Social Question

lilikoi's avatar

What do you think the next big trend will be?

Asked by lilikoi (10064points) January 16th, 2010

Economic trend, that is. Renewable energy and “sustainability” have been major buzz words for a while. How long do you think the obsession with the environment will last? What do you think is next?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

71 Answers

denidowi's avatar

Gays wanting “equal rights”, as they call them, on taking children into their ‘family’: that is, if the state allows Gay marriages!!
Probably the main reason to hold gay marriage ‘acceptance’ in check! ... so as not to destroy the lives and limit the lives and potential of young babies who come into our world, whom our society owes a debt to give them at least the best and nicest background we can.

Sebulba's avatar

The next economic trend will be buying more Apple products
After this and having no brain at all our heads will eventually explode

Saturated_Brain's avatar

@denidowi In all earnesty, can you please prove why letting gays raise children is harmful? Or.. giving gays “equal rights”, as they’re called?

To answer the question, the way I see it, the next big trend will come in the most unexpected of directions (at least, that’s how most of us will see it until it overwhelms us [come on, how many of you expected Facebook to be the new in thing?]) My guess though is that it’ll come in the way of the internet.

lilikoi's avatar

@Saturated_Brain There is nothing wrong w/ gay people raising children. And frankly I think the government meddling in marriages is an antiquated practice. Separation of church and state already! There is no reason that the government needs to issue marriage licenses or have anything to do with marriages. There is no reason why married people should be treated by the law as a single entity rather than two individuals. And no, I am not gay. /rant

Well, I wasn’t that shocked by Facebook taking off given that MySpace was previously quite popular. On the other hand, I was surprised when companies, government agencies, and “old” people got interested. That was definitely unexpected. I still don’t understand how that happened…

Austinlad's avatar


BoBo1946's avatar

@Saturated_Brain thank you..looked at several and this was the best one!

denidowi's avatar

@Saturated_Brain – I’m just glad the majority have the Unsaturated brain and power to know without being taken through, like children, the clear reasons why we should not as a society throw babies to the wolves of Gayism itself.
I am not saying there aren’t good people who are Gay;
I AM saying that more of them, however, have less integrity than Mr Straight – %-wise.
I AM also saying that babies at least deserve to start on an even [even] ‘Best’ keel, and inherit a set of parents of each sex: then they are less likely to miss out, or to have ‘sex’ thrown at them far too early in life, causing disturbed and troubled children in our societies.
Let gayism be a choice people make as adults, not one thrust upon them as innocents.

BoBo1946's avatar – 10 hours ago -

Here is real good site for young people.

lilikoi's avatar

omg since when is being gay a conscious choice for anyone?

Saturated_Brain's avatar


I was prepared to listen to your views and see why you believe what you believe. However, I now think that this is a pretty useless endeavour since you’ve gone out of your way to insult me when you could’ve simply answered me. Furthermore, you’ve simply side-stepped my question and reasserted your point with different words, perhaps hoping that I’d take that to be an explanation. This leads me to believe that you:

a. Either do not have any true logical reasons to believe in what you believe, or
b. Are afraid to state your reasons for whatever personal reasons

Feel free to prove me wrong, just don’t start immaturely throwing insults.

Of course, I must know this: How old are you, by the way?

Edit: Please answer me in PM, because I don’t want to derail this question any more than it already has been

john65pennington's avatar

Trends in America are unpredictable. its like if you save your clothes and don’t gain weight, in five years those clothes will again be popular. a good example are mens ties. for five years skinny ties were the trend, then the wide ties took over. if you have ever noticed, history repeats itself over and over. my guess on the next trend will be some form of modified ground transportation. i believe the combustion engine is on its way out. it will be hard for man to give up his love for the gasoline engine, but oil supplies are eventually going to end and another mode of suitable transportation will emerge. i do not believe battery-operated cars are the answer.

lilikoi's avatar

History certainly does repeat itself. I have books that talk about solar power, green building, etc etc etc from decades ago. I’m not convinced the technology is there for the combustion engine to become obsolete in the near future. Oil is a finite resource, but I don’t think we will be all out anytime soon. Until oil gets really expensive – and stays there – I don’t see cars being powered in any new way. If battery technology improves significantly, it could be revolutionary. I think someone is eventually going to figure out the storage problem. EVs would be great because there would be no noise and no exhaust. A silent freeway w/ clean air would be remarkable.

gemiwing's avatar

I think we’ll see new models stabilize for music/motion picture/art media. They’re already in motion and I think they will start to cement in the next ten years.

