Maybe some good news for a change!
It would appear researchers at MIT have been using as their model of inspiration what plants do naturally in the way of photosynthesis to create energy.
By using photo voltaic solar panels homeowners could power their homes by day, while also drawing energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen for storage. At night, the stored hydrogen and oxygen could be recombined creating a 'fuel cell' chamber to generate power while the solar panels are inactive.
So the question now is, can we expect a practical scaling up for mass distribution anytime soon?
See and read more here!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Wishful thinking or I'm Almost Willing to try Anything Else
It's very obvious for anyone who wishes to see we have many, many problems to overcome in this world.
Of course, it takes an unbiased individual without an ax to grind, no hidden agenda, or financial motivation to see the problems correctly. It also takes such an individual to see what solutions need to be taken.
Where is such a person?
How would we recognize such a person?
Is it even intelligent to leave it up to a single person? What if something happened to that person? Would chaos follow?
I'm thinking of all the hoop-la, and media fervor over Obama of course.
Why does the media think its appropriate to build up a single person to a demigod status? Remember how the traditional Japanese culture used to build up their Emperor to godlike status too?
It's a romantic idealism at best - a Hollywood notion. The idea of a lone gunman with a good heart but few words riding into to town to save the day. It's the same idea of beating your breast patriotically in praise of a genuine anti-hero to act like Robin Hood and save the masses (us) from the cruelty of others.
I could tell you who I think the Sheriff of Nottingham is, but I'm sure you already know.
Solution:
Instead, why not develop a presidential system that relies on having a dozen members as we have in public courtroom juries?
Abolish the idea of having a single American president to lead the country in favor of twelve intelligent, charitable individuals?
I can almost hear you gasp as you struggle for breath at the thought!
What? Get rid of our president? Change the American system of government from allowing all the power to be held by one individual?
Think about it.
The opposite is true. The way our system stands now is based on archaic ideas of a single tribal chief to lead his people. It's a crap shoot whether he's a good leader or a poor one. If he's a poor one, then everyone else pays the price for his mistakes, or moral corruption. What we have now has proven how undemocratic our system can be favoring instead dictatorship-like tendencies as we have now.
But get rid of our president? Whoa! How could we do that? You ask.
Would the constitution need to be amended for this to take place?
Yes, by all means, amend the Constitution! It obviously needs it as it already seems to be so amendable by others ( as already done by the same dictator I mentioned above).
After all, the legal arena sees fit to charge a twelve person jury with imminent life and death decisions of accused murder suspects, and many important landmark decisions that affect our everyday lives.
How do we know this would actually change anything? You ask
That's a good question.
I want to say: Anything has gotta be better than what we have now. But, a more reasonable answer is: Having twelve members immediately provides asking for a consensus to important issues. A 'Chamber of Sober Thought,' if you will.
This actually makes more sense. Include a dozen individuals as an internal set of checks and balances who all share equal presidential duties.
Yes - this may appear on the outset to be a 'whacky', or radical idea to some people, but all one has to do is open your eyes to see what we are doing in this world under the guise of 'democracy.'
Power divided in the hands of twelve, might be better than power in the hands of one. What are the chances we'd end up with 12 crazy people instead of just one?
Of course, it takes an unbiased individual without an ax to grind, no hidden agenda, or financial motivation to see the problems correctly. It also takes such an individual to see what solutions need to be taken.
Where is such a person?
How would we recognize such a person?
Is it even intelligent to leave it up to a single person? What if something happened to that person? Would chaos follow?
I'm thinking of all the hoop-la, and media fervor over Obama of course.
Why does the media think its appropriate to build up a single person to a demigod status? Remember how the traditional Japanese culture used to build up their Emperor to godlike status too?
It's a romantic idealism at best - a Hollywood notion. The idea of a lone gunman with a good heart but few words riding into to town to save the day. It's the same idea of beating your breast patriotically in praise of a genuine anti-hero to act like Robin Hood and save the masses (us) from the cruelty of others.
I could tell you who I think the Sheriff of Nottingham is, but I'm sure you already know.
Solution:
Instead, why not develop a presidential system that relies on having a dozen members as we have in public courtroom juries?
Abolish the idea of having a single American president to lead the country in favor of twelve intelligent, charitable individuals?
I can almost hear you gasp as you struggle for breath at the thought!
What? Get rid of our president? Change the American system of government from allowing all the power to be held by one individual?
Think about it.
The opposite is true. The way our system stands now is based on archaic ideas of a single tribal chief to lead his people. It's a crap shoot whether he's a good leader or a poor one. If he's a poor one, then everyone else pays the price for his mistakes, or moral corruption. What we have now has proven how undemocratic our system can be favoring instead dictatorship-like tendencies as we have now.
But get rid of our president? Whoa! How could we do that? You ask.
Would the constitution need to be amended for this to take place?
Yes, by all means, amend the Constitution! It obviously needs it as it already seems to be so amendable by others ( as already done by the same dictator I mentioned above).
After all, the legal arena sees fit to charge a twelve person jury with imminent life and death decisions of accused murder suspects, and many important landmark decisions that affect our everyday lives.
How do we know this would actually change anything? You ask
That's a good question.
I want to say: Anything has gotta be better than what we have now. But, a more reasonable answer is: Having twelve members immediately provides asking for a consensus to important issues. A 'Chamber of Sober Thought,' if you will.
This actually makes more sense. Include a dozen individuals as an internal set of checks and balances who all share equal presidential duties.
Yes - this may appear on the outset to be a 'whacky', or radical idea to some people, but all one has to do is open your eyes to see what we are doing in this world under the guise of 'democracy.'
Power divided in the hands of twelve, might be better than power in the hands of one. What are the chances we'd end up with 12 crazy people instead of just one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)