Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The future: in 2030.
I was at Yosemite maybe 20-25 years ago. I went back a few years ago. It is now paved flat, with multiple car parks, and you don't need to walk far from one fast food joint to another.
While this make it' accessible' to those with possible handicaps (being fat?) what have you made accessible?
More effort should be put into making the 'handicapped' not handicapped rather than making the world conform to the handicap. On a related note, several people have died on Mt. Everest.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
LOL
Perhaps they didn't reach the McDonalds on the summit in time.
I think the supervolcano under Yellowstone will have erupted before then, so you'll find pretty much nothing but lava flows, McDonald's and those electric chairs you have in the US for the near-terminally fat.
Either one of 2 things will happen in the next 30-50 years.
1) The United States of America will become the United Fatties Of America.
2) A pill or some sort of really easy to use product will come out that will take no personal effort from you, and make you lose 10 lbs a day.
3) IQ's will continue to drop, people will forget how to count, read, and speak correctly.
Hasn't #1 happened already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity..._United_States But I guess as long as we keep seeing beautiful and thin people on TV it's OK.
Oh, and here's something serious I'd like to see as soon as possible. A toilet or plumbing system that wont use drinking water to flush our ****. I don't think anything even comes close in being such a horrible and sad waste (no pun intended).
Well, that statistic goes by a false consideration of "obese". For example, I am 5'9" and 190lbs, I am not fat, but considered "overweight". Overweight should be considered by your body fat percentage along with your height and weight, not just height and weight. Also, I know plenty of people my same height, but have 20-30 lbs on me, and still are not fat but they are "overweight".
As for the toilet water.. I do not drink tap water because there is chemicals in it that I do not approve of, chlorine being one of them. If they lowered the standards I would be even more displeased because I would be showering in poop water. If they came up with a split plumbing system that divided my drinking water from my poop and shower water, I would be fine.
Really? We just got the OK from the parish to drink tap water again, like 5 months ago. They said the mecury levels from a spill that happened in the 70's were still to high for people to drink the tap water up until recently. On that note, a tab that can purify water in large volumes would be a technological advancement I'd like to see(that I forgot I take for grantit).I do not drink tap water because there is chemicals in it that I do not approve of
Vb.Net Contributions:-Here-
Game Contributions:-Here- New - 2d map creator
XNA in Vb.Net Tutorials:-Here-
Links:
LegalShield | AUP
wait, is obesity attracting the death penalty in the US now? Not before time, I say. I've heard that the obesity problem in the States is the reason magentic north and geographic north don't line up.those electric chairs you have in the US for the near-terminally fat
That's the idea and these systems already exist (it's not exactly complicated to do). The problem is there's no real motivation for builders to include them in new builds and retro-fitting them is very expensive (you have to replace the whole plumbing system) so existing home owners are unlikely to adopt them. If we want to see large scale uptake of them (and I think it would be a good thing) then government is going to need to incentivise them.If they came up with a split plumbing system that divided my drinking water from my poop and shower water, I would be fine
When one of my minions says, "Hey, he's just one guy, what can he do?" I say "This"... and shoot them.
The problem with putting your lair in a volcano is keeping your robot army from melting.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully - George Bush
Unfortunately people wont do it unless they see a direct financial benefit from it. And since water is cheap, I think my water bill is about 10% of what I pay for electricity, it might not happen soon. After a few Google searches I came upon this: http://www.innerlineplumbing.com/products/sloan-aqus/ not a bad idea. I'm not sure what the cost would be of such a system.
FD, I think that the government stepping in to get people to switch to the split system is a terrible idea. Next thing you know they'll start forcing companies to put apples in our happy meals!
Vb.Net Contributions:-Here-
Game Contributions:-Here- New - 2d map creator
XNA in Vb.Net Tutorials:-Here-
Links:
LegalShield | AUP
Just remember: The water in the tank is potable, but the water in the bowl is not.
It's a good thing to remember if you live in an area prone to being cut off from all services due to a hurricane. I remember that advice from my years in the Florida Keys.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
Why is it a terrible idea?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs
I love my freedom. When government starts imposing on such freedoms I get scared. I wouldn't mind it if studies found that flushing our poo with drinking water is hurting a person or group of people very badly and set in regulations to help the transition into making the switch.Why is it a terrible idea?
Vb.Net Contributions:-Here-
Game Contributions:-Here- New - 2d map creator
XNA in Vb.Net Tutorials:-Here-
Links:
LegalShield | AUP
Libertarian extremists live pretty dog-eat-dog and often turn into fascists. In the end they're generally taken care of one way or another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD75cLjvRwA
Well, flushing poo with one kind of water or another doesn't really make a difference to you, so you can't compare it with having apples in a happy meal. You wont see any difference one way or the other. So I don't know why you would oppose such government imposition. Do you really need studies to tell you that flushing feces with drinkable water is a waste? A billion people in the world don't have clean drinking water and we're bathing our excrements in it.
