iNow

Post 3. YouTube.

I guess you didn't see the YouTube link in one of my later posts? That's definitely one interpretation. I have seen stronger interpretations from many people, including those who generally focus on science posts. I fairly regularly read this guy's blog, and he said the following this evening: The failure of this convention, if any, is in that McCain (and Bush and Cheney) have not been kicked in the nuts frequently enough or hard enough. Perhaps he's a coffee drinker?

Was that before or after 2Pac and Biggie had the whole East coast / West coast rivalry thing?

Prove it (also, you basically said the same exact thing I did just with different words, so whatever, dude). The real challenge is that there is no such thing as a valid reference frame for a photon since it's never at rest, which is perhaps the ONLY reason you could validly assert that my answer to this thought experiment is "nonsense." I'm pretty sure I read about it for the first time in a book called "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbin.

Dennis, You should check out this recent special which aired in Britain. It's called "The Genius of Charles Darwin," and offers a very informative look into his history and celebrates his work: Episode 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4471435322910215458&ei=E-i0SLWeIZSirgKQtqXfDA&q=%22genius+of+charles+darwin%22&hl=en Episode 2: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwLtM07TL4 Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zmb08h4nXc Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t70vYGC-_Ok Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZiI2KG0leQ Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1C_lgSJuBM Episode 3: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP3Ag-A97Rc Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jsQtdeGtw Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izYF7U-gCXQ Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J_XreG6sfU Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5lg10huSus There was also this great radio talk which I listened to just this last weekend and it's available as MP3 at the following: http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/misc/misc-20080824-1630-Lecture_1_-_Darwin_and_the_Evolution_of_an_Idea-048.mp3 Enjoy.

By restricting the conversation to unsubsidized dollars you are removing our discussion from the real world. In the real world, this will be subsidized. In the real world, current energy sources like coal and oil are ALREADY subsidized. While we could easily distract ourselves about the merits of subsidies, it would be a waste of time. In the real world, solar WILL be subsidized, and hence those numbers should be included in our calculations. Okay. Again, First Solar is but ONE company among the huge number entering the market. Also, I'm not sure if they do thin film solar or if they focus on crystalline silicone wafers. Also, you should note that cadmium telluride is only used in very few types of photovoltaic panels (for the very reasons you cite... danger and disposal issues). This wiki page speaks to your concern very directly. I will cite the relevant bit: The amount of cadmium used in thin-film PV modules is relatively small (5-10 g/m²) and with proper emission control techniques in place the cadmium emissions from module production can be almost zero. Current PV technologies lead to cadmium emissions of 0.3-0.9 microgram/kWh over the whole life-cycle. Most of these emissions actually arise through the use of coal power for the manufacturing of the modules, and coal and lignite combustion leads to much higher emissions of cadmium. Life-cycle cadmium emissions from coal is 3.1 microgram/kWh, lignite 6.2, and natural gas 0.2 microgram/kWh. Note that if electricity produced by photovoltaic panels were used to manufacture the modules instead of electricity from burning coal, cadmium emissions from coal power usage in the manufacturing process could be entirely eliminated. That same page also supplements my earlier points with the following: The fully-loaded cost (cost not price) of solar electricity is $0.25/kWh or less in most of the OECD countries. Within three years, the fully-loaded cost is likely to fall below $0.15/kWh for most of the OECD and reach $0.10/kWh in sunnier regions. These cost levels are driving three emerging trends: vertical integration of the supply chain; origination of power purchase agreements (PPAs) by solar power companies; unexpected risk for traditional Gencos, grid operators and turbine manufacturers .

And that's when you call these guys to get a SunFab installed: http://www.appliedmaterials.com/products/solar_sunfab_3.html A few ideas they mention decrease installation costs of solar farms by ~17%. They have a really cool multimedia presentation of how the module production line looks/feels: http://www.appliedmaterials.com/products/solar_multimedia.html

From the perspective of a photon, no. If you could somehow experience time from a photon's perspective, you would be everywhere all at once. This has to do with the speed of light and how objects moving at slower speeds are experienced (still) relative to light speed. The mind boggles, I know. I had a really tough time the first time I read about this. Unfortunately, I really don't have the training or knowledge to explain this much more, so I'm sure one of the other much more qualified people who post here at SFN will come in after me to give you a much clearer answer. Welcome to SFN, Dennisg.

It's C-SPAN, dude. They're not exactly the hippest rockin'est game in town, if you know what I mean. They are, however, consistent and always there. I'm still looking for something on Kucinich' speech. He seriously was like a rock star at that podium, and it was fun to watch. Now, we'll see if Hillary later tonight is actually going to support Barack or give it another go and whore for some votes. We shall see. line[/hr] Ha! Found it. Check it out at the following: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/?iref=hpmostpop Two-time Democratic presidential candidate and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich got delegates at the convention on their feet as he called on Americans to "wake up." Kucinich slammed the Bush administration, saying, "If there were an Olympics for misleading, mismanaging and misappropriating, this administration would take the gold." Bouncing on his feet and gesturing enthusiastically with his fist, he said corporate interests had taken over the United States. But, he said, America could fight back. "This administration can tap our phones; they can't tap our creative spirit," he said, closing his brief address with, "Up with Obama-Biden! Wake up, America! Wake up, America! Wake up, America!" She came to support Obama. Let's get this thing done. She's speaking right now. The link in the OP is showing it if anyone is interested (and doesn't mind RealPlayer or Windows Media )

How many different ways and how many different times does this point have to be addressed before you realize that simply repeating it does not make it valid. Bullshit. It can absolutely give us insights into how humans will react. It is not 100% reliable, but nobody has EVER argued that it was. Do you know what a logical fallacy is? Let's see your source on this claim. What citation supports your assertion here? Most fail, you say? Whatever. By the time they get to humans, they are mostly effective. Prove me wrong. Let's see you try. I can hardly wait. A 380 post thread, and you felt the need to respond to the whole thing in one single post of your own. Please do stick with your word and use the quote function moving forward.

With his Wake Up America speech. I don't have a transcript or a link yet, because I'm watching it live on C-SPAN online, but damn! That's how you get people energized! http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx

That's fair. See below. This statement is false in a number of ways. First, "companies" are not organisms with feelings, but a grouping of people each with their own views and interpretations. Second, those people care about ways to make the highest profit at the lowest cost, hence the person in power is very much a part of their area of concern. If I were a "company" and there was someone in power who sought to restrict my ability to do my job to earn income, you can be sure I'd "give a damn who's in power." Would you like me to kill this point using detailed and specific examples in great numbers where there were serious differences, or would you like me to pivot back to the fact that each governmental employee is themselves a person despite the party line with which they associate? It comes in various forms, and technology is changing past approaches. I encourage a review of this link if you want to learn more, but also point your attention to the vast internet campaign being waged right now by Barack Obama which gives the small donations of the many an equal footing with the large donations of the few. I can appreciate the sentiment here, but you go wrong by asserting it as some fact. When the populace as a whole comes together and demands something, you can bet your shiney ass that they will make it happen. The rich can be seen as an inertia to change, I concede that, but enough power can still overcome those economic forces of friction. Grassroots actually has meaning here in US society, and I encourage you to include that into your perspective since it's such a powerful force and has so frequently succeeded in it's stated missions. Is the EU currently engaged in imperialistic maneuvers, sending tanks and infantry into other countries? Is Russia working with us and supporting the same goals to the extent that the EU is? I'm going to posit no. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't realize the US was doing this. Did we call Russia's mother fat? Did we give Russia a wedgey? What do you mean by "picking a fight?" What specific actions or words are you talking about? Then, can you please explain what you mean by "win?" If you are approaching this as if "war has no winners," then of course you are correct. However, if you are approaching this as "the US can never accomplish their stated goals if they have Russia as an opponent to those goals," then I fear you are wrong (or, at least speculating with no real support of your position). Hmmm. This seems to contradict your earlier position that the government is all the same and out to do harm. Which is it? That could very well be the case. I'm not a blind supporter of the US. I, too, am frustrated by countless actions (and countless lack of actions) performed. I'm just saying, you are speaking in absolutes, you are not supporting your stance with any facts, and the situation is not nearly as "black and white" as you portray. Fair?

Actually, it may have had more to do with the way our eyes moved to the front of our skull through years of evolution and how our ability to see behind us was negatively impacted as a result of those slow changes (which conferred greater advantage in other areas/needs). Hence those that had others to "watch their backs" out survived those that did not, and cultures of shared/common good became a greater evolutionary advantage over any personal abilities. Just thought I'd share that little nugget of info. A nice post along these lines over at Not Exactly Rocket Science today. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/08/selfless_monkeys_find_personal_reward_in_helping_others.php Couldn't the government take both away from you? Don't you actually pay THEM to use that land, despite your assertion that it's "yours?" Aren't they the actual owners and don't they get to dictate what happens? (not that I agree this should be the case, just that I'm pretty sure it is).

