Slashdot Mirror

Here is the New Scientist article being cited:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19526223.700-parallel-universes-make-quantum-sense.html
However it is behind a paywall. See Google Groups for the whole thing.

There is a great quote by physicist Max Tegmark: "The critique of many worlds is shifting from 'it makes no sense and I hate it' to simply 'I hate it'."

As far as the meat of it, traditionally the Many-Worlds Interpretation has had two technical objections raised. The first is called the basis problem, and the second is deriving correct probabilities. The basis problem is that when the universe "splits" it's not clear how it should split. The math allows for infinite different ways to split, but we only see one way. This has been solved in recent years by the study of decoherence, which in MWI terms is like looking at the splitting process up close. Turns out it can only happen one way in practice. So that one's done.

The article is more about the other one, deriving probabilities. Actually it's easy to derive probabilities in the MWI, but they're wrong. The right probabilities are what is called the Born rule, and it's been hard to get those. David Deutsch came up with a new idea in 1999 where he proposed tying it in to decision theory. He said that we really care about probabilities because they influence how we make decisions about what to do. If we can derive a reasonable decision theory within the MWI, then we've essentially explained probabilities. His work had some shortcomings but subsequent efforts have largely resolved those.

So now for the first time, the two traditional technical problems with the MWI have reasonably good solutions. Hence we are back to, as Tegmark says, "I hate it" as the main objection to the theory. Since that's not really a good argument, it can be said that the MWI should be considered the most compelling candidate for an interpretation of QM.

One final link, here is one of the papers that extends Deutsch's idea about decision theory and pretty much closes the holes: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312157. It's pretty technical but still a lot more readable than most physics papers.

this story appears to have been stolen in whole from

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19526226.200-wikipedia-20--now-with-added-trust.html

especially since the story mentions New Scientist

Instead of using a link to a sub-optimal blog site, how about a link to the actual New Scientist article.

For the people to be the Gov't and by extension NASA would actually require a system where everybody had access to information and a share of the decisions that were made. Even if you ignore that and say that the current system is enough to make the People the Gov't - well the gov't has still consistently lied, deprioritized, and mismanaged monies and power given to it by the people.

I'm talking about promises to invest in space research that result in massive clawbacks of NASA programs, I'm talking about more then the past 7 years but a more the 30 year history of this following the Apollo program.

Nothing there? Well, there's a lot more up there then here, as much as the Earth is the centre of our universe, it's a very small centre. Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, metals, all out there in comets, asteroids, moons and even planets, and these are the basic products of our industry. Free unlimited energy, it's out there too, in the form of solar energy that could be used to power our world. Life? Crazy, but I really hope we aren't the only ones around and there really is only one way to find out. Room, yeah they call it space for a reason, it's got lots of room, which we can use for manufacturing and science that is impractical or not safe to conduct on Earth. This is from the ground looking up, imagine the possibilities that could be envisioned if we actually were up there.

No the point of the Article isn't that space is useless, it's instead that other people are going to be using space while the US stays on the sidelines, and in my mind I blame the Team Management, not the Fans.

In the UK there have already been successful prosecutions of murder cases where individuals who were identified by having a relative on the DNA database. Mind, they (nor their relatives) were convicted because of this, the DNA evidence was used to identify a suspect and then additional evidence could be gathered, assessed and tried, see http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4908. DNA evidence does not establish guilt, there could be any number of reasons why DNA could be found.

Nasa and the rusians also have nuclear reactors in orbit:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18624964.300-space-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

Date: September 16, 62002

Location: God's Court

"God": My angels, we have a problem. The Universe we created 6000 years ago is about to die.

I see even assholes don't know how to do math. By the way, the joke is on you anyway considering God has already caused various constants to change throughout the age of the universe. Just when we think we are smarter than God He goes and changes things.

Here is a Reference, although you're right.. Spirit has had wheel issues as well (and more severe, I believe)

This New Scientist article from centuries ago is slightly clearer.

