/sci/ - Science & Math

because radiation

copper is expensive

why not just use solar panels

>>3043308

loss of energy

bulky

>>3043302
use steel.

>>3043296
>beam down microwave
Stopped reading there. You are aware of the ridiculously high cost to put shit in orbit, right?

>>3043308
solar panels aren't effective

>>3043314

spaceelevator.jpg

it will pay of within a year

>>3043327
>replaces one pipe dream with another

>>3043314
>high cost to put shit in orbit
Stopped reading there. You are aware of the ridiculously payback, right?

Parabolic disk was here.

oil is a faggot.

>>3043342
There's this thing called "activation cost". If putting up your shit is many times the gross industrial output of the world, it doesn't matter what the payback is.

>>3043344
>putting up your shit is many times the gross industrial output of the world

Yeah, but no.

>>3043348
Well, the proverbial prove me wrong. Citations please. Citations for the cost to first build all of the required shit, then the cost to put it in to space, and all of the calculations showing that the stuff we put into space will actually provide us enough power, taking into account energy lost from distance and atmosphere.

>>3043342
Yes, the payback would be ridiculous.

>>3043353
>implying I didn't just walk into this thread to annoy you

That said, I am assured that space solar is feasible in the long term, though I haven't actually read anything about it. We're happy to fly satellites into orbits which do nothing but beam Sky to the world, so I really doubt the cost of installation is all that much. I would have thought the real cost is making the satellites durable for long periods in space without maintenances.

>>3043363
This is a pipedream. I once calculated the rough area of Texas that would need to be covered in solar panels to power the world, and it was like half of Texas. (Please correct me. I'm basically pulling this out of my ass and from memory.)

I'm currently wondering how much energy is lost from the atmosphere, and how much less solar panel we'll need because of that.

Still, we're talking about a fuckton lot of solar panels, and that shit is not cheap to put into orbit. We have hundreds, maybe thousands (??), of communication satellites in orbit. That's vastly different than the shit you're talking about. It has to be millions, or even trillions, of equivalents put into orbit.

If we were serious about this, we'd be going liquid salt thorium reactor anyway.

>>3043363
This post just gave me cancer
Do you have any idea how much satelites cost?
Do you have any idea how much power object the size of a satelite genrates?
I will guess that you don't know this.

>>3043387
The fuck is your point son?

>>3043401

No I don;t. I came into this thread to troll Scientist. I just keep on hearing that space solar is technically feasible. As for satellites being expensive - why are GPSs so cheap? You can't explain that.

>>3043401
Problem is not the durability, it's the costs.
Problems with durability only ads to that.
Even small satelites are hugely expencive, to make enough to power earth, the costs would literally be astronomical.
There is not enough money on earth to pay for that project, just saying.

This will hapen someday, but that day will be 200-300 years at least. One thing is sure, there is not a single one of us who will see that day.

How large exactly are we talking here? Dozens of square meters or even square kilometers? Also, how would the power be transferred back to earth?

>>3043416
implying that if it came down to the earth ending or us launching the satellite, cost would be taken into consideration.

>implying there really is such a thing as energy problems

Nope, just capitalism.

>>3043627
ohboyherewegoagain.png

>>3043627
This. Also

>Implying there is a food shortage

Oh captialism

>implying there is space to be explored

nope, just capitalism

>>3043627
>baww capitalism
So you admit you are a double digit IQ poorfag.

>implying africa even exists
nope, just capitalism.

>>3043627

> implying energy problems are not worse in communist/socialist countries

>>3043633

Food shortages are most common in communist/socialist countries.

Also:

> implying there really is such a thing as evil

Nope, just capitalism.

How was that?

>>Market economy populated by worker cooperatives

>>business finally listens to the community they're located in

>>consumer goods still get produced at competitive prices

>>no more sweatshops

>>no more exploitation

>>no state tyranny

>>best of socialism and liberalism combined

Why aren't we doing this again?

>>3043633
there are food shortages in certain parts of the world; whether due to drought, poor infrastructure or what have you. There aren't many capitalist countries (none that I can think of it fact) with food shortages.

>>3043381
>cover half the area of Texas in solar panels

Hell, just cover all of it in solar panels. Nothing of value would be lost. Downside to doing this is the requisite superconducting power grid and battery system of some sort to make a central generation point feasible for a worldwide grid.

>>3043988
because humans

geothermal energy master race reporting in

http://masarang.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=38&lang=e
n

>>3043988
But then I'll never be a billionaire

if you're rich enough as a nation (i.e. can produce any amount of energy you might need to use) you can always just produce artificial growing environments; light, heat, cool, water, etc. you can control all of that if you have enough energy to do so.

so really, addressing the issue of generating a shitload of power on the cheap would also go a very long way to solving world hunger.

which actually isn't that much of an issue anyway since there are now more overweight people than starving people. it's really more of a distribution problem and has been for a while.

but yes, energy solves everything.

>>3043971
>implying that energy industries in capitalist nations are not proped up by socialist policies


dohohoho somebody doesnt have any idea how the real world works!

Ignore rhetoric, read bills. Learn about reality.

>>3044146

> implying government saying only we can run A means a non-socialist company could not run it

>>3043314

People like you are why space exploration has stagnated. How about we spend the money to figure out how to bring down those costs.

>>3043408 I just keep on hearing that space solar is technically feasible

Yeah, probably from dumbturdfaes spamming his shit

>>3044187 implying people aren't trying to figure out how to make it cheaper

>>3043988
Why are you and other advocates starting worker cooperatives. They are not against the law. Just start one already and quit your whining.

>>3044208
* not starting

>>3043416

They are subsidized, and rarely are held responsible for taxes. Its either socialist or criminal you can decide

>>3043988
I dunno, there have a been a variety of successful models, and its become a trend in South America and which has been fairly successful. But then again for every successful business run like this their are probably a few that fail, but thats business in general

>>3044225

> south america successful

Haha. I guess if you consider no free speech, no free press, and no general Liberty as success.

>>3044237

>All effects of US foreign policy that keeps "capitalism" running

>>3044250

>>3044250

Yes, 'merica forces South American countries to regulate speech and press.

If you don't come back, that would be smart.

>>3044278

You don't know your history very well. It's a pretty regular occurrence that the US overthrows democratically elected leaders and replaces them with dictators, in that region.

>>3044292

seconded.

not just south america, pretty much anywhere else their interests lie. it might not just be confined to america tho. any major power in history would have done the same.

>>3044292

> implying they are not all dictators
> implying democratically elected rulers are suddenly not dictators
> implying dictator has any reference to how you came into power
> implying a dictator is simply not a one man ruled country
> implying you are not a silly communist/socialist

>>3044300

So Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and the Empire of Japan were all placed into power because of evil capitalism?

None of those countries allow free speech or free press.

>>3044300
But USA has been doing actually good things for the world as many people in USA believe in freedom and USA exceptionalism.

Sometimes people like Allende are claimed to be 'democratically elected' although this is far from the truth. Allende won by a slight margin in a three way race, was supported and aided by KGB and went on to blatantly ignore the laws in his actions.

Was that what you meant?

>>3044313
>But USA has been doing actually good things for the world as many people in USA believe in freedom and USA exceptionalism.

lolwat? nice doublespeak

not really an isolated incident i'm talking about. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

>>3044309
>>3044309

i didn't notice the capitalist remark the anon was replying to. i was just saying that any major power would want to keep the affairs of the lands that concern them and their interests firmly in their control, be that by direct intervention, crippling their economy till they see the light or engineering a shift of power into hands that are more favorable to them and would enact policies which support their goals. i don't think this course of action is restricted strictly to capitalism.

>>3044324
>has trouble understanding how global politics work

A country must protect it's interests within the world at large, lest it compromise it's security and it's place within the larger global community. A country that does not do everything within it's power to guarantee it's continued survival is bound to collapse.

>>3044328

I do agree that a country will be crippled if actual capitalism is not embraced.

>>3044331

Well, then you believe something which is demonstrably false

>>3044337

>>3044337

In what way?

inb4 you cannot explain it

>>3044330
>>3044330

I never claimed anything against this. I was just pointing out it's total bullshit to blame socialism in south america for instability and lack of human rights, since most of that is due to the US destroying government that looks like >>3043988

You can argue that we had to wreck their shit to save ourselves. ok

>>3044341

pic related. these countries aren't capitalist

communism can never work because humans are inherently selfish and greedy. It comes down to survival of the fittest in all aspects of our modern world. Survival of the fittest in civilised society comes down to :
1) ability to learn and acheive education standards to earn enough money to support yourself/family
2) ability to procreate and continue bloodline
3) ability to produce offspring capable of supporting themselves/family.

communism works in THEORY, but when it comes down to it, human nature is the only reason it fails. We cannot change our nature, nor can we change the fact that if it comes down to surviving or sharing, sorry bro, this shit is mine.

>>3044324
So you got to laugh out loud. It's healthy. The neutrality of this article is disputed for good reasons as it applies so many double standards.

There are no angels so don't go prosecuting USA for every minor possible misinterpretation while giving so called democratically elected leaders like Allende or Arbenz a very wide leeway.

Your article even paints activities in enslaved Eastern Europe as operations against will of the people.

If you go with broad strokes do it all the way. USA gave the world West Germany, Italy, Austria and South-Korea. Soviets gave the world East-Germany with it's wall, Romania, Czechoslovakia and North-Korea.

Do you really want to claim that USA is not the good guy here?

>>3044347
be that as it may, the US is in an economic slump and still has the world's largest GDP
also
>Japan
>Not Capitalist

>>3044351

Are you retarded? Do you think I'm pro USSR?

>>3044354
Japan has one of the smallest rich-poor divides in the world...

>>3044350

nice middle school education you got thur

>>3043381
>>size of texas
Bullshit. Pic related. Also one can't be a Kardashev type one civilization with thorium reactors. Only so much thorium we can extract after all.

In February of 1996, the space shuttle Columbia tried to generate electricity by setting out a satellite on a tether of nomex, surrounded by coiled copper wire, surrounded by a protective kevlar coating. It did generate quite a bit of electricity, before some space junk broke the tether.

It is hard as fuck to get any solid information on this mission, though, as some UFOs were picked up on film shot by the Columbia crew. Now, searches about the mission return mostly ufo conspiracy websites.

>>3044359
that has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism implies that the means of production are both privately owned and operated for profit. Anything else is just coincidence

>>3044366

socialism is defined by economic equality...

>>3044347

> a picture

Let me see how they rank this.

>>3044369
no...socialism is defined by public (or common) ownership of the means of production. If you're going to argue against capitalism, at least get you're shit straight.

>>3043314
Are you aware of the cost savings that would result if we built the solar panels in space from lunar regolith?

>>3044373

it's a collection from various sources obviously. google isn't so hard to use

>>3044355
>Are you retarded?
no.

>Do you think I'm pro USSR?
I think you are misguided, overly critical of USA and taking many half truths, lies and distortions to the truth too seriously. The problem with south-american 'socialists' was never anything about worker co-operatives. These are allowed everywhere in the world. The problem was with their destruction of freedom and disregarding rule of law.

Voters views swing one and other way, but the trouble with these rulers is that once they got some power they abused it even illegally to make the vote, that might have given them a majority the last free vote the people in this country are able to take.

>>3044369

lol

There cannot be economic "equality."

Socialism is based upon the hope that equality can exist if only the state owns everything and gives it out to everyone "equally."

>>3044375

So a utopia?

>>3044380

I knew you could not give them to me.

>>3044383
Not necessarily the "state." Look up Socialist Anarchism. Socialism simply means that the means of production are owned by the people.

>>3044375
>>3044383

sorry, when people don't know the difference between socialism and communism, i have nothing left to say. enjoy whatever class you were born in :)

>>3044383
>Socialism is based upon the hope that equality can exist if only the state owns everything and gives it out to everyone "equally."

No it isn't.

>>3044385

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prison+population+by+nation

Maybe you can do the others?

>>3044365
>It is hard as fuck to get any solid information on this mission, though, as some UFOs were picked up on film shot by the Columbia crew. Now, searches about the mission return mostly ufo conspiracy websites.

sure thing crackhead, real hard to find any info.

http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/liftoff/tether.html

>ufos

lol sure thing bro keep sucking on that glass dick

>>3044400
A mention in a teacher's aid on magnetism isn't really the quality of reporting I was looking for, but thanks anyway.

>>3044392
You called it socialism, right here:
>>3044369

if you want to argue the merits of communism we can do that too.

>>3044395

uhh, yes it is. Isn't it?

>>3044390

To get what you want you would need to regulate and punish. That just so happens to be the definition of a state. If not, it is a utopia and thereby not possible.

>>3044392

Theft if labor is theft of labor is theft of labor. You would need to be a simple fuck to imply there is something more important to differentiate them from each other.

>>3044399

Not sure why it is better to have less people in prison. Just remove all prisons if you want that.

>>3043296
this is why:
>>3043301
>>3043302
>>3043308
>>3043310
>>3043312
>>3043314

the cost of microwave power would be enourmous and where would the energy come from? Solar panels? If that's the case, why not just put solar panels on earth instead of wasting energy converting it into microwaves?

>>3044423
>Not sure why it is better to have less people in prison.

If people have economic opportunity and feel hopeful about their future, they generally don't commit crimes. Also, the number of imprisoned people in a country says something about that country's crime rate, which says something about how safe it is to live there.

That would seem to be common sense, wouldn't it?

>>3044392
>call it socialism
>get told
>LOL U GAIS I WUS TALKING ABOUT COMMUNISM

what a fucking chump. GTFO my /sci/ and never return

>>3044436

> implying how you are raised has nothing to do with committing crimes
> implying rich people do not commit crimes

Depending on your location, the US is like every other country. Very dangerous in some locations, and not so dangerous in others.

I bet they do not include property crimes in "dangerous" places to live charts.

>>3044436
I can't comment on the rest of the world, but in the US being a rich criminal helps because you can afford a good lawyer.

Actually higher crime rate is not the main reason for higher incarceration rate in USA. The main reason is that USA has longer sentences.

Crime and incarceration are real problems for USA. Of course they are real problems in other countries too ... in many countries the prisons are full so people complain about light sentences and criminals getting a free pass too often.

Article related:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

I don't understand how someone can be a capitalist. You actually believe inequality is a good thing? Socialist countries have more class mobility.

>>3044461

I can't believe some people are not capitalists. You actually think equality can happen? Everyone is poor in socialist countries,

>>3044461
What socialist countries? Cuba and Laos? Or former socialist countries, such as USSR?

>>3044474

Scandinavia

>>3044472

>don't read article
>try for a clever retort
>don't address main issue

> mfw people think capitalism and criminal justice system is a good thing

Socialism is shit too.We need technocracy up in this bitch.

>>3044474
He probably means social democracies - i.e. western europe. Lol at American's believing in the American dream. "Anyone can become rich and successful if they try hard" etc etc. No, mostly americans either are born poor and die poor, or are born rich and die rich - your country sucks for social mobility.

>>3044472
you assume that capitalism and communism are the only possiblities.


I am against both capitalism and communism. Capitalism is only slightly less retarded than communism. Equality is retarded. I would want a resource based technocracy.

both capitalism and communism are incentive sytems. and both are extremely sub-optimal incentive systems for dealing with human nature. I would use the neuroscience of motivation to set up an incentive system which maximized productivity of everyone, while still allowing free time.

basically you would assign values to everything such as free time, and doing what you want, and even happiness, as well as values to technological progress ect, and then have a huge supercomputer calculate what the optimal way to achieve maximum sustainable progress and value was.

it would not end up being people working 18 hours a day because that would not be sustainable and would lead to a revolt, but whatever it would be it would be optimal

>>3044495
Having a computer able to effectively allocate resources is even less realistic at the moment than having the state or the market allocate all resources.

Fuck it's embarrasing whenever /sci/ tries to talk about economics.

>>3044487
>Implying technocracy isn't just socialism dressed up with a fancy cover of "well now we've got robots and shit!"

>>3044495
>basically you would assign values to everything such as free time, and doing what you want, and even happiness, as well as values to technological progress ect, and then have a huge supercomputer calculate what the optimal way to achieve maximum sustainable progress and value was.
So basically the government pulls values out of it's ass to replace the actual values individuals hold, and then runs the economy based on this?

You just described socialism. Running the arbitrary shit that comes from central planners through a computer doesn't make them any less arbitrary.

>>3044481
>>3044488
But Scandinavian countries are far from socialist. They are free market countries. Socialism means 0% of free enterprise. These countries have big governments, but still having around 50% of free enterprise.

As a contrast percentage difference of water between tap water and piss is about 5%.

Scandinavian countries are just rich and homogeneous. They stayed out of European wars and had hundreds of years to build the base for their wealth. Their big government style is relatively new ... imposed on already rich countries and it actually has not made them better off. Have a look at their tax levels before the 70s - rather much like USA.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ltjib1m1uf3pf_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&
amp;met_y=totaltax_t1&hl=en&dl=en#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=totaltax_t1
&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country_group:non-oecd&idim=cou
ntry:DNK:NOR:SWE:USA&hl=en&dl=en

>>3044495

You are making several wrong assumptions.

All societies are some combination of capitalism and socialism. Any time a government taxes you and spends your taxes on something that benefits society that is a socialist act. Any time a individual gains or trades capital (which is any private property or money) that is a capitalist act.

All people are arguing about is what mix/proportions of socialism and capitalism to use.

Most people agree that a nations basic infrastructure should be provide for by socialism but people disagree what infrastructure is necessary.

Most people agree that the police should be paid for by the state but only some people agree that healthcare or education should be provided for.

Capitalism is essential because owning private property is a basic human need. You wouldn't want to share your clothing or bedroom with other people would you? even communist societies only limited capitalism they didn't try and eliminate it.

>>3044507

>Socialism means 0% of free enterprise

That's only what socialism means in the US. In the rest of the world socialism isn't a dirty work. Most of western Europe is socialist and capitalist at the same time.

In fact the US government is also socialist it just pretends it isn't because it fucked itself over with coldwar rhetoric and now cannot use the English language properly.

>>3044461

What's your point?

You could just as easily say that America should become a monarchy because the countries with the least income inequality are monarchies.

I'd prefer to be dirt poor with inequal income rather than be ruled by a king. At least the rich people in America earned their money.

>>3044518
Here we are disagreeing.

I am quite sure the key is to measure it by the amount of free enterprise and free market. Scandinavians are at the edge of sustainability. They do have some parts excluded from the free market, that has low impact ... such as natural monopolies so their free market percentage is actually bigger. Let me explain this - in natural monopolies the parts and only these parts, where competition is unfeasible, should be excluded from the free market and regulated. For example a power company should not be able to own power transmission lines and all power companies wanting to compete should be provided the equal reasonable access to these lines.

This is a measure to make competition feasible - i.e to prevent situations, where power company is selling expensive electricity and saying if competitors want to offer it cheaper they should build their alternative power lines.

I am saying the Scandinavia is at the edge of sustainability, because it is getting much of its innovation from USA. The main problem with TRULY SOCIALIST countries was that there were no small businesses driving the innovation. Are personal computers, film strips, automated washing machines or betamax tapes a good idea. These things were worked out in USA and countries following behind had a luxury of copying what worked and discarding what didn't.

This kind of innovation would not happen if there weren't a global innovation leader, such as USA.

----
I have been referred as American for many times in this thread. To avoid further confusion - I am an European.

>>3044486

> doesnt read anything
> hear someone say marx is for equality
> emotionally like the idea of equality
> marxist from that day forward
> still never read

>>3044495

A capitalist is any person that owns capital. Capital is the ability to produce a product or perform a service. So capitalist has nothing to do with capitalism as it is referred to right now

>>3044518

> implying a mixed economy means socialist

LOL

>>3044671

> implying a mixed economy means capitalist

>>3044686

> implying a capitalist economy as you define it is not mixed

>>3044691

>implying that you didn't just imply that

>>3044696

> implying capitalist economies are part socialist in reality

>>3044671

Oh look an interesting thread.

Oh look a tripfag.

Oh look the threat turns to shit.

>>3044701

> oh look, a statist

>>3044363

Holy shit that's amazing!

Why don't we just get crackin on it now?

Wind energy and tidal energy could also be used.

It costs money though -.-

>>3045016

That's the problem with capitalism. We have the resources, we have the technology, we don't do it because of "money". It's a fucking mental block we created to limit ourselves.

Nice job corporatism, hindering society. Go fuck yourself.

>>3045019
Well it seems that in general we're procrastinators and want what we can get now, now. Shit really doesn't get done until it HAS to be. Let's just pray that that time isn't too late