They would probably give them Prozac so they don't get depressed about getting beaten up. While I appreciate your point, and am pretty sure we agree, it's important to also recognize that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Responsible parenting sometimes includes the exertion of ones physical dominance. However, far too many parents cross into that (subjective area I will call the) extreme zone where the hitting is not responsible and is instead more of an expression of personal frustration and feelings of failure as a parent. That's not something we should support, so don't get me wrong, even though I find most arguments for blanket bans to be ridiculous. line[/hr] We need to be careful about the definition. In the animal kingdom, normal reproduction often resembles what we consider rape. Different thread topic, maybe. The counter point to my question which I'd considered before asking it is sharks. The male literally bites the female around the neck, spins her face down into the sediment on the sea floor, then inserts his penis as she struggles against him. Sharks were the first animals to evolve a penis and to have internal fertilization, btw. I'm somewhat disturbed just imagining what will appear in the search results.

Yeah, I know (and agree), but wanted to close the door on that so he couldn't use it in his rebuttal. Now, TheAM - Please do let us all know if you think insulin has zero impact on non-diabetic animals. If that's the case, I'd like you to volunteer yourself for an injection.

Since I did edit my post, I'm not sure which link you're referring to as "the last one." Was it this? http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/nanoantennas-solar-arrays-that-002905.php The graph came from BP - British Petroleum. Here's a link: http://www.bp.com/popupimage.do?img_path=liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/frontiers/STAGING/local_assets/images/fr19solar_parity570x417.jpg%20&alt_tag=Graphic%20about%20grid%20parity,%20when%20the%20cost%20of%20solar%20energy%20equals%20that%20of%20grid%20electricity As for the validity, you will see by looking more closely that the cost has remained relatively constant across decadal time scales according to that representation, remaining roughly within a 10¢ cost window. I saw it for the first time reading from this link: http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9019305&contentId=7035199 I say again. There's much more at stake than cold economics at this point. Not really, not if you include impact to the environment in your benefits and impact of burning oil and coal in your costs. As for your question on First Solar, I'm honestly not sure. They are but one company among the thousands getting into this game.

I think this quote really sums up the whole issue quite nicely. You are looking backward, I am looking forward (at least on this particular issue). What exactly could I offer up that would satisfy you on this? Shall I look into my crystal ball and pull out market numbers split by geographic region? Yes, yes... here it is... the magic eight ball proves my point that downward trends will continue throughout many parts of Europe, Asia, and the US. Also, it has confirmed that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears have nothing to do with our election of president. You know that I cannot produce numbers for the future, so what I will do instead is show you trends from the recent past to support my contention that price decreases are abundantly probable in the near term. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/charting-a-path-to-low-cost-solar-1128.html The solar industry can potentially reduce costs 40 percent over the next five years as the silicon shortage ends, according to Graham Stevens, an associate director at Navigant Consulting. <...> The company plans to make cells from 100 percent UMG silicon, which Johnson said is three orders of magnitude less pure than polysilicon, and is aiming for efficiencies of 16 percent to 17 percent. <...> Thin-film solar is another technology with the potential to reduce costs. First Solar, for example, reached costs of $1.10 per watt in the fourth quarter. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST20585820080622 The measures are expected to help cut the cost of a solar power system, which now sells for about 2.3 million yen ($21,440), to 1.1 million yen in three to five years, it added. http://www.solarplaza.com/event/thethinfilmfuture/Thin-film_solar_cells_heading_for__1_per_Wp.html Hansen showed a number of graphs that indicated a gradually declining trend in terms of production costs. In the first quarter of 2006, for example, a panel cost $1.60 per Wp; in the first quarter, the price fell to $ 1.29, after which the price continued to fall with a few ups and downs to $ 1.18 per Wp in the first quarter of this year. By 2012, Hansen anticipates having saved a further 50 to 55 % of the module costs and almost another 60 % relating to matters such as the inverter, the mechanical and electrical installation, and overheads. Moreover, he referred to the approach once taken by automobile manufacturer Ford: ‘in 1914, the average time taken by the customary manufacturing process was 728 minutes. Ford reduced that to 93 minutes,’ says Hansen. ‘In the same way, First Solar’s module has been consistently standardized and cost-effectively optimized by means of a frameless glass-glass laminate and standard dimensions of 600 by 1200 mm. The fully automated manufacturing process has shortened the manufacturing process from 24 hours to less than 3, making lower investment necessary.’ http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9019305&contentId=7035199 In the USA, parity with the electricity grid at peak charging rates has already been achieved in northern California and Hawaii. 'Hawaii imports all of its energy, which means that it costs around 18-20 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity for home owners. Because of the ample sunshine in Hawaii, the cost of electricity from the sun is also around 20 cents per kilowatt hour,' says Posbic. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS227491+17-Apr-2008+BW20080417 Product sales were $18.3 million for the first quarter of 2008, compared to $16.9 million for the fourth quarter of 2007 and $12.6 million in the first quarter of 2007. http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/nanoantennas-solar-arrays-that-002905.php A collaboration of physicists, scientists and businesses have teamed up to create cheap and highly effective solar cells on a nanoscopic scale. Spearheaded by the Idaho National Laboratory, this team is onto a fresh way of producing solar panels that can continue to absorb energy even after the sun has set. The technology, not only efficient at nearly 80%, will also be cheap to manufacture, at estimated pennies a yard. http://www.energista.org/node/476 Photon Consulting, based in Germany, is projecting that electricity from leading (mostly silicon) photovoltaic (PV) crystalline cells will cost around 10¢/kWh - almost equal to the average residential grid price of 9.8¢/kWh. Many sunny states already exceed the 9.8¢ average: California - 14.48 ¢/kWh, Florida- 11.21 ¢/kWh, Texas- 11.54 ¢/kWh and Nevada - 11.22 ¢/kWh. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/new-energy-finance-predicts-43-solar-silicon-price-drop-1288.html U.K.-based research firm New Energy Finance said Monday it expects the price of solar-grade silicon to drop as much as 43 percent next year. <...> According to the report released Monday, wafers are expected to retain their value in 2009 as the supply of wafers eases more slowly than the silicon supply, and then to drop by 41 percent in the next five years, reaching prices below $6 per wafer, or $1.62 per watt, beginning in 2011. http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-solarUSA2008.php Installed solar PV prices are projected to decline from an average $5.50-$7.00 peak watt (15-32 cents kWh) today to $3.02-$3.82 peak watt (8-18 cents kWh) in 2015 to $1.43-$1.82 peak watt (4-8 cents kWh) by 2025 Solar power offers a number of advantages over conventional energy sources. Among them, the ability to deliver energy at or near the point of use, zero fuel costs, minimal maintenance requirements and zero carbon-based source emissions. The investment to arrive at 10% solar in the U.S. is not small, reaching $450 billion to $560 billion between now and 2025, an average of $26 billion to $33 billion per year. However, given utilities' existing capital costs such an investment is not prohibitive. To put the investment in perspective: Utilities spent an estimated $70 billion on new power plants and transmission and distribution systems in 2007 alone.

Why hasn't this thread been locked yet?

I don't know if I'll ever grow out of finding such immature interpretations taken so completely out of context so very funny.

The funny thing is that he doesn't know what my job is (I only spoke of the work at my company). Anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWp69FUoiuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydOPBL5iO2Y

Looking back, the dogs in the study I referenced were not diabetic. However, the point I was making remains the same. The discovery of insulin WAS successfully tested on diabetic dogs, which means that the points being expressed by TheAM remain false. http://www.discoveryofinsulin.com/Home.htm Working at a University of Toronto laboratory in the very hot summer of 1921 Fred Banting and Charles Best were able to make a pancreatic extract which had anti diabetic characteristics. They were successful in testing their extract on diabetic dogs. Within months Professor J. J. R. MacLeod, who provided the lab space and general scientific direction to Banting and Best, put his entire research team to work on the production and purification of insulin. J.B. Collip joined the team and with his technical expertise the four discoverers were able to purify insulin for use on diabetic patients. The first tests were conducted on Leonard Thompson early in 1922. These were a spectacular success. Word of this spread quickly around the world giving immediate hope to many diabetic persons who were near death. A frenzied quest for insulin followed. Some patients in a diabetic coma made miraculous recoveries. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm22in.html By August they had the first conclusive results: when they gave the material extracted from the islets of Langerhans (called "insulin," from the Latin for "island") to diabetic dogs, their abnormally high blood sugars were lowered.

Well, he's been receiving credible threats for over a year now, and has had secret service protection as a result. This does appear to be real, but not exactly the best representation of where we're trying to take this nation and our planet.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4609445.ece Nice.

I find this ironic. Isn't that exactly what McCain is doing as pertains to his attempts to extinguish the anxieties of the public (relying on obfuscation and distraction)? Public: Gas prices are too high! I can't feed my family! My electricity is about to be shut off! I'm going to default on my mortage! JM: That's why I advocate drilling now. We need to become independent and supply our own oil. Public: Oh. Phew. It sure sounds like drilling will help. Rest of us: WTF? That's not going to do anything for like 20 years. Also, there's only enough oil to last about 3 or 4 months. Why aren't we doing something more lasting, something more immediate, something more worth our effort and energy? "We need to drill Now!" He's using the anxieties about present energy costs to trick people into legislation which will have little to no impact on them.

A great post on this issue today over at Pure Pedantry: http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/08/more_on_the_legal_drinking_age.php I talked last week about the pros and cons of lowering the drinking age back to 18. One of the cons that I had assumed was that lowering the drinking age would increase the number of traffic fatalities in the 18-20 cohort. A study from NBER disputes this argument. <more at link>