New Scientist covered this a lifetime ago.

The study was not about Republicans and Democrats, it was about liberals and conservatives. Do you think these findings only apply in the US?

I saw a FA at New Scientist about this the day before yesterday and submitted it. In a nutshell, they took 43 people and gave them a questionairre to determine if they were liberal or conservative. Then they had them stare at a computer and decide within 1/2 second whether a letter on the screen was an M or a W, with one letter showing 80% of the time.

Liberals did better at the test.

-mcgrew

This sounds like what they are doing in more arid regions with Jojoba , which is similar in that is grows in places other plants won't, requires little water and produces an oil that can power diesel engines.

Yes, science fiction is escapism in that it abstracts problems, and thus clarifies. It's a fable or philosophical tract. eg Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. I agree about the underlying world often being positive (which is optimistic and hopeful). Yet the foreground story is often a dire warning about amazing new tech. eg. Frankenstein's monster. eg. A Fire upon the Deep has a theme of humility: be you ever so high, there are higher Powers.

But Rainbow's End isn't a fable and doesn't make a philosophical point (IMHO anyway). heh, I guess the title itself is a little pessimistic...

I agree with your point from William Gibson. Here's a real, current example of a tooth decay cure:

Tooth decay is mostly caused by sucrose, which bacteria process to acid, which attacks the tooth (tooth decay is dramatically lower in ancient skulls, pre-sucrose, and in primitive societies without access to sucrose - this changes when they do get access). Fructose, lactose and other sugars etc aren't processed in this way - it seems that humanity and our bacteria evolved to coexist over time, and refined sucrose is simply too new. So... the cure is a genetically modified version of the same bacteria that doesn't produce the acid. It fills the same niche in the mouth, so won't displace anything else; and produces an antiseptic, which kills rival bacteria in that niche.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1941
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_caries#Bacteri a

Traditional lie detector tests can easily be tricked into whatever answer you want. Functional MRI (fMRI) are the only form of lie detector that should be trusted to be used in a court. At least the probability of defrauding a fMRI lie detector is much lower than traditional lie detector tests.

An pray tell how would you defend from the detectors especially the ones that can tell which channel you are watching?

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/0 4/seeing-through-walls.html

Apple has patented that technology... it was news in 2006 but have not heard of it since. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9059

Not sure what you point is, but did you know that some theories suggest that global warming could trigger the next ice age. Here are some links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1083419,00.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

Some believe it is just a figment of overactive imaginations. But evidence is growing that the so-called "axis of evil" - a pattern apparently imprinted on the radiation left behind by the big bang - may be real, posing a threat to standard cosmology.

According to the standard model, the universe is isotropic, or much the same everywhere. However, in 2005, Kate Land and João Magueijo of Imperial College London noticed a curious pattern in the map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) created by NASA's WMAP satellite. It seemed to show that some hot and cold spots in the CMB are not distributed randomly, as expected, but are aligned along what Magueijo dubbed the axis of evil.

This inspired the creation of the GalaxyZoo Project. But as I've noted in the past here and elsewhere, you guys can somewhat be forgiven for not noticing because the story run about Galaxy Zoo on Space.com did not mention anything about the CMB whatsoever -- as if there was no threat.

It's also worth noting, just for the record, that static universe theories were far more accurate in predicting the CMB's actual K value, and yet the textbooks kind of forget to mention this fact, as if it was too inconvenient to be true.