Zen_Again's avatar

I think it’s time everyone cotributes in some way to global warming – enough with all the fossil fuels. It should be a crime to drive gas guzzlers and not hybrids – which pay for themselves in the long run whilst helping the ozone layer (relatively speaking – of course bikes are better).

Solar energy – and someone should make panels flexible and smaller already – using amplification like in magnifying glasses – so small apartments can use them as their water heaters – while using electricity in the wionter when necessary. And then there’s the wind power…

Recycling: make it a dollar a bottle and all of a sudden you’ll see clean beaches and people waiting in line to return them.

Plastics: they’re a little more expensive – but even disposable plates and bowls come in either environmentally friendly or eben edible variety.

Plankton. Algae, Soon we’ll all be eating it – and pumping it into our cars instead of gas.

Trend? Nope. Future.

Jude's avatar

@denidowi time to head back into cave.

Owl's avatar

I believe it is unconscionable for a driver to do anything in a car but drive, and I’m predicting that new technologies and tougher laws—plus, hopefully, public demand—will make it increasingly harder to use cell phones and texting devices while driving.

hungryhungryhortence's avatar

In home web cams as a standard feature.
Neighborhood CPR certification drives.
Microchipping elders with GPS you track on your phone/computer.
Appliances that need a fingerprint in order to be turned on.
Programmable in-home water rationing for bathing/laundering/flushing.
GPS in cars to give a running total of visits to fast food restaurants.

jerv's avatar

@denidowi Trust me, if you knew my father or my mother-in-law, you would quickly see that the “traditional” nuclear family can often cause far more harm to a child than alternatives like single-parenthood or having two dads. I thought that having loving parents who can provide was more important than what was between their legs or how many there are.

I think that the next big thing will be learning how to do more with less. For a great many Americans, we don’t have the $$$$$$ we once did (though I am happy to see that Wall Street executives have their bonuses back up to pre-Recession levels) and with no sign of getting better soon, people are going to learn how to cut back and still enjoy life instead of digging themselves deeper holes by living an unsustainable lifestyle. It’s possible to be frugal and not really sacrifice too much, and I think that people will finally figure that out.

tinyfaery's avatar

@denidowi Why don’t you inform yourself.

jerv's avatar

Time to end the thread-jacking. If we want to continue with @denidowi then let us move it here .

Sebulba's avatar

Are you people crazy? If gay people can born their own children then it means “it is natural for them to have children”. They can marry each other and have as much sex as they want but is it natural to raise children? No it is not and that is why they can’t have their own

denidowi's avatar

@Sebulba – Thanks for the very honest practical assessment :)
The other obvious prob here for most seems that they are not ‘inside’ with their own little ones – or didn’t have enough children to truly respect them.
Surely it is only propriety to not force sexual overtones or the influence of lewid, unnatural sex habits onto infants and little ones – innocents – who have not even met puberty in their own lives.
If a person wants to choose Gayness in their life, let him/her do so when they are old enough to understand and appreciate what it is they are entering into. It should certainly not be Imposed at ANY age, and it is truly a Despicable, abominable act at infancy’.

denidowi's avatar

@jerv – your ‘go Here” option does not include the answer we are giving for halting same-sex marriage at allLOL!
MY concern is for the next generation.
It is also the villifying of young innocents assumed into the Gay marital ‘relationship’.
BTW, talking of financial costs, the figure only 4 years ago for the breakdown of same-sex relationships was [on average] a breakdown after 3 months [Of course, this was not necessarily married Gays – just “committed” live-ins].
So stability might be another consideration and cost to the tax-payer via property settlements, etc. as well as to any children that may ensue.

Were you also aware that studies done about 5+ years ago showed that most long-term Gays did not live long past their 40’s??

