McCain's proposal for a new "car battery" strikes me as... poorly worded. I mean, I know exactly what he means and it's a laudable goal, but it really reminds me of when your parents want you to do something to their computer, and they get every term wrong but you still understand what they want?

"I want a new car battery so my car can go further without gas!"

"I want you to open my interwebs and post a firewall blog so I don't get web viruses."

I'm not sure McCain's proposal is even warranted. From what I understand, new Li-ion batteries* that are suitable for plug-in hybrids are already well in the pipe. They're already being used in cordless power tools, and they largely just need to scale up production to satisfy the demands for automotive customers.

*Note: these batteries have a slightly worse power/weight ratio than what you have in your laptop or cell phone, but also have virtually no explosion potential.

EponymousCowHerd: I'm not sure McCain's proposal is even warranted. From what I understand, new Li-ion batteries* that are suitable for plug-in hybrids are already well in the pipe. They're already being used in cordless power tools, and they largely just need to scale up production to satisfy the demands for automotive customers.

*Note: these batteries have a slightly worse power/weight ratio than what you have in your laptop or cell phone, but also have virtually no explosion potential.

actually, li-ion tech is already be used in cars. the price is still prohibitive, but that's just a matter of time and scale.

burndtdan: actually, li-ion tech is already be used in cars. the price is still prohibitive, but that's just a matter of time and scale.

Yes, but Tesla is using laptop batteries and heavily armoring the battery compartment. It is a brute force method that will never trickle down to the mainstream. The new battery chemistries (used in DeWalt cordless tools, for instance) will be used in the Chevy Volt.

EponymousCowHerd: burndtdan: actually, li-ion tech is already be used in cars. the price is still prohibitive, but that's just a matter of time and scale.

Yes, but Tesla is using laptop batteries and heavily armoring the battery compartment. It is a brute force method that will never trickle down to the mainstream. The new battery chemistries (used in DeWalt cordless tools, for instance) will be used in the Chevy Volt.

cool

Already had the battery. It worked. So well that Big Oil had to kill it. Stop pretending we don't have the technology you fully bribed asshole.

That fark just wants ever stronger defibrillators.

GurneyHalleck: Already had the battery. It worked. So well that Big Oil had to kill it. Stop pretending we don't have the technology you fully bribed asshole.



There was no conspiracy behind the cancellation of the EV1. They simply weren't profitable, and they were destroyed after the leases were up because GM and its suppliers weren't about to keep making replacement parts for such a small number of vehicles for 10+ years (as is GM's policy).

Plus they had limited range, only two seats, and weren't well-suited to states with cold weather because of the impact it would have on their battery life.

Does McCain's new science include Striking a pose? (pops)

/have been sitting on that for a few hours, waiting for the right thread to post it to
//it's at least 5X as funny as PANCAKES!
///stolen from SA

mofomisfit:
///stolen from SA

The Colbert Report.

quizzical

Damn, I haven't watched in several weeks, apparently I should have. It's still wicked funny.

Science only works in small socialist societies with a homogenous culture. It'll never work in the US.

So if I develop a battery that will put oil companies out of business, I'm sure they would pay me more than $300m to sell it to them. And if I don't sell it to them, I'm sure my widow will.

Meh. What's really going to bake your noodle later on is, when did They® have metamaterial dielectrics with hyperpermittivity, and why didn't they choose to introduce electrostatic storage devices based on it when they could have?

As we often hear from liberals, we pay more for "worse results" when it comes to medical care. We actually have the best medical care in the world, but yes, we do pay a lot for it but let's pretend that myth is true... let's pretend that we are paying more for worse results when it comes to medical care.

We're paying more for worse results when it comes to education too, yet I don't hear liberals talking about that... Oh wait, that's because the government already runs it and has ruined it with help from teachers and teachers unions... and since liberals love government control and unions "Paying more for worse results" is fine.

Research you say? Really? Do you have any idea how much money we spend on scientific research just for disease? What a completely ignorant statement to suggest we don't spend money on research or science in this country.

Let me guess, you're going to show up and whine about stem cell research? Let me ask you a question: If it's such an AMAZING and SUPER treasure trove of medical science, why can't you get private funding for it? Or funding in other countries? Why is it that people act as if it MUST be the United States that funds it and it MUST be the federal government specifically that does so? In all my life I have never seen anything so "beneficial" that could be stopped across the entire world and in the free market simply because the federal government won't provide money for it.

Well, I actually know why it "MUST" be funded by the United States Federal Government and it has nothing to do with medical research.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer:

Science only works in small socialist societies with a homogenous culture countries where the majority of the population doesn't believe in sky wizards or consider cramming their stupid dogma down your throat as "just getting equal time" for their stupid ideas. It'll never work in the US.


FTFY

randomjsa: We actually have the best medical care in the world

By what metric?

randomjsa: We're paying more for worse results when it comes to education too,

Citation, please. SHow me where we're spending more on education, and yet getting lower results. I wouldn't be terribly surprised by such an outcome, but I'd like you to show your work.

The United States is going to find itself in a pickle when more and more technological advances come from Europe and Asia, thanks to their emphasis on math and science in the classroom. It's sad to see the nation that first put a man on the moon reduced to "teaching the controversy" in order to appease a bunch of retards.

pånkækes?

The Why Not Guy: The United States is going to find itself in a pickle when more and more technological advances come from Europe and Asia, thanks to their emphasis on math and science in the classroom. It's sad to see the nation that first put a man on the moon reduced to "teaching the controversy" in order to appease a bunch of retards.

This. Weeps.

Bag of Hammers: This. Weeps.

I'm sure we'll still lead the world in research into the prevention of hair loss and erectile dysfunction.

pancake muthafarker

The Why Not Guy: The United States is going to find itself in a pickle when more and more technological advances come from Europe and Asia, thanks to their emphasis on math and science in the classroom. It's sad to see the nation that first put a man on the moon reduced to "teaching the controversy" in order to appease a bunch of retards.

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with the "don't correct little johnny's grammar/equations/history, 'cause it makes him feel bad" mentality pervading public schools, either.

/don't play tag...someone might fall down.
//who cares if they get the right answer
///as long as they feel good about themselves.
////for the children.

to be fair, norway has a really high oil::people ratio. they can afford all kinds of things we can't.

randomjsa:

wow. who are you argueing with again?

is there really no legitimate purpose for government spending besides the army?