One would have to expect that there would be some resistance to calling the last 100 years or so a giant waste of time by people who spent at least 10% of their lives studying it. But, it's the right time for people to stop adopting a pseudo-skeptical stance within astrophysics, and start applying skepticism to the mainstream models too. If the CMB has come under increasing threat, then we need to take an objective look at it, and start to consider cosmological alternatives. It's what a rational person would do, at least. And a very, very good starting point for everybody would be to start by reading what the heretics are saying. Heretics are useful because they force us to play devil's advocate. The biggest heretics around these parts at least are the Electric Universe Theorists. I've been reading their materials as a layperson for a full year now, and there is nothing wrong with their theories. They currently lack the rigorous application of electrodynamics and plasma physics mathematics, but this is to be expected for a young theory. I believe that Kuhn commented on the difficulty of comparing competing theories: it's hard because you will be presented with evidence of different types, and some of these types of evidence may not be the kinds that you prefer. But, you still must accept whatever evidence you have and get on with it. And what a lot of mainstream'ers would prefer that we not realize is that people could quite easily create this missing mathematics. The funny thing is that few people have really tried. Some entrepreneurial young astrophysicist who is following the news, and who is familiar with the math of electrodynamics and plasmas, will one day realize this and make himself famous by filling the void of mathematics for EU Theory. And don't be alarmed if it all happens quite overnight because much of the material from the time of Alfven is still quite relevant if the Big Bang is not the ultimate answer. The EU Theorists have done quite an excellent job of thinkin

So you equate "targeting explosive ads at children" with "throwing dynamite at a kid" ? In that case, maybe you should compare it with "beating kids to death with a stack of Doom 3 CD-ROMs".

It's perfectly possible for kids to handle explosives (or guns, alcohol, etc.) correctly. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to advertise and sell those things directly to them.

As to your claim that "exposing kids to violent games does not harm them", good job posting all those supporting links.

Study after study has demonstrated that violent games make children and teenagers less sensitive to violence (not necessarily more agressive, assuming they're stable to begin with, but less likely to intervene in situations where others are victims of violence, and more likely to consider violence as an appropriate solution to problems). It has also been shown that more agressive people are naturally drawn towards violent games, which means the games can be used as an early warning sign - if the parents know their children are playing those games (which is the whole point of a law banning direct sales to children).

Here:

http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8449
etc.

On top of that, the time that kids spend playing Doom 3 (for example) is time they do not spend doing other, more intellectually stimulating activities (which can include playing other videogames, coding, reading, playing sports, plotting world domination, etc.). In my personal experience, people who play FPS games obsessively and exclusively tend not to be very smart. Maybe they play FPS games because the other games are too complex for them, or maybe it's the other way around. More liklely, it's a self-reinforcing loop.

While I wouldn't have any problem with my kids playing FarCry, I definitely want to know that they're playing it, and I do not want marketing departments and retailers conspiring to undermine my parental responsibility just so they can increase their profits (at my cost, no less). I don't have any problem with kids being "exposed" to violence, but I do have a problem with companies trying to shove it down their throats.

The problem is, how do you know its the parents making that decision?

You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's.

So, the government is either allowed to make laws in this regard or they are not. You can't say that it's OK to put age restrictions on purchasing arms, which is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution by NAME, but not on video games, which are not mentioned. And before you say "freedom of speech", the speech the founders were referring to was political speech, as in, you are allowed to criticize the government. Freedom of expression is not mentioned. For that matter, neither is freedom of commerce. The only way a video game can considered free speech is if it's free, as in beer.

Also, here is what Judge Richard A. Posner said:

'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"

Sounds to me like HE (speaking for the state) is making the final say, not the parents. Do you agree that the state should decide when my children can be exposed to violence?

No, the judge did NOT say that, nor did any of the other judges who shot down these laws. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
I didn't. I evaluated what the ruling meant. You said that parents have the final say. The result of this law is the exact opposite. Parents do NOT have the final say. The judge himself said parents making that decision would be would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. Now, if the laws were banning these games completely, he would have a point, but
that was not the case. These laws forced the parents to decide, and he thought parents would over shield their children. That's MY decision, not his!

