Slashdot Mirror

I can't give you an answer for general tech, but medical tech would be greatly advanced by the ability to put people into suspended animation.

Basically, if the person's body isn't *operating* - needing to breathe, needing to circulate, and so on - then repairs could be done much more effectively and cheaply,

I read where gunshot victims would be suspended temporarily as an experimental method a couple of years back.

Whatever happened to that?

Perhaps a combination of sudden hypoothermia coupled with sulphur dioxide treatment or something.

Holy fuck are you utterly incapable of using an internet search engine?

Sure, most of the results are of badly executed tests - different routes, different times of day - but it didn't exactly take long to find this one:
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

and we how that levels aren't going up and down radically over centuries

Assuming that 'how' is a typo for 'know', no we don't. If global warming actually is serious it would be easier to transition away from carbon over much less than a century.

Is it serious now? Not really. January 2018 was 0.26 degrees C warmer than the average for 1979 to 2018. 0.26 degrees C is not a large number.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/la...

Actually regardless of global warming I think we'll see a transition away from carbon intensive fuels. E.g. the UK and US have both seen their carbon emissions drop as they move from coal to gas for power generation.

UK

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

The UK's carbon dioxide emissions have fallen to their lowest level since the 19th century as coal use continues to plummet, analysis suggests.

Emissions of the major greenhouse gas fell almost 6 per cent year-on-year in 2016, after the use of coal for electricity more than halved to record lows, according to the Carbon Brief website, which reports on climate science and energy policy.

The assessment suggests carbon emissions in 2016 were around 381 million tonnes, putting the UK's carbon pollution at its lowest level - apart from during coal mining disputes in the 1920s - since 1894.

Carbon emissions in 2016 are around 36 per cent below the reference year of 1990, against which legal targets to cut climate pollution are measured.

US

https://www.eia.gov/environmen...

Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions decreased by 89 million metric tons (MMmt), from 5,259 MMmt in 2015 to 5,170 MMmt in 2016. Although real gross domestic product (GDP) increased 1.5% over that period, other factors contributing to energy-related CO2 emissions more than offset the growth in GDP, leading to a 1.7% decline in energy-related CO2.

These factors include the following:

* A decline in the carbon intensity of the energy supply (CO2/British thermal units [Btu]) of 1.7%
* A 1.4% decline in energy intensity (Btu/GDP)

Combining these two factors, the overall carbon intensity of the economy (CO2/GDP) declined by 3.1%.

Emissions have declined in 6 out of the past 10 years, and energyârelated CO2 emissions in 2016 were 823 MMmt (14%) below 2005 levels.

Of course it's worth pointing out that environmentalists have opposed fracking. Are global emissions going to go into decline anytime soon? Probably not, because of China. But in the US, UK and developed world they're already falling. And over centuries it's pretty much certain that new technologies - nuclear and renewable - will produce energy is less carbon intensive ways. In fact as the UK and US example shows it's already possible to produce energy in less carbon intensive ways.

I think you were thinking of this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24987-mexican-plants-could-break-code-on-gibberish-manuscript/, which is about the drawings in the manuscript, NOT the words. I suggest you ask your doctor about age related dementia.

A 2C change over 100,000 years -- roughly normal for geologic history -- would almost certainly produce the kind of adaptation you are envisioning.

According to this article Ice Ages turn on a LOT faster than this. The article claims that it was originally thought it took a decade or two, now they have it down to a matter of months (if correct). Human-induced climate change seems to be on the order of decades.

Yeah I mean it couldn't be something like Estrogen Analogs in the water from decaying plastics could it ?

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Before someone rushes of to cure sickle-cell disease, there is a reason it exists: better protection against malaria

Batteries swell when they worn out. And they wear out faster at higher temperature.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Something like cryptocurrency mining will max out the CPU, which will draw more power which increase temperature.

Lithium ion batteries are basically consumables and need to be user replaceable. Sadly most electronics seems to be moving in the direction of non user replaceable batteries which makes it consumable too.

If it's a $20 pair of Bluetooth headphones I suppose it doesn't matter. If it's a $600 phone, I think it very much does.

It was mentioned when Mrs. Thatcher took office, yes. But no it was NOT mentioned earlier in the 70s. https://www.newscientist.com/b... No, it wasn't being talked about in scientific circles - not sure how much about climate was - but it was ALL OVER TV. Now, please consume faeces and expire. Thanks.