Exactly what is it we are trying to bring into our Western cultures??

jerv's avatar

@denidowi I figured that such discussion would be better done in a thread regarding the opposition of gay marriage than in a question about “the next big trend” but if you disagree then so be it, though your credibility will take a huge hit for missing the obvious.
Then again, you’ve stated enough untruths in that last post alone that I may be the only one here that takes you halfway seriously any more anyways, and in fact is part of the reason that support for same-sex marriage is slowly growing; people don’t want to be associated with fallacious logic based on questionable/disproven “facts”.
BTW, how stable are mixed-sex relationships? I know a lot of people breaking up, but I haven’t seen too many straight couples stay together as long as most of the gay couples I’ve known. Point not made.
And I know too many homosexuals over 50 to believe that other “fact” either, unless you are looking at a particular region where they are executed/lynched by that age or that have a short life expectancy anyways regardless of sexual orientation.
I know you are a traditional type of guy and very old-school in your thinking, but you have to realize that this is the 21st century, not the 18th. Enough has changed that what worked before would not work nowadays anyways, and that is assuming that things worked “back then” when women were property in the first place.

Saturated_Brain's avatar

@denidowi You insult me, then refuse to PM me even after I civilly extended the option to you. Fine, I took it that you didn’t want to pursue the issue further. However, you then come back here, moving on to insult many others here by claiming that we lack a sense of social propriety.

How about we here give you one more chance to prove the logic behind all your assertions. But you go to this question instead. I’ll even announce it there that you’re going to reply to my questions.

1. You claim that “it is only propriety to not force sexual overtones or the influence of lewid, unnatural sex habits onto infants and little ones – innocents – who have not even met puberty in their own lives.”

Firstly, you assume that raising children in a family with two homosexual parents means that they’re automatically influenced by sexual overtones which are lewd and unnatural. Why? Why are they not exposed to sexual overtones when they have heterosexual parents? Even more basically, you have to prove that homosexuality is unnatural.

2. “If a person wants to choose Gayness in their life, let him/her do so when they are old enough to understand and appreciate what it is they are entering into.”

WHOA THERE. You’re saying that homosexuality is a choice?! If you sincerely believe that, you are very misinformed. Nobody chooses homosexuality in the same way nobody chooses their favourite colour. But since I’m asking questions, why do you believe it’s a choice?

3. “the figure only 4 years ago for the breakdown of same-sex relationships was [on average] a breakdown after 3 months [Of course, this was not necessarily married Gays – just “committed” live-ins]”

• Prove it
• 41% of all marriages in America end in divorce. What’s your point?
• Furthemore, since heterosexuals place such great importance on marriage, which the majority of homosexuals still do not have the privilege of, why then is this rate so high?

4. “Were you also aware that studies done about 5+ years ago showed that most long-term Gays did not live long past their 40’s??”

Please quote these studies of yours. If it’s the 1994 one by Paul Cameron, then that’s a flawed study. Why? Because “he and his co-authors calculated that figure by checking urban gay newspapers for obituaries and news stories about deaths. But as Walter Olson pointed out in Slate last December, this method produces an unrepresentative sample that includes only those who die; gay men of the same generation who live longer aren’t in the sample at all! The sample also is biased toward urban gays who have AIDS and have come out of the closet. (source)” Here’s another more comprehensive source proving why that study is flawed.

Furthermore, even if you were to take the latest 1997 study in Vancouver you would find that your numbers are vastly exaggerated and that the team which led the research themselves show that the results of their data is outdated in this letter (although to be fair I can find barely any other sources to support the reliability of this letter’s existence).


All in all, I think that you have quite a lot to answer to. And as long as you even attempt to answer one of these questions I’ve posed to you, I’ll be happy to progress in further discussion.

If on the other hand, you choose not to meet me on these grounds, I will dismiss you as a troll (as many here probably will do/have already done) and be done with you.

Your move.

denidowi's avatar

It belongs no more there than here @jerv
In fact that discussion is just one of these all-out philosophical-ideological flings, with no point leading anywhere.
This topic is concerned also with social-economic outcomes and more action-oriented by nature of the question asked… and I don’t like to just waste time with mud-slingers, I have a life to live and accomplish things – Good things. Also Doc Ock is there… so you have 2 troublemakers pretending to be sheep in the one thread.
@jerv – I’ll leave you with them.

