>>They want their conception of "the good" to be privileged by the state, whereas I want people to be free to pursue their own conception of "the good," provided it is consistent with freedom and equality (as in no nobility)<<
to be enforced by...?
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Yell
>>They want their conception of "the good" to be privileged by the state, whereas I want people to be free to pursue their own conception of "the good," provided it is consistent with freedom and equality (as in no nobility)<<
to be enforced by...?
"You don't seem to understand that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to ignore the rest of the Constitution just because they authorize military action. It authorizes them to engage in military action which isn't otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, ie that which violates the 4th and 5th amendments."
Horseshit. There's a reason that US flagged oil tankers didn't run for Japan in 1944. That's because the US Navy had no obligation to seize such a tanker and haul it to a neutral port for extradition hearings. They were entitled to sink it and let the crew drown.
"I'm not "blaming" America, I'm pointing out really bizarre facts which are so inconsistent with what we're told that you refuse to acknowledge or respond to them in any way."
"Because some dirt farmer in Yemen angry at the US--which does oppress him--is literally not a threat to us in any way whatsoever. Maybe we should stop funding our economic collapse with drones over his nation and propping up his oppressive authoritarian overlords and stop giving him a reason to be angry at us."
^^ blaming America.
I didn't "ignore" what you said. I SAID you were wrong, and I said Al Qaeda DID exist, and we're authorized to go kill its members. That people want to run and join it for 20 years and get blown up, is not a bug, it's a feature.
>>Of course, you'll respond that we're at war, so that's an exception to the 5th amendment. A position which becomes ridiculous--and concedes my point that the sheeple have elected a Congress which is tyrannical--when you consider that the "war" we're at is an endless war against an undefined enemy. An enemy which, funny enough, our government frequently trained and funded.<<
So Al Qaeda doesn't exist.
But if it does, we trained it.
But I shouldn't believe that, I need to understand it doesn't exist. For preference.
Believing it exists and blaming America for it is the fallback.
You know who was sheeple? The Navajo Codetalkers. Grandsons of Injuns hunted by the cavalry, they walked all night to get to a recruiting station to enlist because "The Japs are after us". Aint that sad? It's only because we racistly denied them ganja. I bet if they could toke they'd have a proper perspective on such things.
>>But you got me. Congress can legally authorize most of what it has as far as foreign military action, so do a victory dance and respond to nothing else. The fourth and fifth amendments aren't my favorites anyway. It's only law. They can legally authorize blowing up people in Yemen. It's really important for our safety. Nevermind that they violate the law in assassinating American citizens. Nevermind that they violate the law in spying on American citizens. Some dude on the other side of the globe doesn't like us. Clearly violations of the law are legal, because Congress can authorize military action.<<
You're warped.
Al Qaeda is attacking the US. We have every right to respond with military force to that, and every right to demand all Americans avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The form Congress has chosen is irrelevant. Go read the Constitution. "Declare war, and issue letters of Marque and Reprisal". Get that? Congress has the constitutional authority to issue warrants to Google Inc. and Coca Cola to hunt down US citizens helping Al Qaeda and kill them and seize their property. That we don't, is simply by treaty.
In every other war there's been Americans on the other side, or willing to make money off the other side, and their lives and property have been forfeit when caught at it.
""War" in general terms and one declared by Congress aren't legally the same thing. That's the only distinction I was making. Obviously if the President legally blows up 200 people at a wedding in Yemen because there was a target there, you can call it "war." It's government enacted violence. Congress has made it legal. I was merely pointing out that it's a part of tyranny that sheep have enabled their Congressmen to grant to the president, and it's not the same thing as a war declared by Congress."
This is gibberish. There is no difference between military action against Al Qaeda and military action against the Empire of Japan in 1942. Congress wants those airstrikes at Yemeni weddings. It voted to authorize them in 2001 and votes every year to pay for them.
"The damage your party has done to these candidates continues to harm America today, as these noble, principled candidates are grouped by the general public with the globalist, authoritarian trash you've voted for all your life."
Maybe they should infiltrate and subvert the Green Party
>>Marijuana is still illegal because ignorant sheep aren't aware of its 100% racist and cronyism origins, nor its actual effects on human beings.<<
It's racist and cronyist? Damn glad I help ban it. King Solomons Mines my ass
>>None of these reasons is logical or just. They're all racist and/or monopoly/cronism driven. And they're all fueled by ignorance and fear of the unknown. Not exactly the most admirable bases for a position.<<
If it wasn't that an acceptable gin substitute can be made in a bathtub for $10 in materials, we'd still ban booze. Cause we prefer a sober nation
>>I have no problem with rightful termination based on marijuana usage, just as I don't for tobacco smoking or alcohol drinking. I do have a problem with the logic that this has anything to do with the corrupt origins of marijuana bans or the illogical continuance of those bans. Because it doesn't.<<
Such firings for drug use are not mandated by government, it's the response of the general public which is solidly repressive of such things
>>Which organizations have they "joined"? <<
CONSERVATIVE Political Action Committee
and the REPUBLICAN party, and outfit dedicated to preventing LIBERTARIAN Party candidates from getting employment
>>Sounds like those organizations needed better charters. And if Libertarian members' votes have so much sway, the organizations clearly didn't have very many "Conservative" members to begin with.<<
So what? Get out.
You're talking about relatively insignificant organizations, and organizations which would obviously be even more insignificant without Libertarian support which you're claiming is such a large portion of their members that it directs action.<<
So what? Get out.
>>Yes, of course Congress and all of government supports the false flags that get the sheep to give up their rights. It's still not a declared war; you're confusing political rhetoric with law. Congress hasn't declared war on anyone; there's no nation to declare war on (they give billions to nations they should consider action against). That they've authorized all kinds of junk and ignore standing law does not equate with a declaration of war.<<
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force’’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
War Powers Act
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
....(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter[.]
The idea that there is no war unless it's declared on your terms against an organized state is your own personal opinion and not the law. I'm with Thomas Jefferson--maybe you heard of him? Uppity ragheads with pointy sticks in large numbers are suitable targets for the Marines.
>> You and Einstein keep pretending Americans are as terrified as weed as you ignorantly are. They're clearly not.<<
Sure, that's why its a) still illegal and b) cause for rightful termination in 50 states.
>>Those organizations hold contrary views to those of Libertarians. If Libertarians take support away from those organizations, it's because those organizations don't represent people's views as well as Libertarians.<<
There's "taking away support" and there's joining the Chess Club and demanding it switch to golf.
Agitating for conservative organizations to adopt the libertarian agenda is undemocratic. The freedom of assembly is exclusive as well as inclusive.
>>There is no declared war. Political rhetoric has no place in law.<<
Yes there is. On Al Qaeda. It's a formal enemy of the United States (unlike the Soviet Union) and military force against it was authorized by Congress as per the War Powers Act.
>>And, as usual, attacks on Libertarians like they're all potheads, because you're not happy with the fact that legislation doesn't stop anyone from being gay, and a majority of Americans have smoked pot and millions still do.<<
Gee, I somehow lump all libertarians as potheads even though you brought up the War on Drugs in every post and wish to emphasize how popular toking is. But you're not a pothead. How dare I. Maybe I should relax somehow, huh?
"You're just whining that a majority don't support your Conservative candidates. "
Actually he's whining that your crew seeps into outfits that aren't socially liberal and then starts agitating about gay marriage and drug legalization. At which point the only viable option is to kill that organization. Eg, CPAC, and the GOP.
" Bush raped the fourth amendment. Obama agrees 100% with Bush on this topic! I guess Obama's a Conservative, in your view. Obama can kill American citizens without due process of law... Guess that takes care of the fifth amendment too. So, Conservatives are against law and order? Because you're claiming such a Conservative nation, yet supposedly "Conservative" positions are represented absolutely no where in leadership or law in this country."
