Scratch

16Skittles wrote:

jackrulez wrote:

The concept of printing microchips and such sounds kind of far-fetched to me; I imagine that instead, you'd go to a phone (or whatever) store, purchase the internal components (battery, screen, et cetra), and then plug your own materials (or theirs for a fee) into the 3D printer and print the rest of the phone with your own modifications.

most current 3D printers can only print ABS plastic, but there isn't any reason why it wouldn't also be possible to print out copper for wires and other materials in the future.

Actually the most current 3D printers can print ABS, nylon, ceramic, gypsum, sandstone, stainless steel, silver and gold. Also in my eyes, technology advances are a bad thing because think about it, if you get a really good computor ( or any electronic device),you would spend all of your time playing that, and you wouldn't get enough physical activity or any other healthy stuff, and you might go blind because of looking at the screen so much.

Last edited by owlman (2012-08-20 00:29:29)

owlman wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

jackrulez wrote:

The concept of printing microchips and such sounds kind of far-fetched to me; I imagine that instead, you'd go to a phone (or whatever) store, purchase the internal components (battery, screen, et cetra), and then plug your own materials (or theirs for a fee) into the 3D printer and print the rest of the phone with your own modifications.

most current 3D printers can only print ABS plastic, but there isn't any reason why it wouldn't also be possible to print out copper for wires and other materials in the future.

Actually the most current 3D printers can print ABS, nylon, ceramic, gypsum, sandstone, stainless steel, silver and gold. Also in my eyes, technology advances are a bad thing because think about it, if you get a really good computor ( or any electronic device),you would spend all of your time playing that, and you wouldn't get enough physical activity or any other healthy stuff, and you might go blind because of looking at the screen so much.

>> Is on computer and iPad at least 5 hours per day
>> still plays hockey and baseball
>> Like a boss

owlman wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

jackrulez wrote:

The concept of printing microchips and such sounds kind of far-fetched to me; I imagine that instead, you'd go to a phone (or whatever) store, purchase the internal components (battery, screen, et cetra), and then plug your own materials (or theirs for a fee) into the 3D printer and print the rest of the phone with your own modifications.

most current 3D printers can only print ABS plastic, but there isn't any reason why it wouldn't also be possible to print out copper for wires and other materials in the future.

Actually the most current 3D printers can print ABS, nylon, ceramic, gypsum, sandstone, stainless steel, silver and gold. Also in my eyes, technology advances are a bad thing because think about it, if you get a really good computor ( or any electronic device),you would spend all of your time playing that, and you wouldn't get enough physical activity or any other healthy stuff, and you might go blind because of looking at the screen so much.

Modern screens aren't damaging at all to people's eyes. That's just a common (and annoying) misconception. Of course, there's still the problem of computers and TVs decreasing exercise, as you said.

Though actually, I must admit, I only know this is true for TV screens. I'm not entirely sure if computer screens are also harmless, but I would presume so. I'll check.

One thing I see potential for is the implementation of glass screens, this will allow people to use technology everywhere they go without taking their devices with them and connecting them to things.

I just watched a short video about the effects of the internet on the environment, and it was just sad. All the data centers in the world that store websites account for more than 2% of  the USA's electricity. And they need special cooling systems that take ALOT of energy. A data center takes more than 50% more energy to maintain than an office building of the same size.

owlman wrote:

I just watched a short video about the effects of the internet on the environment, and it was just sad. All the data centers in the world that store websites account for more than 2% of  the USA's electricity. And they need special cooling systems that take ALOT of energy. A data center takes more than 50% more energy to maintain than an office building of the same size.

Could you give a link to the video?

owlman wrote:

videogame9 wrote:

owlman wrote:

I just watched a short video about the effects of the internet on the environment, and it was just sad. All the data centers in the world that store websites account for more than 2% of  the USA's electricity. And they need special cooling systems that take ALOT of energy. A data center takes more than 50% more energy to maintain than an office building of the same size.

Could you give a link to the video?