Making (forcing) us to flush with gray water doesn't bring those without clean drinking water any closer to that reality.
In addition, is flushing with clean, sanitary, water a problem? Is it a health risk? If it doesn't make one difference or another, why do it? Is there truly 'no burden' in actually converting to a dual water system? If so, why are we not doing it now? (I'm certain if we followed this argument it would eventually end in the Godwin-like Big Oil barrier).
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
Oh boy what a derail....A thread about possible shiny new tech just went down the toiletlol
Treeview with NodeAdded/NodesRemoved events | BlinkLabel control | Calculate Permutations | Object Enums | ComboBox with centered items | Create Sortable BindingList(not mine) | .Net Internals article(not mine) | Wizard Control | Understanding Multi-Threading
C++ programmers will dismiss you as a cretinous simpleton for your inability to keep track of pointers chained 6 levels deep and Java programmers will pillory you for buying into the evils of Microsoft. Meanwhile C# programmers will get paid just a little bit more than you for writing exactly the same code and VB6 programmers will continue to whitter on about "footprints". - FunkyDexter
There's just no reason to use garbage like InputBox. -jmcilhinney
Literally.Oh boy what a derail....A thread about possible shiny new tech just went down the toilet
lol literally
Treeview with NodeAdded/NodesRemoved events | BlinkLabel control | Calculate Permutations | Object Enums | ComboBox with centered items | Create Sortable BindingList(not mine) | .Net Internals article(not mine) | Wizard Control | Understanding Multi-Threading
C++ programmers will dismiss you as a cretinous simpleton for your inability to keep track of pointers chained 6 levels deep and Java programmers will pillory you for buying into the evils of Microsoft. Meanwhile C# programmers will get paid just a little bit more than you for writing exactly the same code and VB6 programmers will continue to whitter on about "footprints". - FunkyDexter
There's just no reason to use garbage like InputBox. -jmcilhinney
Well, that depends on the spectator. To some, a way to conserve clean drinking water is a big technological advancement, and to others it's the next iPhone.Oh boy what a derail....A thread about possible shiny new tech just went down the toilet
My excrement is too righteous for simple drinking water. Before I flush, I sneak into a church to kipe enough holy water for the job at hand. I then return home, fill the reservoir with the holy water, push the lever, and exclaim......well, you know the rest.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
Where did I say this should be done because flushing with clean water is unsanitary or a health risk? You're arguing with statements that I've never made.
I'm simply saying is that it's a waste of a pretty valuable resource, and that steps should be made to conserve it. I'm not advocating for a dual water system, that might in fact be the most expensive solution especially if you were to retrofit it to existing buildings.
EDIT: And you already have laws limiting the amount of water per flush to 1.6 gallons, so how would a similar (and reasonable) mandate be different? But I guess you flush twice just to spite the government.
Last edited by baja_yu; May 23rd, 2012 at 03:45 PM.
Confining your excrement to the toilet bowl and pipes is unethical. You should be advocating for more free range excrement that would be free to roam around lush grassy fields and enjoy company of other excrement thus having a rich and fulfilled life.
I never mentioned forcing, I said incentivising. That said it would, of course, be your tax dollars paying for the incentives.Making (forcing) us to flush with gray water doesn't bring those without clean drinking water any closer to that reality.
In addition, is flushing with clean, sanitary, water a problem? Is it a health risk? If it doesn't make one difference or another, why do it? Is there truly 'no burden' in actually converting to a dual water system? If so, why are we not doing it now? (I'm certain if we followed this argument it would eventually end in the Godwin-like Big Oil barrier).
Yes there is a burden in converting to a dual water system: The one time cost to set it up. The benefit will be a hugely decreased cost to deliver your water on an ongoing basis. Sanitising water has a high energy cost, both in financial and enviromental terms. I'm willing to bet you don't care about the latter but hopefully the former might get your attention. Further, we're reaching the point where sanitising water isn't producing enough volume and we're start to de-salinate sea water instead. That has a HUGE cost.
Ultimately, whether it's worth doing or not depends obn whether the benefit outweighs the cost. I'm willing to bet that the need to de-salinate will be the tipping point on that equation.
Just to clear up another miss-understanding. America adopting grey water won't directly help any children in Africa get clean drinking water. The benefit is in reduced costs and lessened enviromental impact. It could probably be argued the lessened enviromantal impact would indirectly help deliver clean water to Africa but it's almost impossible to prove.
When one of my minions says, "Hey, he's just one guy, what can he do?" I say "This"... and shoot them.
The problem with putting your lair in a volcano is keeping your robot army from melting.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully - George Bush
No, you offered no argument at all: I was trying to determine what your argument was for government intervention beyond 'it's the right thing to do, or, as you say 'it's a waste'. Therein lies the problem: you think it's a waste, i do not. Regulating waste where no harm is done (of course that is a point for debate - which funkydexter, quite rightfully brought up; that advances the discussion) is not for one person - or a majority - to make a decision over another.