Probably because if they were to rewrite whatever blocks of code they needed, they would end up with the same things; file system explorer routine; file scanner, encryptor/decryptor, anti-virus detectors, user-name scanners, event handlers for file system operations.By the time an optimizing compiler is finished, it might just end up the same code anyway. Why waste time?

Not that bacteria do any different:

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

CRISPR gene editing is putting plausible biohacking on the agenda, so probably not necessary. It is only a matter of time before enhancement genes start entering our genome.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...
Paywalled but citing for source.

Not only does sleep disruption play a role in the declining mental abilities that typify Alzheimerâ(TM)s disease, but getting enough sleep is one of the most important factors determining whether you will develop the condition in the future.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

No one except you claimed that everything would die off.

FUD about climate change comes from many supposedly authoritative sources:

Stephen Hawking: Earth Could Turn Into Hothouse Planet Like Venus

NASA scientist warns of runaway global warming

Eating sushi can be fatal for dolphins

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

I'm not telling people not to learn English in some form -- but I think you understand what I am saying is that this is a language that you can [use to] express yourself to 7 billion people in the world,

Considering Google's recent offering, it would probably be even better if you can express yourself clearly and completely in your own native language.

The guy with a tiny brain shows that we don't know a lot about the mind/body connection. That this guy was able to function as a normal human being is really astonishing.

Wow... where is your evidence of this thing you refer to as "mind"? Please show peer reviewed cognitive science research the substantiates your claim. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of a "ghost in the machine". See: Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris for example.

The guy with a tiny brain shows that we don't know a lot about the mind/body connection. That this guy was able to function as a normal human being is really astonishing.

People in big European cities don't care about ... AC.

Are you sure about that? What about these people?

Ah, that's right, they don't care about anything anymore, as they're dead.

And, please, before you point out that this was so long ago, way back in 2003, and thus not relevant or important, do at least try to remember that people might want to turn the air conditioning on before the temperature gets hot enough to kill...

Nitric oxide (NO) is fine, but nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is classified as an extremely hazardous substance, and kills tens of thousands annually in the UK alone. And that's in addition to the particulates formed, which kill millions globally.

Maybe read up a bit more before waving stuff off as fake news.

no, it hasn't been debunked: https://www.newscientist.com/a...

There was absolutely no reason to withdraw from it, and some republicans are only now starting to realize this.

Paris Climate Agreement needs no renegotiation because it's non-binding, it's been criticized for asking too little too late, it was a political and diplomatic move without any negative consequences - other than being a symbolic gesture that doesn't really change much.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://www.npr.org/sections/13...

Even worse, a smart politician could use it in their favor right now. Even if the objective isn't met, it's far into the future, so he/she could just say that his/her political party did everything they could during their term to get there, but other administrations endded up not following it properly. It's the perfect excuse for a political party to return to power when things gets more dire in the future.

What happened there was the usual Trump blindness when trying to undo everything Obama did that got some attention under his administration on the premisse that everything he did was bad in some way, stupid campaign promisses filled with misinformation and vilification, plus Trump being an idiot that only listens to cospiracy theory alt-right channels.

Worst of all: if Trump just kept quiet and didn't step back from the agreement, the US would probably hit it's target anyways. Governments are not leading the way on this - the global economy is.
The economy is moving independent of governmental interference towards renewables, generating less garbage, developing electric cars, closing down fossil fuel power plants, and a bunch of other stuff. We're moving away from fossil fuels because it became economically feasible and attractive to do so, from an international standpoint.

Stepping down from the accord just painted the US as a country to be sidestepped for doing all sorts of businesses that will be moving tech towards cleaner goals - which is why so many US corporations were quick to announce they'd keep following the accord regardless of what the government is talking. It's not because those corporations are "good" or environmentaly friendly or some bullshit. It's because the global economy right now is aligned with those goals.

Notice how many news we hear these days about China's progressive moves towards clean energy. That's because China is trying to get the worldwide leadership on that particular topic. Trump just made it this much easier for another country to assume the position of global leader in a topic that lots of people are paying close attention to.

But now the damage has already been done. With or without renegotiation, it doesn't matter. Republicans can either be outright denied a renegotiation, which will continue looking bad for US in general, or they can get the agreement renegotiated which will keep them on a list of countries that are still in denial of a problem that needs firm stances, not because it's some charity or plead for help from another country, but because of their own interests.

I do in fact.
Here's a citation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory#Information_is_physical
and the relevant portion:

Using a phase-contrast microscope equipped with a high speed camera connected to a computer, as demon, the principle has been actually demonstrated.[3] In this experiment, information to energy conversion is performed on a Brownian particle by means of feedback control; that is, synchronizing the work given to the particle with the information obtained on its position. Computing energy balances for different feedback protocols, has confirmed that the Jarzynski equality requires a generalization that accounts for the amount of information involved in the feedback.

Additional links:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar...
https://physics.stackexchange....
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

-natch

Well it might work best if they don't try to turn it on.

Citations are appropriate when making outlandish or extraordinary claims

Exactly -- outlandish or extraordinary claims like, "the company has aggressively challenged any medical examiner who determines that a Taser killed someone or contributed to their death."

In this case, a simple Google search for 'Taser challenges medical examiners' turns up - in addition to the Reuters article mentioned in the original post - dozens of cases

I think you mean dozens of hits that all talk about the same handful of cases that I acknowledged in my comment.

The only "dozens of cases" I see out there (actually over a hundred) are the number of times Axon has been sued and had to defend itself in court. Defending oneself when taken to court is, of course, a far different issue than spontaneously challenging every single medical examiner's determination as you claim.

How tiresome.

Agreed. Put up or shut up.

Citations?

* male genital mutilation

Okay, on that one you're being ridiculous.Circumcision is a debatable practice (though I'm circumcised, as are most American men, and I don't consider myself "mutilated"), but in this case it's being done for a very positive reason, which is that it's known to reduce the transmission of AIDS. The Gates Foundation provided support to a UN organization focused specifically on saving lives. That's making the world better, even if it does (theoretically) reduce a little sexual pleasure.

* intellectual property laws: some vague stuff for example here; there's so many hits for their relations to "intellectual property" that it's hard to tell the whaff away. I can't search tonight, lemme find better citations later.

Agreed, that's a poor citation.

Citations?

* male genital mutilation

* intellectual property laws: some vague stuff for example here; there's so many hits for their relations to "intellectual property" that it's hard to tell the whaff away. I can't search tonight, lemme find better citations later.

there are other pollinators out there.

We could switch to robotic pollinators.

The robots pollinate, but they don't produce honey.

That was a start. I see I have to supply the supplemental material. Fair enough.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Physics behind it - http://www.earth-climate.com/

A site that has put together a whole lot of research - https://realclimatescience.com...

How did we get here? A D science student from Harvard -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Once you look at this stuff, it's hard to not see he fraud that has been put upon us at great expense. So the question is - will you allow yourself to be fooled again by guys like Al Gore?

Stupid thing is that simply adding extra copies of genes already in wheat you can boost yields by between 15-20% in a greenhouse (obviously not tested in a field yet)

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Why anyone would be against this is utterly beyond me. However this is the insanity of blanket bans on GMO food, which for the record all the food and I mean *ALL* the food we eat is genetically modified.

1: It's not quite a dupe, but this seems to be confirmation of the previously unconfirmed story posted on Slashdot last week: https://science.slashdot.org/s...

2: As reported in both TFA and the previous Slashdot story, the "powerful new gene-editing technique" is CRISPR. (As i'm sure many here could have guessed.)

3: As reported in the previous Slashdot story this is not exactly a "breakthrough". It's the first time it's been done in the US (officially) but teams in other parts of the world have been done it officially (and probably unofficially) as well. This study from China earlier this year claims to be the first attempt to edit "normal" embryos, but earlier attempts had been made with "abnormal" embryos.

For instance, this "couch potato" article from 2008: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (may be paywalled).

Some ideas what to do about it: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (may be paywalled).

and this: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (OK - I keep giving NS articles because I subscribe and there's no paywall for me.)

For instance, this "couch potato" article from 2008: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (may be paywalled).

Some ideas what to do about it: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (may be paywalled).

and this: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (OK - I keep giving NS articles because I subscribe and there's no paywall for me.)

For instance, this "couch potato" article from 2008: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (may be paywalled).

Some ideas what to do about it: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (may be paywalled).

and this: https://www.newscientist.com/a... (OK - I keep giving NS articles because I subscribe and there's no paywall for me.)

Depends on how its counted.
"Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world" (19 October 2011)
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

".. revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships"
"..found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network."

Domestic brands in shops that show freedom of choice could just be local marketing by a multi national.

The other thing you're confused about is the concept of "star-forming region". These are clouds of gas and dust (such as the "Pillars of creation") dense enough to allow stars to form relatively rapidly. Within such clouds, dozens or hundreds of stars form. It's not one star per region.

Alas, we must speak of the Pillars of creation in the past tense. A super nova blew em away.
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

We don't really need the extra volume. Check this guy out:

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Comparing volume appears to be an inaccurate way of comparing intelligence.

This is why Trump won the election, instead of trying to actually debate, you just immediately jump to insulting the poster for being stupid instead of actually trying to convince them of your side.

You might be surprised, but Trump didn't win the election because of any such thing.

He underperformed George W. Bush. He was below Obama, and Hillary. Only chance let him slink into office.

No landslide. No great gains. Not that you'll accept that, you have to blame the evul mean libruls.

The left might be surprised at the number of people they could persuade if they actually debated people instead of insisting that every issue is not open for discussion because the other side is wrong.

You might be surprised, but the left is used to dealing with the number of people on the right who are non-persuadable and who can't be debated, because they insist that the left isn't worth discussing anything with since they are wrong.

What can you in that circumstance, except move on?

Because at a certain point, you wash your hands of somebody, and that's what is happening with most of the discussion on AGW, pollution, and more.

Ever think about that?

According to google, the primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere which is a very small percentage. Water vapor ranges from 1-4%. Another way to say that is there is 25-100 times more water vapor that CO2.

See, this is where you show a lack of integrity, because you know what? According to google, the folks talking about Global Warming know that, and can give you intelligent responses on it.

You'd think you'd mention that.

I remember just a few years ago, everyone was freaking out about the ozone disappearing (which is a greenhouse gas), now it's too much co2.

It wasn't ozone disappearing. It was the Ozone Layer a beneficial shield that blocks UV radiation. And yes, we were worried about the effects of various human activity, including CFCs on it.

Of course, once the Montreal Protocol was enacted, it became less of an issue, like leaded gasoline> or Acid Rain.

Amazing, huh?

The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rounding error compared to water vapor and should have a negligible effect unless it somehow behaves differently than water vapor. I honestly would like to know is C02 that much more potent than water vapor or does it somehow behave differently?

You would? You know this discussion has come up before, right?

You know, if you showed some awareness that we've already been over this, maybe you'd persuade people that you're worth convincing, and not just consumed by your own hand-wringing as you feign disgruntlement over a couple of anonymous cowards being uncivil.

Hiding behind the mantra of "the other side is evil and stupid so I won't engage" doesn't help anyone.

Hiding behind t

I don't know which scientists you listen too, but the last time I heard from those they refused to share exactly that because of "reasons".

I bet that "last time you heard" was a while ago ? https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Previous models suggested that massive collisions somehow ejected a large amount of Jupiter's core, leaving it undersized compared to Saturn. Those models are likely getting some updates with this new data. https://www.newscientist.com/a... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...

Not necessarily *who* does the science, is important, but science is based on the decisions of those doing it. IE: *What* gets studied can depend on the scientists. I would not expect a group of white, hetero males to do much research on the topic of Sickle Cell Anemia, because it largely does not affect them.

I guess that you don't know that sickle cell anemia is not a disease based on race or ethnic background. It's occurrence is based on exposure rates to malaria, in a community as a whole, no matter what race a person is.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Guess what? If she produced a viable egg

Guess what? She didn't. Furthermore, menopause is reversible:

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

And a year later, a postmenopausal birth has occurred using the woman's own eggs:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

So go fuck yourself, Nazi asshole. Oh...my bad...you don't have genitals...Well, put a twig in your butt then.

Descriptors aside, he said try for first and for sure achieve in second. That is very possible.

Trump was an idiot for not understanding why it can't be done in 4 years...It's not just a matter of money.