Sure, here it is:
http://reels.creativecow.net/film/the-i … nvironment

if what that video says is true then we should put the internet on the moon

777w wrote:

owlman wrote:

videogame9 wrote:

Could you give a link to the video?

Sure, here it is:
http://reels.creativecow.net/film/the-i … nvironment

if what that video says is true then we should put the internet on the moon

The Martians host their servers there!

luiysia wrote:

calebxy wrote:

owlman wrote:

Actually the most current 3D printers can print ABS, nylon, ceramic, gypsum, sandstone, stainless steel, silver and gold. Also in my eyes, technology advances are a bad thing because think about it, if you get a really good computor ( or any electronic device),you would spend all of your time playing that, and you wouldn't get enough physical activity or any other healthy stuff, and you might go blind because of looking at the screen so much.

Modern screens aren't damaging at all to people's eyes. That's just a common (and annoying) misconception. Of course, there's still the problem of computers and TVs decreasing exercise, as you said.

Though actually, I must admit, I only know this is true for TV screens. I'm not entirely sure if computer screens are also harmless, but I would presume so. I'll check.

Actually, computer screens do tire out your eyes, according to this Googled article. It has to do with the way pixels work compared to real things and other electronics stuff I didn't completely understand. But let's face it, if you ignore headaches, letters on the screen running together, back pain and eventual blindness (because I don't think you'd be playing your new game and then BAM you're blind) without going to a doctor, ever, just for the sake of going on a computer, then there are probably addictive substances embedded into the surface of the keys/screen.

Perhaps I'm wrong then. The article I read was talking about TV screens, so I presumed the same would apply to computer screens as well.

It looks epic. 

Actuly, nuculear power is one of the worst forms of energy. It is neither safe nor clean. Well, at least that's what Greenpeace said.

People fear Nuclear because of the big stories. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and most recently the Fukushima incident. However, it is important to remember that nuclear energy is young: just about 50 years old. We are still learning how to control it, and most of the current reactors are still ones that were built in the 50's and 60's. Coal on the other hand, has been used for centuries as a source of heating, and more expansively beginning in the industrial revolution. It emits awful poisonous smoke into the air, and can have horrible effects on cities. We use tons of it, and we will eventually run out.

The main  danger of nuclear power is not a mushroom cloud, rather a leak. Nothing is being detonated within the reactors, and the weapons-grade uranium isotope u-235 makes up less than 5% of the uranium used. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90% u-235) Instead the danger is a meltdown - literally when temperatures get so hot that they can actually melt the concrete enclosure and releasing radioactive gasses into the air. Under proper conditions, these events don't happen. In the case of Chernobyl, an experimental procedure caused the disaster, and in Fukushima it was the Tsunami wiping out its cooling systems, the backups to the cooling systems, etc.

The benefits extremely outweigh the risks. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute,

A single uranium fuel pellet the size of a fingertip contains as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil.

Do we need to develop nuclear energy systems to make them safer? Yes. Is nuclear energy a viable option to replace harmful coal, oil, and natural gas? Yes.

Of course eventually we will need to develop the even more powerful nuclear fusion (like stars), but currently that is beyond our scientific reach.

jji7skyline wrote:

Well, if they used something like plutonium instead of uranium, it would be much safer, but they don't. Why? Because using uranium creates a by-product that is useful for making nuclear weapons. Nuclear is just a no-no for me. Much rather use old-fashioned oils and gases until they run out, then start using sustainable sources like sun, wind, tidal and geothermal.

What makes plutonium safer? Plutonium actually is a byproduct of u-238 reactions, and is used more often than uranium for nuclear weapons. Spent fuel rods, while radioactive, can be safely sealed away to ensure they do not harm humans.

Edit: Also I support wind/solar/tidal/geothermal, (I live in Iowa, with plenty of wind turbines in the fields) but the current infrastructure is not yet ready for enough of those generating stations to replace fossil fuels.

Last edited by 16Skittles (2012-09-12 20:41:27)