And to follow through with my comments, flushing with used water will create unsanitary conditions - that is why we flush with sanitary (or rather 'clean') water.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
The problem with government incentives is that they really don't have the effect one would think - i will concede that you didn't say 'forcing' that was my word, but it ultimately is the only effective 'incentive' the government has: you have to make something an offense. The reason it has to go this far is because the cost is extortionately high.
It's also why we see 'incentive by law' applied to manufacturers and service providers. Two examples: it is not illegal to use 100W light bulbs, but is illegal for retailers to sell them; it is not illegal to flush more than 1.6 gallons, but it is to sell such flushing systems. While some regulation is of a reasonable cost, the increasing regulation, even at such reasonable costs gradually burdens the consumer. Wile some would say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the actuality is that the poor, as a group, gets larger, without any of these riches going to the rich. Their riches are maintained because the added 'cost' burdens are not an equal percentage.
We are at a point where regulation is exercised for the sake of regulation - with the associated costs - with little to no gain. To come back on-point; you cannot regulate into place technological innovations.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
It all comes down to this; My toilet starts full of clean drinkable water, when I am done with the toilet, it is not clean, but possibly drinkable in some countries. So why not just have this not clean, still drinkable in some countries, water in the toilet to begin with? Because no one wants to poop in dirty water and have it splash up on their butt, that's why!
Well me saying that I think it's a waste is an argument. So, you think that taking unclean water from the ground, or desalinating seawater, then processing it to make it clean and drinkable, pumping and delivering it to homes, then practically just dumping it into the sewer is no waste of various resources? In my opinion it's a waste comparable to putting a heater outside in the winter to make the city warmer.
Would you care to elaborate how reusing water from lets say your bathtub and using it for flushing will make the sh*t and piss unsanitary, or more unsanitary because it's not very sanitary in the first place.
Last edited by baja_yu; May 24th, 2012 at 09:34 AM.
Well, your first splash-back might be a bit cleaner, but watch out for the second one
Oh. And the water is drinkable prior to flushing. What remains in the toilet bowl after you flush and the "stuff" is gone, is nowhere near clean or safe to drink (not that anyone would do that), even though it might appear to be. So what splashes the next time isn't really doing your behind any favors and is not a replacement for actually washing your behind
Last edited by baja_yu; May 24th, 2012 at 09:42 AM.
You sparked my idea for the next new technological advancement! It will be a splashless toilet, no water but a vacuum that will have motion detection to "suck up" falling objects and will have a catch/display can in case someone drops a phone, wedding ring, etc..Well, your first splash-back might be a bit cleaner, but watch out for the second one
Well, if you have one of those french butt fountains, I think it is called a "bidet", you might possibly be okay.Oh. And the water is drinkable prior to flushing. What remains in the toilet bowl after you flush and the "stuff" is gone, is nowhere near clean or safe to drink (not that anyone would do that), even though it might appear to be. So what splashes the next time isn't really doing your behind any favors and is not a replacement for actually washing your behind
It isn't the actual flushing, it's the non-clean water that you have to have sitting around somewhere for hours/days/weeks.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
Most of your fixtures use traps that use that same water, though in smaller quantities, to prevent sewer odors from coming back up. But the gray water can be, and is in the few systems I saw online, filtered to a degree. I'm not a hydro engineer nor a health or an environmental expert to know all the factors that would be involved, nor am I advocating any particular system. All I said in my first post on the subject that I wish someone would come up with a solution, implying it be financially viable, environmentally friendly and sanitary. But I stand by my argument that it's a waste of resources.
Oh I DO, man, I DO!!! I'm pretty darn sure what a bear does in the woods, and I've been there more than a few times myself.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
I'm curious about that. I think I agree with you. I can see some real negatives, but I'm wondering what your thinking is on this. The reservoir water is an emergency drinking water source due to it being currently sanitary (unless you add some kind of nastiness to it). That doesn't matter to lots of places, but it was something to consider when I lived in the Florida Keys. Now, out in Idaho, we have virtually free gray water for irrigation (untreated river water). If that was used for toilet water, it would....do absolutely nothing to my water bill because I use less than the minimum amount of water so I pay a flat rate, but other than that it would be theoretically beneficial. The only issue is that the irrigation water is 'chunky style'. There is algae bits in it, which would mean that I could get plants, fungus, moose, and things, living in my reservoir unless I was flushing often.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
I wonder what they do with all that poop that gets flushed, maybe we can use it as a natural energy source!
That's not usually an issue. Perhaps you need to take a little force off those projectiles?
My usual boring signature: Nothing
Sometimes if the projectile hits a certain weight, there is no stopping it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote