You read that right and it is not some mumbo jumbo science talk.
It is very well documented that if we could use all the energy we get from the Sun we would have zero need of coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind, geo-thermal or any other form of energy.
Unfortunately this world runs on money for EVERYTHING and science is often lacking in such funds and because of this solar energy is not where it could be if leaders of the world had made it a priority as soon a we started to research solar technology.
But never let anyone state that we can not live on solar energy alone, with the proper resources committed to the Sun's great power this planet could have limitless energy.
Imagine everywhere in the world getting all their energy needs for a year with just a few hours of captivating the Sun's rays.
Most people would ask why this is not already the case since we have solar panels?
The main obstacle is the following:
Our solar panels do a poor job of captivating the energy it receives from the sun, this is one of the reasons they are so big. Science is "slowly" designing solar panels that can capture more energy that is projected on them, achieving 100% captivity being the goal. This is the key, if panels could capture 100% solar energy (last time I check it was less than 10%) then panels would be very small and they would not have to be big to power our infrastructure, forget about your roof being full of solar panels with this type of technology, they will be up to 10 times smaller than what you see now and do a better job! Powering your home, car and other utilities with energy to spare.
I just hope to see this in my lifetime!
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Why Canada needs an elected Senate.
Canada is supposed to be a democratic country but we have a few issues that does not make Canada a democracy, one of them is that senators are simply appointed by the prime minister yet these senators are making decisions for the people of Canada at the highest level.
We need to have them elected. You can argue any way you want but the fact is that IS democratic.
Some people have stated that we need it as is because at times politicians need to make though decisions that are unpopular to certain lobby groups that support them financially during elections and if they were elected those senators would think more about getting re-elected than doing what is right for the country... REALLY? And instead of finding a solution to that we simply leave it as is? (meaning UN-democratic).
I will give you the solution to that one... make it so they can not run for more than two terms, this way you can not be a senator for more than 8 years. This is something I discussed in a previous post regarding limited terms for politicians.
At least senators on their last term might not be afraid to make though decisions that are good for the country even if it would mean a backlash from certain interested groups.
We need to have them elected. You can argue any way you want but the fact is that IS democratic.
Some people have stated that we need it as is because at times politicians need to make though decisions that are unpopular to certain lobby groups that support them financially during elections and if they were elected those senators would think more about getting re-elected than doing what is right for the country... REALLY? And instead of finding a solution to that we simply leave it as is? (meaning UN-democratic).
I will give you the solution to that one... make it so they can not run for more than two terms, this way you can not be a senator for more than 8 years. This is something I discussed in a previous post regarding limited terms for politicians.
At least senators on their last term might not be afraid to make though decisions that are good for the country even if it would mean a backlash from certain interested groups.
Why humans will achieve immortality in the future.
That statement seems like total science fiction does it not? Well that is not the case as we have it in existance in todays world. One type of Jellyfish can live forever, it regenerates it aging cells continually basically being organically immortal (meaning it can not die of old age). It is the only known creature able to do so.
One day we will crack the code of how it manages to do this and be able to apply it to other lifeforms, from then on people will be able to avoid death from old age. It could also mean being able to regenerate cells that are being attacked by degenerative diseases (cancer, multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, alzheimer, etc...). So as long a person avoids unfortunate accidents you could live for 1000s of years if not more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula
One day we will crack the code of how it manages to do this and be able to apply it to other lifeforms, from then on people will be able to avoid death from old age. It could also mean being able to regenerate cells that are being attacked by degenerative diseases (cancer, multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, alzheimer, etc...). So as long a person avoids unfortunate accidents you could live for 1000s of years if not more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Prez Obama achknowledges us non-believers (A FIRST!)
This for me is the greatest moment in the speech.
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/atheistnews/forum/topics/obama-acknowledges-1
I give him credit for not saying ATHEISTS, that is just ONE category of non-believers and I am not part of that, I do not associate myself with any group.
I know the video links from an atheist website, but that is the shortest video I found via google search.
As humanity evolves I think non-believers will keep growing in numbers as they are now but at an exponational rate. North America has about 21% who openely state they are non-believers, I think that in 20 years that number will easily have doubled or even passed the 50% mark.
I consider this a good thing for I believe that for man to survive religions must ceast to exists.
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/atheistnews/forum/topics/obama-acknowledges-1
I give him credit for not saying ATHEISTS, that is just ONE category of non-believers and I am not part of that, I do not associate myself with any group.
I know the video links from an atheist website, but that is the shortest video I found via google search.
As humanity evolves I think non-believers will keep growing in numbers as they are now but at an exponational rate. North America has about 21% who openely state they are non-believers, I think that in 20 years that number will easily have doubled or even passed the 50% mark.
I consider this a good thing for I believe that for man to survive religions must ceast to exists.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Canada is not a democracy until we have popular representation.
The current system of voting we have in Canada is just horrendous, it is NOT democratic and every vote DOES NOT count. Every vote MUST count in a democracy and this can only be achieved by some form of popular representation.
A good example of why our current system is undemocratic is the past election results:
2008 Federal elections results .
We can clearly see that the Bloc Québécois received 8% of the popular vote but ended up with 16% of the seats, the NDP got 18% of the popular vote and that gave them just 12% of the seats, the Conservatives finished with 38% but somehow that gave them 46% of the seats and finally the green party received 7% of the popular vote and that gave them ZERO seats.
Another great example was the 3 straight majority governments the liberals formed during the Jean Chretien era... not ONCE did they have more than 51% of the popular vote. What that says is that the majority of Canadians did not want them in power but they still ended with total control of the country without having to deal with other parties.
Popular representation would simply force parties to work together AND work harder to try and win majorities. It would give a chance to small parties to have a voice which means the PEOPLE who voted for them would have a voice.
And finally... I hate that every federal & Provincial elections I ever voted in my vote was USELESS, I could have just not voted and it would have made no difference because in our current system if the party you voted for does not win in your riding then your vote is good for nothing except statistics for the media.
If we had a form of popular representation EVERY vote would count, THAT is power to the people.
A good example of why our current system is undemocratic is the past election results:
2008 Federal elections results .
We can clearly see that the Bloc Québécois received 8% of the popular vote but ended up with 16% of the seats, the NDP got 18% of the popular vote and that gave them just 12% of the seats, the Conservatives finished with 38% but somehow that gave them 46% of the seats and finally the green party received 7% of the popular vote and that gave them ZERO seats.
Another great example was the 3 straight majority governments the liberals formed during the Jean Chretien era... not ONCE did they have more than 51% of the popular vote. What that says is that the majority of Canadians did not want them in power but they still ended with total control of the country without having to deal with other parties.
Popular representation would simply force parties to work together AND work harder to try and win majorities. It would give a chance to small parties to have a voice which means the PEOPLE who voted for them would have a voice.
And finally... I hate that every federal & Provincial elections I ever voted in my vote was USELESS, I could have just not voted and it would have made no difference because in our current system if the party you voted for does not win in your riding then your vote is good for nothing except statistics for the media.
If we had a form of popular representation EVERY vote would count, THAT is power to the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)