Unlike you, I comprehended it all. Which is why, for your convenience, I've changed the emphasis to show why it doesn't even approach the conclusiveness you need to be taken seriously on a forum, let alone successfully defend a law in court.
Funny, when I list an article that was written in the '90's, you say it's too old. When I list an article that says the same thing, from 2003, you say it doesn't mean anything. YOU set up the rules by saying that "Rational people do not ignore scientific research". I provided that research. Research, btw, only suggests. Research doesn't "prove", especially when dealing with something as fluid as psychology. For there to be laws in psychology, all people would have to act the same to stimuli, and they don't.
I'm sorry if those with doctorates disagree with what you "think", but a rational person wouldn't let their personal opinions interfere with the years of research that went into these studies.

But, if you don't like my sources, I'll even offer a few more.
HERE (PDF warning)
HERE (update of above, also pdf)
HERE (Last edited 11/9/05)
HERE
and HERE

Of course, there are several more, but a "rational person" would get the idea. Besides, from the looks of the judges

Tobacco vs marijuana

Nobody ever died from smoking marijuana. It does not cause cancer; indeed, they thought it must since there are known carcinogens in it, but when they did a study on mice they found that it slows lung cancer. It shrinks brain tumors, protects the brain from strokes, and a study of the "hippie generation" who had smoked pot for thirty years with controls who didn't smoke pot found that pot smokers had a far lower incidence of cancer than nonsmokers. Among cigarette smokers, the difference between potsmokers and nonpotsmokers was even more pronounced.

There is no known lethal dose. It is not addictive, unlike tobacco, which may possibly be the most addictive substance on the planet. So why is tobacco, which is addictive and kills almost all its users, legal while pot is not?

And I would posit that it IS a human right to get high; it's called freedom of thought.

-mcgrew

Tobacco vs marijuana

Nobody ever died from smoking marijuana. It does not cause cancer; indeed, they thought it must since there are known carcinogens in it, but when they did a study on mice they found that it slows lung cancer. It shrinks brain tumors, protects the brain from strokes, and a study of the "hippie generation" who had smoked pot for thirty years with controls who didn't smoke pot found that pot smokers had a far lower incidence of cancer than nonsmokers. Among cigarette smokers, the difference between potsmokers and nonpotsmokers was even more pronounced.

There is no known lethal dose. It is not addictive, unlike tobacco, which may possibly be the most addictive substance on the planet. So why is tobacco, which is addictive and kills almost all its users, legal while pot is not?

And I would posit that it IS a human right to get high; it's called freedom of thought.

-mcgrew

Tobacco vs marijuana

Nobody ever died from smoking marijuana. It does not cause cancer; indeed, they thought it must since there are known carcinogens in it, but when they did a study on mice they found that it slows lung cancer. It shrinks brain tumors, protects the brain from strokes, and a study of the "hippie generation" who had smoked pot for thirty years with controls who didn't smoke pot found that pot smokers had a far lower incidence of cancer than nonsmokers. Among cigarette smokers, the difference between potsmokers and nonpotsmokers was even more pronounced.

There is no known lethal dose. It is not addictive, unlike tobacco, which may possibly be the most addictive substance on the planet. So why is tobacco, which is addictive and kills almost all its users, legal while pot is not?

And I would posit that it IS a human right to get high; it's called freedom of thought.

-mcgrew

What in the world are they doing putting GPS on a mock-lunar lander?

"But the touchdown did have a big enough effect to jostle the onboard GPS unit that Texel relied on to track its motion. The disturbance caused faulty readings from the unit, confusing the vehicle."

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12522-cras h-destroys-rocket-ahead-of-x-prize-contest.html

I'm not a specialist when it comes to transmitters and receivers, but I found a few more bits of information that you might find interesting:

"After launch, Pioneer 10 was capable of transmitting data at a maximum data rate of 2408 bits per second. Now the data rate is 16 bits per second. Reducing the bit rate compensates for the reduced signal strength; it is like speaking more slowly to enunciate more clearly. The signal strength from the craft's main transmitter is now about 7.8 watts; by the time it reaches the DSN antennas, the signal has diminished to less than a billionth of a trillionth (10-21) of a watt."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318105.500 -pioneer-the-persistent-probe-pioneer-10-the-first spacecraft-to-head-for-jupiter-proved-that-probes- could-reach-the-outerplanets-of-our-solar-system-t wenty-years-on-it-is-sending-us-messagesfrominters tellar-space.html

