iNow

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080412/fob6.asp

That IS a badass idea! http://www.peta.org/feat_in_vitro_contest.asp

Is it Patent Bending, in the Science channel? http://www.patentbending.com/

Indeed. I think the primary reason is initial investment. Most board's of directors think in terms of quarter to quarter profits, and an investment in a solar array would significantly impact profits for a few quarters. This is why government subsidies on this are essential. Look how well they've worked in Germany. I am pretty confident that nearly everyone who is a member of SFN would much rather goverment subsidize solar than oil companies, so there's one place of agreement where we can all start.

Yes, that is wrong. I'd like to see your source. I work for a company who's activity will significantly drop the cost per watt of solar. The easiest way to think about what is happening is to recall the VCR. They were more than $1,000 when they first came out. Then, manufacturing costs dropped and now you can get a VCR for around $50. The manufacturing cost of solar cells is dropping in much the same fashion, so I think you'll be hard pressed to argue that, "the costs of solar energy are likely to remain very high for a long time."

Pioneer, You seriously need to watch this and try to learn from the positions shared: http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=1766&u=7037&t=0 Your logic above is incomprehensible, and based on so many flawed, yet simultaneously accpeted premises that your conclusions are inherently flawed as well. The above is the full debate, just under 2 hours long, and worth the watch. The much shorter sections of the debate which are specific to your underlying tone about Stalin and Hitler and your negative slant on atheism using them as your props are linked below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrORCGEumto&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcY5SIfOkEg

Out of curiousity, have you read the article I shared at post #15? Do you have a response to their proposals?

Gotcha. Very weird. The previous picture was still be shown on my system when you posted that comment. Now, when I launch the thread this time, some strange new picture is there with a little cartoony man at the end of some game. EDIT: Aha. He uploaded his image to some photo sharing site, and the filename on his image was "untitled.jpg." He has since uploaded a new image with that same filename (untitled.jpg) and overwritten the previous which had been showing in the OP.

Yes, I am aware of the ignore feature, but I generally prefer to use my own internal "ignore" feature. This way, I'm not blind to things being said, I just choose not to respond. It doesn't really matter, but I do thank you for asking. I usually don't capitalize it. It's technically short for "infinite" so you could put that, or ∞, or capital "I." It's the tone of one's post I pay close attention to, and don't worry myself much with the capitalization of the username. Hell, if you're so inclined, you can call me "hey, ass face," so long as you're making an intelligent point when doing so. This is why I've become frustrated with Norman. He's resorted the "hey, ass face" approach, but hasn't supported his position intelligently yet.

Well sir, in fact, that's PRECISELY what you've done. You came into this thread with ENORMOUS power to bring people to action. I've yet to encounter a SINGLE person in this thread who is against making things in China better. We have tried to engage in this discussion with you. We have tried to open dialog, explore the possibilitity of benefit. You have, however, ignored EVERY question. You have retaliated personally against EVERY criticism. You have turned people who previously agreed with your stance away from it. Talking yourself into powerlessness is the ONLY thing you've managed to do in this thread. Thanks for the respect you've shown me in this thread. It is quite telling.

This idea of "where would morality come from if there were no religion" is thoroughly null and void, and it's been an excuse for worse evil than it has ever ameliorated. Got 10 minutes? This approach is one of the best I've seen (specifically Christophers comments roughly 4 minutes in, after Peters comments): And later in that same debate, another powerful point along the same lines as the above:

Norman, As you've repeatedly mentioned, you listen to NPR. Since I also listen to NPR, I'm confident you're aware of the issues right now in Zimbabwe. Why have you not focussed such passion on that issue? What is it about China that warrants your attention and energies that isn't present in other parts of the world?

It's really an interesting question, but one would have to imagine that such a literal interpretation is not what the framers had in mind. Okay, maybe "one" doesn't have to imagine that, but I sure do!

Ethics (and/or social morality), and it's not specific to human life (IMO). I can't believe I forgot to mention the stork theory of childbirth! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM Enjoy.

So do they: A Solar Grand Plan - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Their plan was amazingly conservative, indeed. I'd suggest it could be done faster, cheaper, and save more money in the long run. From the link: Since the price per barrel of crude oil hit $114 last week, and all indicators suggest prices will continue on their climb, this will save more than just the environment, but a metric assload of money as well.

Haha. I don't "hate" any references. They tend to be nice to have, which is why I share them so frequently in my posts. I do though agree that the American system is outdated, malaligned with the rest of the planet, and desperately needs to be updated. Alas, I'm not as powerful as you might imagine and have thus far failed in my attempts to catalyse such an across the board change myself, but I'll keep trying. With all of that said, though, there is a benefit in sharing one's source, even when the data is consistent across several sources. It allows other readers to make the conversions themselves, to put the numbers which have been shared into the proper context, and also research on their own any questions they may have. Transparency in science is rather more important than some who claim to understand science appear willing to acknowledge. Whoa... sorry. I do feel better, but apologize for trying to make a bigger point that extends beyond this thread.

Perhaps they have, perhaps they haven't. Frankly, I've not looked into much research on the topic. I'm simply conveying my own personal experience, and those are the words I chose to do so. I'd welcome other terminology if I wasn't able to get my point across using the words I previously chose. Isn't unami that asian art form where you make swans and whatnot out of folded paper?

If it takes a mediocre challenge of this nature for the Dems to take the white house over McCain, then McCain truly deserves the presidency anyway.

You seem confused. I haven't suggested any such thing in any of my posts. This is more than mere rhetoric, but a statement of fact. Perhaps you'd be willing to prove me wrong and quote one where I did?

Speaking of citing sources for our numbers... The below can be used to supplement the post above, and possibly correct any misunderstandings it has spawned: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

There's another member here who likes to say it this way, and I find it both very poignant and telling... If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color. Why does this get it's own special word? We don't have a word for people who don't believe in astrology like a-astrologists. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in numerology like a-numerologists. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in panspermia like a-panspermists... Maybe... just maybe there is such a word as pertains to theism since they cannot defend their beliefs with evidence, and so it's become easier to attack those who oppose it by type casting them into a non-descriptive group using a label which has been for years marketed with negative connotation.

What exactly about the picture is confusing you, thedarkshade?

No you don't. I don't have any imaginary friends, and I don't have to respect someones belief, regardless of how important that belief is to them personally. Why am I supposed to accept someone's belief in god, when I don't simultaneously accept someone's belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns?

I'm not sure if I understand the nature of your question. Powdered gelatin can be dissolved in warm water...