SCIENCE

Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc Originally posted by TuNA FISh Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc Originally posted by -DaGoN- Electric cars won't become widely accepted the way they're constructed, that you actually have to "charge the battery". Induction is the best solution for electric cars I think, although it would take HUGE changes. But that technology is awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction I'm not sure if it could actually be used for cars, well it could but if it's enough energy to go remotely quick.. the funny thing is that steam engines would be awesome with modern technology. I guess they just havn't looked back yet? no, that would be extremely stupid.. what about those fuel cell cars that they were talking about a few years back? seemed promising... the future is going to be harnessing the energy from our sun.. well thats just because you don't know what your talking about though. Its easy to just call something stupid and not elaberate, hell 5 year olds do that same thing all the time :) water + Solar = a car that could just keep on going, once solar panels are down sized and improved that is. and thats happening right now.

steam engines? come on man... we are beyond that......

Originally posted by TuNA FISh Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc Originally posted by -DaGoN- Electric cars won't become widely accepted the way they're constructed, that you actually have to "charge the battery". Induction is the best solution for electric cars I think, although it would take HUGE changes. But that technology is awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction I'm not sure if it could actually be used for cars, well it could but if it's enough energy to go remotely quick.. the funny thing is that steam engines would be awesome with modern technology. I guess they just havn't looked back yet? no, that would be extremely stupid.. what about those fuel cell cars that they were talking about a few years back? seemed promising... the future is going to be harnessing the energy from our sun..

well thats just because you don't know what your talking about though. Its easy to just call something stupid and not elaberate, hell 5 year olds do that same thing all the time :)

water + Solar = a car that could just keep on going, once solar panels are down sized and improved that is. and thats happening right now.

Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc Originally posted by -DaGoN- Electric cars won't become widely accepted the way they're constructed, that you actually have to "charge the battery". Induction is the best solution for electric cars I think, although it would take HUGE changes. But that technology is awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction I'm not sure if it could actually be used for cars, well it could but if it's enough energy to go remotely quick.. the funny thing is that steam engines would be awesome with modern technology. I guess they just havn't looked back yet?

no, that would be extremely stupid.. what about those fuel cell cars that they were talking about a few years back? seemed promising... the future is going to be harnessing the energy from our sun..

Originally posted by -DaGoN- Electric cars won't become widely accepted the way they're constructed, that you actually have to "charge the battery". Induction is the best solution for electric cars I think, although it would take HUGE changes. But that technology is awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction I'm not sure if it could actually be used for cars, well it could but if it's enough energy to go remotely quick..

the funny thing is that steam engines would be awesome with modern technology. I guess they just havn't looked back yet?

Originally posted by HanFei Ford plans five electric cars! Although wide scale adoption with current technology is improbable, at least, these vehicles will be mass produced. http://www.physorg.com/news205072516.html

great isn't it. its about dam time :) elictric cars would of been common years ago if oil company's weren't buying every pattent on them.

Originally posted by Ether404 Originally posted by Pinnacle Originally posted by HanFei Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc Originally posted by HanFei Below, is a cool, albeit too large infographic. http://photos.webridestv.com/datastore/images/user/db191f25c36fd2dee1b6555a6e91cfe0/Death_and_Taxes_USA_Federal_Budget_64262_20080424.jpg whats your point Han Fei? if its Bush/Cheaney spending and increasing the debt? were in agreement there. BUT John Mcain tried to stop the housing and banking crises that led to the stimulious package! and Bush warned about it but didn't stop it. corrupt democrats like Chris Dddd and Barney Frank were acually a part of it though. Obama has already spent more then anyone else, and he wants to spend a whole lot more! No direction, just wanted to add data to the discussion. Our senators and representatives create the budget, The president just signs it. Once we realized the Subprime housing lending and massive CDOs were going on, there is little to be done, since sooooo many loans had already been made.   For reference, subprime lending began in the Carter administration when Carter urged Congress to pass a law which relaxed bank loaning practices. Reagan suffered the repercussion of this when the Savings and Loan banks all collapsed due to strict competition from national banks.. We've known this for over 30 years. Now it becomes an issue? The reason noone made an issue about this in the past three decades is because banks began to profit like never before. That equated to more government inccome through business taxes. What did the government do to alleviate this mess? They raised taxes on business to reap the benefit of the higher profits. What is the first thing Reagan do to fix this problem? He lowered taxes on businesses to ease the burden they were carrying, which led to one of the biggest decades of growth with extremely low unemployment numbers. Mr. Clinton came in and eased the bank regulations even more. What did he do? He raised taxes to reap the benefits. What happens next? The banks started suffering, unemployment rose and the housing bubble burst. Sound familiar?   By the way, none of my posts are directed at you HanFei. You are a very smart guy and have valid views. I'm just responding in the alternate. keep going...i'm getting great info for my Thesis.  lol