Even as far back as 2009 it was just a matter of money. Yes, it is one of those problems you can solve by throwing lots of money at it. Even SpaceX's timeline is within the possibility of Trumps albeit a little late. Yes, there are challenges but you haven't really said anything that could stop NASA from achieving that goal if money was supplied and direction given by their boss (Trump). Whether you would want to spend that money is the question.

Why is it that SpaceX can do it and not NASA? Why is it that for nearly a decade the only constraint to getting to Mars was money but now it's different? Why is it that Trump parading what Musk is basically trying to do is Trump being an idiot and not understanding the challenges? Does that mean Musk doesn't understand the challenges for such an aggressive timeline?

https://www.newscientist.com/a...
https://www.extremetech.com/ex...

Have you only recently followed news about space and Mars because your obsessed hatred of Trump?

Birds don't hit aircraft. Aircraft fly through the bird, the aircraft is so fast the bird can't do anything.

However, some support for what you say
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

While they do have some influence on the climate (as documented by the experts), they aren't nearly as big as the warming caused by CO2. And actually the Sun has been cooling a little bit since the 1980's.

Sorry. That can't be true. All those articles which use sources, and are the basis of AGW talking points say that your view is untrue. Hate to be the bearer of bad news and tell you that you're still a climate denier.

Paleontology will always have findings like this that push dates around without mercy. It is one of the sciences, along with archeology and geology, where are always guaranteed to have massive selection bias.

We can only see what is left behind. Unlike an omniscient observer or obsessive record keeper, we merely get to read a few and unclear pages from the book of history.

Using our best dating technology, single celled life left records going back to 3.8 billion years ago, about when the surface was solid. But multicellular life, like these mushrooms, is very recent at around 600 MYA. These dates are based on very carefully calculated decay rates of nuclear decay. These same timetables apply to our planetary nuclear arsenal.

But for modern Creationists this evidence doesn't help. Unless you do the experiments yourself you are relying upon the expertise of others and their claims. Once you do that, then some people argue otherwise about the age of the world based on their own selection of experts and data.

Frankly, I just hope these people are not the ones testing and maintaining our nuclear stockpiles.

What folks don't seem to realize is that a lot of DoD funding is science. Without defense spending, we wouldn't have GPS, materials research wouldn't be where it is (lighter weight, stronger materials, often for ballistics). We wouldn't even have the internet. That's just DARPA though, other agencies like the Army Research Lab and Air Force Research Lab have "How can this benefit the public" as part of their requirements for small business research. Those aren't NSF funds, those are DoD funds.

If you're curious about other stuff, here's a list from New Scientist from back in 2008.

We all know porn is big business in this country, and oddly, those who whine the loudest about porn's influence on society are the largest consumers of porn.

As far back as 2009, studies showed people in the Midwest and deep South, heavy bible-belt country, had larger amounts of porn consumption than other parts of the country. A more recent survey showed the same thing but also, in those places where same-sex marriage was outlawed, gay porn consumption was higher than other places, including where same-sex marriage is legal.

This bill will make it very interesting for those folks to explain why they're getting ads for sexual enhancers, condoms, lube and toys.

You'd best write to New Scientist then.
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

The numbers come from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Space-E...

Their research is more serious than your unsupported opinion.

Most of the space elevator research assumes that the problems of making long, perfect carbon nanotubes can be solved, that they be made in volume at very low cost, and that they will have an ultimate tensile strength equal to that calculated from theory of perfect carbon, and not one that is the actual measured tensile strength of nanotubes in the real world.

Unfortunately, carbon nanotubes not only have never been made with this theoretical strength, newer work makes it look like they cannot reach this theoretical strength. The pentagons of perfect nanotubes spontaneously convert into pentagons and heptagons under strain, which reduces the breaking stress.
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Right now, the materials needed to make a low cost space elevator are still in the future. Later materials science may make us revise that estimate, but right now: it's still hard.

The actual article is about how they can detect autism before symptoms start.

That could already be done. Autism can be predicted by extracting stem cells, and prompting them to grow into little bundles of nerve cells. If each neuron has fewer than a normal number of connections, that person is predisposed to develop autism. A higher than normal number of neural connections correlates with Williams Syndrome, which is sort of "inverse-autism", with a high level of empathy and social engagement, but an astonishing inability to reason quantitatively.