Wartime combatants have no right to due process in combat. Don't like that, end the war.
" You want to claim that Conservatism is clearly superior to Libertarianism because it gets more votes, while at the same time ignoring the fact that Socialists are getting more votes than either right now."
Not me. I'm superior to Libertarians because they want gay buttsex while pirating Thai child pron while under the influence of the waccy tobaccy. If Abraham Lincoln was debating Buddha at CPAC and the Green Cross Adult Cinema Booth offered a happy hour special, we know where libertarians would be.
Hot Air was always closed except for sporadic bursts of perestroika. It's because they're control freaks who autoedit words like "revolution".
Things to stop your group from becoming Libertarian:
Open each meeting with a prayer
Sell "clean" brownies outside medical marijuana clinics
Have a big photo op where you give the sales money in the form of a six-foot check to the DEA
yeah! Milton Berle
he was in two episodes I think
one where he was the main villain trying to drug hippies (yeah tough assignment)
the other he had a cameo as a rioting prisoner who Batman talks into giving up and doing 55 years "with good behavior"
...redball angryface...didn't make it X(
I approve. It's a positive development.
Mainly because Barack Obama doesn't hold scheduled meetings. His full Cabinet hasn't sat for over a year. He didn't meet with the Jobs Council for nearly that long.
Here he is, offering the unique consideration of a direct meet with buyers, and setting a monetary value on that meeting.
That's enough so that, when he doesn't meet with them every 90 days, he's in breach of contract.
Yeah its a can of worms. But I can either bitch and moan, or make it a us/them political issue, or let him get sued by Mr. I.M. Chicom for performance in federal court, and let everybody figure out that ain't where we want to be as a country.
Cause that is more likely than any kind of impeachment.
President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations.
Enlarge This Image
Doug Mills/The New York Times
President Obama has said that his public campaign against Republicans is not producing results.
Enlarge This Image
Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times
Advocates of efforts to curb violence, a priority of President Obama, in Manhattan on Friday.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (383) »
But the rebooted campaign, known as Organizing for Action, has plunged the president and his aides into a campaign finance limbo with few clear rules, ample potential for influence-peddling, and no real precedent in national politics.
In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the “super PACs” whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.
At least half of the group’s budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more, according to donors and strategists involved in the effort.
Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.
Officials said it would voluntarily disclose the names of large donors every few months and would not ask administration personnel to solicit money, though Obama aides will probably appear at some events.
The money will pay for salaries, rent and advertising, and will also be used to maintain the expensive voter database and technological infrastructure that knits together Mr. Obama’s 2 million volunteers, 17 million e-mail subscribers and 22 million Twitter followers.
The goal is to harness those resources in support of Mr. Obama’s second-term policy priorities, including efforts to curb gun violence and climate change and overhaul immigration procedures. Those efforts began Friday, when thousands of Obama supporters were deployed through more than 80 Congressional districts around the country to rally outside lawmakers’ offices, hold vigils and bombard Congress with e-mails and phone calls urging members to support stricter background checks for gun buyers.
“There are wins we can have on guns and immigration,” Jon Carson, the group’s new executive director, told prospective donors on a conference call on Wednesday, according to people who participated. “We have to change the conventional wisdom on those issues.”
But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.
Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.
“It just smells,” said Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, which advocates tighter regulation of campaign money. “The president is setting a very bad model setting up this organization.”
Mr. Obama’s new organization has drawn rebukes in recent days from watchdog groups, which view it as another step away from the tighter campaign regulation Mr. Obama once championed. Over the past two years, he has reversed course on several campaign finance issues, by blessing a super PAC created by former aides and accepting large corporate contributions for his second inauguration.
Many traditional advocacy organizations, including the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, are set up as social welfare groups, or 501(c)(4)’s in tax parlance. But unlike those groups, Organizing for Action appears to be an extension of the administration, stocked with alumni of Mr. Obama’s White House and campaign teams and devoted solely to the president’s second-term agenda.
Robert K. Kelner, a Republican election lawyer who works with other outside groups, said the arrangement “presents a rather simple loophole in the otherwise incredibly complex web of government ethics regulations that are intended to insulate government officials from outside influence.”
The closest precedents for Organizing for Action exist at the state level. In New Jersey, a 501(c)(4) called the Committee for Our Children’s Future, set up by friends of Gov. Chris Christie, has run hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of advertising praising Mr. Christie’s proposals.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (383) »
In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo encouraged the formation of a nonprofit group, the Committee to Save New York, that is run by business leaders allied with him, and it has raised millions of dollars from corporations, private sector unions, and individuals. The group supported Mr. Cuomo’s agenda — but it also thrust him into controversy when The New York Times revealed that gambling interests poured $2 million into the group as Mr. Cuomo was developing a proposal to expand casino gambling.
Organizing for Action said it would accept unlimited personal and corporate contributions, but no money from political action committees, lobbyists or foreign citizens. Officials said they would focus — for now — on grass-roots organizing, amplified by Internet advertising. Friday’s “day of action” involved half a million dollars’ worth of targeted Internet ads and events in Florida, Maine, Pennsylvania and California, among other states.
“O.F.A.’s first day of action was about bringing the issue of closing background-check loopholes into communities across the country that feel very strongly about supporting the president’s plan to reduce gun violence,” said Katie Hogan, a spokeswoman for the group.
Organizing for Action has also promised to steer clear of electoral politics, unlike the politically active nonprofit groups like the right-leaning Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies and Americans for Prosperity. Such groups spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising during the recent election campaign season, ostensibly for issue advocacy, spurring a wave of lawsuits, ethics complaints from campaign watchdogs and criticism from Mr. Obama himself.
But the distinction between campaigning and issue advocacy may be hard for Organizing for Action to maintain in the prelude to the 2014 elections, especially if it continues its emphasis on pressing lawmakers on delicate issues like immigration and guns.
In Wednesday’s conference call, Mr. Carson said the group hoped to form partnerships with other 501(c)(4) groups on the left, including America Votes, which was at the center of Democratic efforts to defeat President George W. Bush in 2004 and now serves as a coordinator for progressive advocacy organizations. He also said Organizing for Action wanted to be a counterweight to grass-roots organizations on the right, like the N.R.A., according to people who took part in the call.
There should be “as much of a price to pay if you tick off the gun violence people” as there is for angering the N.R.A., Mr. Carson said, according to those people. “Let’s build an organization that means that Republicans are embarrassed to have climate change deniers running for office.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
One of her more memorable roles came in 1968 when Craig appeared on Star Trek as Marta, a green-skinned Orion slave girl in the third season episode "Whom Gods Destroy" (1968)
Most famously, in Batman, she had the role of Batgirl (and her alter ego, librarian Barbara Gordon, Commissioner Gordon's daughter). She appeared in the final 1967–1968 season.[3] Batgirl's true identity was unknown to Batman and Robin, and their true identities were unknown to her; only Alfred, the butler for Bruce Wayne/Batman, was aware of Batgirl's identity.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/Yvonne_Craig_Batgirl.jpg/200px-Yvonne_Craig_Batgirl.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/53/Yvonne_Craig_Star_Trek.jpg/200px-Yvonne_Craig_Star_Trek.jpg
There was a webpage with tasteful artistic candid shots but the mods would have blown their tops.
Also it had ads for blowup dolls further down the same page, so.
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h194/GOODSTUFF1852/5987_10151503957907065_747078780_n-375x300_zps4d4a4829.jpg
yes...yes...soon....very soon...
PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. (June 21, 2012) -- Scientists and engineers at Picatinny Arsenal are busy developing a device that will shoot lightning bolts down laser beams to destroy its target. Soldiers and science fiction fans, you're welcome.
"We never got tired of the lightning bolts zapping our simulated (targets)," said George Fischer, lead scientist on the project.
The Laser-Induced Plasma Channel, or LIPC, is designed to take out targets that conduct electricity better than the air or ground that surrounds them. How did the scientists harness the seemingly random path made by lightning bolts and how does a laser help? To understand how the technology, it helps to get a brief background on physics.
"Light travels more slowly in gases and solids than it does in a vacuum," explained Fischer. "We typically think of the speed of light in each material as constant. There is, however, a very small additional intensity-dependent factor to its speed. In air, this factor is positive, so light slows down by a tiny fraction when the light is more intense."
"If a laser puts out a pulse with modest energy, but the time is incredibly tiny, the power can be huge," Fischer continued. "During the duration of the laser pulse, it can be putting out more power than a large city needs, but the pulse only lasts for two-trillionths of a second."
Why is this important?
"For very powerful and high intensity laser pulses, the air can act like a lens, keeping the light in a small-diameter filament," said Fischer. "We use an ultra-short-pulse laser of modest energy to make a laser beam so intense that it focuses on itself in air and stays focused in a filament."
To put the energy output in perspective, a big filament light bulb uses 100 watts. The optical amplifier output is 50 billion watts of optical power, Fischer said.
"If a laser beam is intense enough, its electro-magnetic field is strong enough to rip electrons off of air molecules, creating plasma," said Fischer. "This plasma is located along the path of the laser beam, so we can direct it wherever we want by moving a mirror."
"Air is composed of neutral molecules and is an insulator," Fischer said. When lightning from a thunderstorm leaps from cloud to ground, it behaves just as any other sources of electrical energy and follows the path of least resistance.
"The plasma channel conducts electricity way better than un-ionized air, so if we set up the laser so that the filament comes near a high voltage source, the electrical energy will travel down the filament," Fischer elaborated.
A target, an enemy vehicle or even some types of unexploded ordnance, would be a better conductor than the ground it sits on. Since the voltage drop across the target would be the same as the voltage drop across the same distance of ground, current flows through the target. In the case of unexploded ordnance, it would detonate, explained Fischer.
Even though the physics behind the project is sound, the technical challenges were many, Fischer recalled.
"If the light focuses in air, there is certainly the danger that it will focus in a glass lens, or in other parts of the laser amplifier system, destroying it," Fischer said. "We needed to lower the intensity in the optical amplifier and keep it low until we wanted the light to self-focus in air.
Other challenges included synchronizing the laser with the high voltage, ruggedizing the device to survive under the extreme environmental conditions of an operational environment, and powering the system for extended periods of time.
"There are a number of high-tech components that need to run continuously," said Fischer.
But despite the challenges, the project has made notable progress in recent months.
"Definitely our last week of testing in January 2012 was a highlight," said Tom Shadis, project officer on the program. "We had a well thought-out test plan and our ARDEC and contractor team worked together tirelessly and efficiently over long hours to work through the entire plan.
"The excellent results certainly added to the excitement and camaraderie," added Fischer.
As development continues, Shadis said that those involved with the project never lose sight of the importance of their work.
"We were all proud to be serving our warfighters and can picture the LIPC system saving U.S. lives," Fischer said.
http://www.army.mil/article/82262/
More Good News About The 'Scientific Accident That May Change The World'
by Chris Clarke
on February 21, 2013 2:51 PM
Graphene supercapacitors | Photo: UCLA
That battery life video that had gone viral due to a recent post on UpWorthy (and which we told you about Tuesday) now has an update. We told you that researchers at Ric Kamen's lab at UCLA had found a way to make a non-toxic, highly efficient energy storage medium out of pure carbon using absurdly simple technology. Today, we can report that the same team may well have found a way to make that process scale up to mass-production levels.
Explained: Understanding Distributed Generation
The recap: Graphene, a very simple carbon polymer, can be used as the basic component of a "supercapacitor" -- an electrical power storage device that charges far more rapidly than chemical batteries. Unlike other supercapacitors, though, graphene's structure also offers a high "energy density," -- it can hold a lot of electrons, meaning that it could conceivably rival or outperform batteries in the amount of charge it can hold. Kaner Lab researcher Maher El-Kady found a way to create sheets of graphene a single carbon atom thick by covering a plastic surface with graphite oxide solution and bombarding it with precisely controlled laser light.
English translation: He painted a DVD with a liquid carbon solution and stuck it into a standard-issue DVD burner.
The result: Absurdly cheap graphene sheets one atom thick, which held a surprising amount of charge without further modification.
That work was reported a year ago; we mentioned it due to the video virally making the rounds this week. Late Tuesday, UCLA announced that El-Kady and Kaner have a new article in press, in the upcoming issue of Nature Communications, describing a method by which El-Kady's earlier, slightly homebrewed fabricating process shown in the video can be made more efficient, raising the possibility of mass production. As the authors say in their article abstract,
More than 100 micro-supercapacitors can be produced on a single disc in 30 min or less.
El-Kady and Kaner found a way to embed small electrodes within each graphene unit, and place the whole thing on a flexible substrate that allows the supercapacitor to be bent. The team is already claiming energy density comparable to existing thin-film lithium ion batteries.
In the video we shared Tuesday, Kaner says that this technology, if it pans out, offers possibilities like a smart phone getting a full day's charge in a second or two, or an electric car reaching "full" in a minute. This week's press release from UCLA offers other intriguing possibilities:
The new micro-supercapacitors are also highly bendable and twistable, making them potentially useful as energy-storage devices in flexible electronics like roll-up displays and TVs, e-paper, and even wearable electronics. The researchers showed the utility of their new laser-scribed graphene micro-supercapacitor in an all-solid form, which would enable any new device incorporating them to be more easily shaped and flexible. The micro-supercapacitors can also be fabricated directly on a chip using the same technique, making them highly useful for integration into micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (CMOS). As they can be directly integrated on-chip, these micro-supercapacitors may help to better extract energy from solar, mechanical and thermal sources and thus make more efficient self-powered systems. They could also be fabricated on the backside of solar cells in both portable devices and rooftop installations to store power generated during the day for use after sundown, helping to provide electricity around the clock when connection to the grid is not possible.
Kaner says that his lab is now looking for partners in industry that can help make these graphene supercapacitors on an industrial scale.
It's tempting to be cynical about the possibility of a magic bullet energy storage solution; such a breakthrough could solve any number of problems from annoying dead smart phones to two-hour charge times for electric cars to an inefficient power distribution grid, and it's easy to really want this kind of thing to be true. Plenty of seemingly promising technical innovations in the last few years haven't lived up to their hopeful hype. There's always the chance that further study will reveal a fatal flaw in graphene supercapacitor technology. But for the time being, ReWire officially has its hopes up, at least a little.
http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/science/more-good-news-on-those-carbon-supercapacitors.html
/wires butterknife to buttergun
Level well my lads then could steel
COPENHAGEN, Denmark
nah
1 guy in 1 million owns guns
then he loans them out
....wtf up with Greenland? is the King of Denmark using its harsh climate to train Sardaukar?
Kemp many would mock your pictures of world tyrants as somehow propping up gun control.
Those same people will declare calmly that there are no such thing as absolute rights.
Gorby must be a lonely drunk these days
"hmpph...these bitches...these decadent bitches....we...we coulda gone for it...awww God Almighty we coulda gone for it"
I call on all patriotic Frenchmen to burn tires in the streets!!
...bon!
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Yell
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.