Deep space tracking station - http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferi es/tidbin.html

"Successfully sending a DSN signal into Voyager-2's receiver is like throwing a baseball across thousands of miles of ocean into a porthole of a moving cruise ship."

http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/DeepSpaceNetwork/ DeepSpaceNetwork.html

I just cannot praise the people who made and make this project possible enough. The facts are jaw dropping!

there's substantial concern about these models and how accurate they can be in the first place.

Try this: New Scientist Climate Myths, in particular the section on computer models.

The problem is that correlating those two factors requires that we understand the climate on a macroscopic level

No, it requires understanding basic physics, that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

there's substantial concern about these models and how accurate they can be in the first place.

Try this: New Scientist Climate Myths, in particular the section on computer models.

The problem is that correlating those two factors requires that we understand the climate on a macroscopic level

No, it requires understanding basic physics, that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

there's substantial concern about these models and how accurate they can be in the first place.

Try this: New Scientist Climate Myths, in particular the section on computer models.

The problem is that correlating those two factors requires that we understand the climate on a macroscopic level

No, it requires understanding basic physics, that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

We were worried about the melting Greenland glacier, and dissapearing Arctic ice in the 1920's, too.

The fact that some scientists suspected so long ago that the increased CO2 output due to industrialisation was having an effect on the environment doesn't mean that they were wrong, or that it isn't having an effect now. See It's all a conspiracy "more than a century":

1930s Global warming trend since late 19th century reported. Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.

1938 Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.

there's substantial concern about these models and how accurate they can be in the first place.

Try this: New Scientist Climate Myths, in particular the section on computer models.

The problem is that correlating those two factors requires that we understand the climate on a macroscopic level

No, it requires understanding basic physics, that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

there's substantial concern about these models and how accurate they can be in the first place.

Try this: New Scientist Climate Myths, in particular the section on computer models.

The problem is that correlating those two factors requires that we understand the climate on a macroscopic level

No, it requires understanding basic physics, that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

there's substantial concern about these models and how accurate they can be in the first place.

Try this: New Scientist Climate Myths, in particular the section on computer models.

The problem is that correlating those two factors requires that we understand the climate on a macroscopic level

No, it requires understanding basic physics, that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

You may have to wait a long time. According to this article on the same subject from New Scientist, the plasma-crystal processes underlying such aliens would run more than a hundred thousand times more slowly than the biochemistry of Earth.

environmentalist groups got their way and now we have a riskier space program.

This point about how the foam insulation process was changed has come up many times in discussions about the damage to Endeavor. And it's wrong.

It has its origin in one of Rush Limbaugh's lies. As it turns out, the foam that dealt Columbia the death blow was the old-style CFC foam. The problem was in the hand-spraying application method used on that area, which left gaps and voids in the foam.

Yes, when they first started using the CFC-free foam in 1997 there were some problems seen. Changes were quickly made to improve the adhesion.

There were also plenty of problems with the CFC foam - "popcorning" from trapped air bubbled was noted in 1995, while in 1992 Columbia was struck by a large piece of foam, ripping a 12cm gouge in the tiles. Both of these were before the switch to CFC-free foam.

watch "The global warming swindle"

i'm yet to see a single intelligent response to any of the points made in that video. i suspect you will be more of the same.

You raise an interesting point. Actually, it raises multiple interesting points.