lmao

Originally posted by Pinnacle Originally posted by HanFei Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc Originally posted by HanFei Below, is a cool, albeit too large infographic. http://photos.webridestv.com/datastore/images/user/db191f25c36fd2dee1b6555a6e91cfe0/Death_and_Taxes_USA_Federal_Budget_64262_20080424.jpg whats your point Han Fei? if its Bush/Cheaney spending and increasing the debt? were in agreement there. BUT John Mcain tried to stop the housing and banking crises that led to the stimulious package! and Bush warned about it but didn't stop it. corrupt democrats like Chris Dddd and Barney Frank were acually a part of it though. Obama has already spent more then anyone else, and he wants to spend a whole lot more! No direction, just wanted to add data to the discussion. Our senators and representatives create the budget, The president just signs it. Once we realized the Subprime housing lending and massive CDOs were going on, there is little to be done, since sooooo many loans had already been made.   For reference, subprime lending began in the Carter administration when Carter urged Congress to pass a law which relaxed bank loaning practices. Reagan suffered the repercussion of this when the Savings and Loan banks all collapsed due to strict competition from national banks.. We've known this for over 30 years. Now it becomes an issue? The reason noone made an issue about this in the past three decades is because banks began to profit like never before. That equated to more government inccome through business taxes. What did the government do to alleviate this mess? They raised taxes on business to reap the benefit of the higher profits. What is the first thing Reagan do to fix this problem? He lowered taxes on businesses to ease the burden they were carrying, which led to one of the biggest decades of growth with extremely low unemployment numbers. Mr. Clinton came in and eased the bank regulations even more. What did he do? He raised taxes to reap the benefits. What happens next? The banks started suffering, unemployment rose and the housing bubble burst. Sound familiar?   By the way, none of my posts are directed at you HanFei. You are a very smart guy and have valid views. I'm just responding in the alternate.

Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc The democrats forced banks to gives people loans that couldn't afford the loans as a social program.l

Say, wa?

Np, I wholly understand and enjoy good dialogue. While subprime mortgages have existed, I'm not sure how long before 2000 these assets were packaged into CDOs to make a risky BBB investment appear AAA. Below is an excerpt from a really long NPR article.

     The people who buy the bonds that are the last to get hit, that get the final payments, whatever money trickles into this pool goes out to them first. Those people get the lowest rate of interest and are - the highest rated bonds, triple-A-rated bonds. So the dregs of this pool are the triple-B-rated bonds, the lowest rated bonds. If you own the triple-B-rated bonds associated with this pool, your bonds are going to be wiped out if the pool experiences losses of just eight percent. So if just eight percent of the loans go bad youre not going to have a bond anymore. That's a very risky bond, especially when youre dealing with subprime mortgage loans.

But that's not where it ends. The Wall Street firms, having trouble selling these triple-B-rated bonds to people, pool and find all the pieces of triple-B-rated bonds and they put them into another pool. And they go to the ratings agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor, and they say, say look, there are all these triple-B-rated subprime mortgage bonds but some of them are loans that are made in California and some are loans that are made in Florida and some are loans that are made in Michigan. They're diversified. They're not all the same thing.

Surely some of them are going to be money good. So if we put these all into one big pool and tranch it up again, how much of it will you rate triple-A? And the ratings agency says, 80 percent. They say, we think that this pool is diversified enough that, you know, if things go really bad only about 20 percent of them are going to be really seriously at risk. So, 80 percent are really safe. So you have now this called this is called a CDO, a collateralized debt obligation. And 80 percent of this is rated triple-A.
http://www.npr.org/tablet/#transcript/?storyId=124690424

Originally posted by HanFei Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc Originally posted by HanFei Below, is a cool, albeit too large infographic. http://photos.webridestv.com/datastore/images/user/db191f25c36fd2dee1b6555a6e91cfe0/Death_and_Taxes_USA_Federal_Budget_64262_20080424.jpg whats your point Han Fei? if its Bush/Cheaney spending and increasing the debt? were in agreement there. BUT John Mcain tried to stop the housing and banking crises that led to the stimulious package! and Bush warned about it but didn't stop it. corrupt democrats like Chris Dddd and Barney Frank were acually a part of it though. Obama has already spent more then anyone else, and he wants to spend a whole lot more! No direction, just wanted to add data to the discussion. Our senators and representatives create the budget, The president just signs it. Once we realized the Subprime housing lending and massive CDOs were going on, there is little to be done, since sooooo many loans had already been made.

neither point is correct. the president works with his party leaders and advisers and decides on his annual budget. he then submits it to congress.

Mcain was on to the developing crises long before it acually became a crises! he argued in the senate that something has to be done, but Barney Frank argued that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were fine. i seen the senate tape.

Barney Frank was litteraly sleeping with a guy who worked at Fannie Mai, Chris Dodd was chairman of the banking commitee. They both recieved a lot of campaign money from both company's. Biggest scam in history and no one got in trouble?

When those two are out of the senate i bet they get some very high paying jobs lol

Originally posted by HanFei Below, is a cool, albeit too large infographic. http://photos.webridestv.com/datastore/images/user/db191f25c36fd2dee1b6555a6e91cfe0/Death_and_Taxes_USA_Federal_Budget_64262_20080424.jpg

whats your point Han Fei? if its Bush/Cheaney spending and increasing the debt? were in agreement there. BUT John Mcain tried to stop the housing and banking crises that led to the stimulious package! and Bush warned about it but didn't stop it. corrupt democrats like Chris Dddd and Barney Frank were acually a part of it though.

Obama has already spent more then anyone else, and he wants to spend a whole lot more!

Very cool graphic, I'm going to have to display it on the projector tomorrow and take a look at the whole picture.