As for your claim of “where it belongs”:
By whose definition, Jerv??
Yours?? You’re merely a ‘new-comer’ here… and you did not place the Q… and as you are fully aware from past discussions and from your reading of “Australia Imploded!”, Gayism and feminism are the greatest economic trend-causers [won’t say what kind of trends they have been heaping upon us!!] ... but they are perhaps, the most influential trend-makers of the past 40 yearsLOL!!!!
I believe this has been placed under “trends” and “economics“LOL!
Infact, I would be so bold as to venture to say that in this generation, there is no more apt subject to discuss in terms of ‘world ecomomics’ and ‘trends’.
What a Mess – both economically and socially – has been produced as a result of their blowouts!!
So This, my Friend, is the PERFECT place for such discussion

tinyfaery's avatar

face palm

bhec10's avatar

I really hope this will be it. These 3 technologies are amazing!

jerv's avatar

@tinyfaery I was thinking more along the lines of this

jerv's avatar

@denidowi I was under the impression that the explosion of connectivity through the popularity of the Internet and social networks coupled with the ubiquity of cell-phones and other forms of technology were bigger impacts on our lives than who does what with whom in the privacy of their own homes.
I fail to see how something that has been going on for decades or centuries is “The next big thing”; it’s old news! Therefore I feel that your rants about homosexuality are more relevant to a discussion of same-sex marriage than about something that it has no relationship to. It’s the same logic I use when I decide to talk about Linux in a discussion about computers instead of one regarding cars or cooking.
But if that makes no sense to you then c’est la vie.

augustlan's avatar

@bvdshec17 Awesome! Thanks for actually answering the question in such a great way. :)

Saturated_Brain's avatar

Honestly, if you really want to know what the next big trend could be, it’s been visualised by this guy who has ALREADY invented a mind-blowing technology which integrates technology (such as the internet) seamlessly with the real world. Check out this video. It’s around thirteen minutes, but you’ll be amazed into silence or wild cheering.

Saturated_Brain's avatar

Edit: Deleted by me. Not very relevant. Repetition.

denidowi's avatar

Eventually, the Magnetic generator will have power to perform miracles in our lives – with very little if any need for re-charge. – almost the perfect “renewable” ‘energy’
That is capable of making a marvellous difference all around.
A friend and I tried to work a similar idea about 20 years back, but not enough resources or infra-structure

augustlan's avatar

@Saturated_Brain That is so effing cool!

BoBo1946's avatar

thought was a better question than given credit!

jerv's avatar

I kind of like the thought of “Sixth Sense” technology myself. Ever since @engineeristerminatorisWOLV turned me onto it, I’ve been waiting for it to develop.

Of course, it’s open-source and we all know how MS is about implementing new stuff (slow and quirky) so this means that Linux will make a big surge in the computer market.

Zen_Again's avatar

@Saturated_Brain I have to disagree with you slightly; I believe that being Homosexual is not a choice (who’d in their right mind choose it?) but your example is strange – we do choose our favourite colour – well, those who aren’t colour-blind like me, that is.

lloydbird's avatar

@Saturated_Brain Agreeing with @augustlan – Astounding!!!!
But that building needs to be placed upon a co-operative foundation.
Then there is the incentive. Widely spread.

And it is coming.

Just around the corner now.

denidowi's avatar

@Zen_Again – Exactly, ‘Who in their right mind would choose it’ ... which is exactly why we certainly would not deliberately place babies and young children in the ‘marital’ hands of homosexual homes.
Thank you very much
That was what I was getting at… the inference reads that once you accept single-sexed marriages, you open the NEXT DOOR…
“Well, if we are to have equal rights, we should be allowed to have children”
That is the next TOO-DANGEROUS step for me.
We have readily witnessed over decades, the step-by-step intrusion that one concession leads to the next as one compromise also leads to the next…
and so forth.

tinyfaery's avatar

@denidowi Click this link and read the article. Read it. Do not skim and then decide it is wrong.

jerv's avatar

@denidowi Just so you know, it’s already been proven that the “Slippery Slope” argument is a logical fallacy.
Supporting evidence, Exhibit A
Supporting evidence, Exhibit B
Supporting evidence, Exhibit C

Response moderated
tinyfaery's avatar


denidowi's avatar

@tinyfaery – well I don’t know why you gave me that link… it is just another obscure pick from the millions of newspapers worldwideLOL!
AND as far as I’m concerned, even within that ‘report’, shall we call it, there are neg outcomes which the paper itself, which is no doubt, skewed in itself, is ‘evidencing’ as ‘positive’ ... ???!
The nurses-doctors claim, I would say, is counter-productive re their argumentLOL!!
What you’re saying to me is that it is a good thing for children to view a sexless societyLOL!!!
Which could actually be argued oppositely – that living in a lesbian home tends to deflate sensitivity to one’s ‘sexuality’.
Such blatant lesbian exposure de-sensitizes.
So arguments on that point can be counter-claimed.

Also, the professor has had outside time to put his claims on the studies together…
I’d dare say that if the opposition was given a week with his ‘case’, they’d be back to show where he was in errLOL!!!

You cannot take one biased person’s claims and run by them until they are properly examined, and both sides of the ‘evidence’ tossed around

tinyfaery's avatar

Nevermind. You can’t even follow directions.

denidowi's avatar

@jerv – Man, they were extremely poor “arguments” ... er… ‘examples’, shall we call them
I mean… that argument was extremely stupidLOL!!

Wot sheer nonsense, Jerv… that people would claim, for instance, that “if they banned pornography books, the next thing you know they’ll ban ALL books”
I mena… it just shows how wide of the mark these stupid ‘pro researchers’ are that we tend to use as Benchmarkers today!!
Wot idiots DO those Unis turn out??!!
Er… sorry… i spent 9 years with unis… er perhaps I’m a fool
Perhaps we should then rest my case with myself as exampleLOL!!??

Ha HaHa!!
Oh Jerv… it’s all a Laugh really… isn’t it???

GingerMinx's avatar

@denidowi You are so willing to pick everyones links to shreds and complain they do not provide evidence of their stand and yet even though you were asked nicely for your evidence you have done nothing to provide any and just continue to give your opinions as if they were facts, along with insulting everyone. Perhaps you should rest your case with yourself.

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Stick to the topic, please. Take the argument elsewhere. All future off-topic remarks will be removed.

denidowi's avatar

@GingerMinx – well, as you can see, I did just thatLOL!
But Fluther wants us to get off this topic, so as no link is perceived there, we will have to get back to those Fantastic Magnetically charged Generators I mentioned earlier, but which seemed a topic totally ignored!!
Yet these generators potentially mean the end of greenhouse emissions for a large amount of our power supply, and no one has taken up the mantle on that suggested “trend” of the future… they seemed too preoccupied with what they could get their comps and electronics to doLOL!
I mean, that’s great… but not one response to this HUGE breakthrough on Magnetic generators??

jerv's avatar

Personally, I am hoping for some sort of real breakthrough in power storage/generation myself. Not just an evolution mind you, but something fundamentally ground-breaking. Something that will allow a Tesla Model S to retain it’s 300-mile range with a battery or other power source comparable in size to a gas tank as opposed to the massive pack it currently requires.

It would also help portable computing since laptops sacrifice a lot of performance partly so that they can have decent battery life. A laptop with as much computing/graphics power as the average desktop would draw the average laptop battery dead in an hour or so, but if we had something with higher energy density that cost little enough to be commercially viable, the world would change in all sorts of ways.

In fact, power supply is the major reason we don’t have laser weapons yet. There is one that is mounted on a tank, but it requires a second tank just for the generator jsut to have enough power to fire.

Just look at how even having electricity in the first plave changes society. Now imagine if that electricity was even more portable than some piddling Lithium-ion battery that self-destructs in under three years.

denidowi's avatar

@jerv – Have you googled magnetic Generators yet??
You will see what I mean

mattbrowne's avatar

Renewable energy and sustainability isn’t a temporary hype. It’s the key to our planet’s future.

jerv's avatar

@denidowi Sorry, but the new name threw me. Once I saw exactly what was being talked about, I recognized them and had a laugh. I mean, energy is drawn out of them the same way as you would with a flywheel, and flywheels do slow down, especially when energy is taken out.

BoBo1946's avatar

Women will be more oversexed than men! loll..we wish!

partyparty's avatar

@BoBo1946 But we ARE already… men just haven’t found the right button to press LOL !!

BoBo1946's avatar

@partyparty loll <looking for the button>

denidowi's avatar

Go on @jerv – Can you explain more to me on this??
I believe the claim is that these can go on indefinately, nevertheless – supplying enough energy for moderate house use.
It seems to me that it would prove an absolutely MAJOR breakthrough – except for that required to the making of huge magnets to drive through energy being drawn in the home, we would not have to use up coal, oil, petrol products, gases, etc – other greeenhouses
You know what I mean?? ... or have I misunderstood the picture on this breakthrough?

jerv's avatar

@denidowi Well, for one thing, any time you have something mechanical moving, there is friction, just as any time you have elctricity flowing, there is resistance. Now, electrical resistance is zero in superconductors, but at present superconductors only work at extremely low temperatures; were talking cold enough to amputate limbs if you touch them. That also means that you have to put more energy into cooling them that you get in return, so, for the moment, they are not feasible. One thing that would be a breakthrough is room-temperature superconducters, but we’re a few hundred degrees short of that.

As for the mechanical friction, that makes it impossible to create a true perpetual motion device. The closest we can come is a flywheel suspended by magnetic fields in a total vacuum thus eliminating any decelerative forces acting on it. However, the instant you hook a generator to it, it will slow down, lose energy, and eventually stop entirely.

You can’t get something for nothing so the only way to get energy out of a system is to put energy into it. Now, you can harness energy that would otherwise be wasted (geothermal, tidal, wind, solar….) but it’s a zero-sum game and you have to put inefficiency losses (friction, resistance, eptcetera) on the output side of the equation.

denidowi's avatar

Yes, @jerv – I understand the perpetual motion problem IF you are merely trying to use the “Propulsive Force” mechanism… a friend and I tried to work with some magnets and flux there about 20 years ago, but have yo checked these new devices out on Youtube??
They show you how to make your own.
They do not work by utilizing “force” as most of us may have been tempted to think [or try, in our case] ... they use the natural electrical field created via the magnets themselves.
There are some very large generators in Europe which are being brought into use using this mechanism… but I am no expert in electrical fields, etc… so I cannot comment other than to say they are making them.
There was a 6 minute industrial presentation on youtube I watched last week

jerv's avatar

@denidowi Yes, and I stand by my assertions. If there is a moving magnet field that can be tapped and harnessed then it’s a different ball-game. To create an electric field, you need magnetism, a conductor, and relative motion between the two. Conversely, to make a motor you need a conductor and some electricity to create a magnetic field that leads to relative motion.
The bitch of it is that generators become motors and vice-versa (to an extent) because the coils of conductors are moving through a magnetic field and thus creating Counter-electromotive force (CEMF) or an opposing voltage depending on which way you are going with it.

denidowi's avatar

@jerv – Did you find that Youtube presentation??

jerv's avatar

@denidowi Yes, I found a coule and they gave me a chuckle. Best case scenario is that there is enough force out of a something the size of a milk crate to drive a generator big enough for a flashlight bulb.
As for the one that claimed 1250KW, trust me when I say that if that were true then, given the gauge of wires that they were using, the thing would burn out in less than the blink of an eye unless they have managed to get room-temperature superconductors as well, and I think that if that had happened, it’d be in the news by now. I mean, just a circuit breaker big enough to handle that sort of juice is about the size/weight of the engine block of my car!

Even if you could get the motor end of it to work, the output force required to drive a generator is pretty sizable, so unless/until I see a road-worthy car capable of highway speeds using one of them as the motive source, I can’t place any real faith in them. I’ll stick with old-fashioned flywheels; a proven technology that has been demonstrated repeatedly.

denidowi's avatar

Yes; I wouldn’t see enough power, given the weight of resistance, to be able to drive any vehicle.
I thought they meant menial house power – a few lights, fridge, TV that sort of thing
Thanks anyway Jerv – I’d probably need to see it on hands. Ifind it hard to follow prac things merely via words… my mother always said, “Do I have to draw you a diagram??!“LOL

jerv's avatar

@denidowi A fridge draws a lot of power. Now, if you have CFL lighting and LCD TV/computer monitors, you might be able to get away with some small alternative/off-grid power source, but the smallest generator setup I’ve seen capable of fulfilling the power requirements of the average US household for even a few hours is still pretty sizable and depends on the high energy density of fossil fuels of some form. Alternatively, you could go with a few square meters of solar cells and a huge set of storage batteries hooked to an inverter.

What I want to see is something better; something current technology cannot even dream of. Something with great power density that doesn’t require special care (like cryogenic cooling for superconductors) or cost two arms, a leg, and a testicle (like certain types of battery)..

But seeing how the R/C cars I used to use as a kid merely 20 years ago went from 1200mAH packs to 2700mAH five years later to >4000mAH on the same sized pack now, I think we can do it. I still get a chuckle out of the fact that the AA cells in my digital camera hold twice the juice of the sub-C cells in my old Kyosho Javelin.

I still see some trends in the direction of cheap and/or portable power, but those magnetic generators aren’t it.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther