms precise enough definitions to have meaning. The part in #3 that I emboldened, for instance, is exactly how a great number of people in the financial sector have gotten rich, by making things too difficult for the average person to understand easily (need I mention an unregulated derivative market or Ponzi scams?).

CaptainPanic; That is basically how every flywheel assisted drive train i have ever seen works. The biggest problem with a flywheel is, that the heavier they are the better they are for the task, unfortunately you then have to carry all that weight around. As to the original question, any spring that could provide enough power to run an automobile would have to be fairly massive to enable even short trips before rewinding (think how big a watch spring is compared to the watch). Even if you could work out safety and durability issues it seems to me that doing this would never be any more than an interesting academic exercise.

Um, I didn't know Charles Darwin needed any vindication, his ideas have only been refined and made stronger over time. Exactly on what is it that you are basing the notion that blood cells and any single-celled organisms are related?

Well, the flourescent lights at your school blink on and off 60 times every second, do they appear to be on or off?

I voted yes. It is probably easier to get away with a crime in America than anywhere else that has an effective (somewhat) government. On the other hand more things are illegal to make more citizens criminals......maybe i shoulda voted no:doh:

IMO most of those 71% want to see an investigation about the same as I want to see flowers on my kitchen table, it would be nice but I am not going to bother going to the florist to see that some get there.

I guess it depends on what is "good". If expansion is considered to be the chief good then it would not be. If stability is considered to be the chief good then it may be very good for the economy in the long term. IMO if there has to be an extreme I would prefer the latter, but none of the solutions I have seen much publicized is a radical departure from what is already being done.

If you are going to oppose nuclear power, you should learn a little about the subject. Fission (particularly thermal neutron, the most common type) reactors and fusion reactors are very different machines in both operation and radiation hazards produced. The point at which they become similar is after water is heated to produce steam for turning a turbine to produce electricity.