About monkeys themselves - humans are not considered to have evolved from monkeys but the great apes. Specifically, chimpanzees are supposed to be our close ancestors.

http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0712011.htm

The earliest chimpanzee fossils date from 500000 years ago near fossils of Homo erectus or Homo rhodensiensis. So it is considered that chimpanzees and Homo erectus were contemporaries.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7917

This raises the interesting question as to how chimpanzees have remain largely unchanged while humans have evolved from Homo heidelbergensis to Homo sapiens? Interestingly, Homo erectus and early modern humans (Homo sapiens) are considered to have been contemporaries atleast for a while since a finding of fossils in Java (considered Homo erectus) is dated as late as 50,000 years ago.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec. html

Homo erectus had a brain capacity about 30% less than modern humans (1000cc vs 1300+ cc in homo sapiens) but they did not outlive even Chimpanzees in the same area. That raises a whole lot of questions about the theories which define why some species survive and some don't.

The "internet is dangerous!!!!" is like "We must give up our liberty because of teh terrorism!!!!" Do the math: less than 3,000 dead in America this century from Muslim terrorists, while there are half a million from heart attacks and another half million from cancer, and forty thousand from auto accidents every single year! I'd say that Homeland Security money would be better spent on a few guard rails, and maybe if we can outlaw smoking something that slows lung cancer we can outlaw something that causes it? Or at least legalize the one that slows it so the cigarette smokers can legally... oh hell, never mind. This is mainstream media, law and government we're talking about. Logic, reason, and sanity should have nothing to do with the debate.

Well at lease their knot misusing apostrophe's or homonymns.

More seriously, and actually on-topic, with a liberal dose of commas, I'd like to say it's about fucking time! There is no way to physically harm anyone over the internet, short of selling them drugs or cigarettes or booze or something (and yes, I know cigarettes and booze ARE drugs). Your kid is far more likely to be molested by their coach or Priest*, or harmed by a babysitter than some random stranger, let alone a random stranger from the internet.

The "internet is dangerous!!!!" is like "We must give up our liberty because of teh terrorism!!!!" Do the math: less than 3,000 dead in America this century from Muslim terrorists, while there are half a million from heart attacks and another half million from cancer, and forty thousand from auto accidents every single year! I'd say that Homeland Security money would be better spent on a few guard rails, and maybe if we can outlaw smoking something that slows lung cancer we can outlaw something that causes it? Or at least legalize the one that slows it so the cigarette smokers can legally... oh hell, never mind. This is mainstream media, law and government we're talking about. Logic, reason, and sanity should have nothing to do with the debate.

-mcgrew

*Old joke- A Rabbi, a Priest, and a lawyer are on the Titanic when it hits an iceberg. "Save the children!" screams the Rabbi. "Fuck the children!" snarls the lawyer. The Priest exclaims "No time for that!"

Here's some:

http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=44
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/07 0308-asteroids_2.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117854.700 -will-we-catch-a-falling-star-there-are-many-aster oids-outthere-in-space-and-the-chances-are-that-so oner-or-later-one-will-head-forearth-but-no-one-kn ows-what-to-do-if-we-find-ourselves-on-collision-c ourse.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/fl_side2_020 901.html
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=79899200 2
http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/415367.html
http://www.sciencebits.com/PlanesAndMeteorites

Not sure how your lottery analogy applies. The nasa article sums up your logical fallacy: "The perception of risk from impacts is smaller than for being killed in a plane crash because planes crash at a steady rate with (relatively) few deaths per event, whereas lethal impacts are rare but kill a lot of people. At the very least, the potential consequences of impact are large enough to cause concern."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12429-three- ways-to-levitate-a-magic-carpet.html/

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4741

Desktop fusion was all about bubbles and the enormous pressure they can create. Bubbles are indeed worth studying.

Did you read the post you're responding to? 140 inside the car

"In 2004, 35 children died of heat stroke in the US after being left unattended in a parked car. Previous research has shown that when ambient temperatures rise above 35C, sealed cars reach a suffocating 65C in just 15 minutes."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7631

"According to a study funded by General Motors of Canada, Dr. Oded Bar-Or, a pediatrician and director of the Children's Exercise and Nutrition Centre at McMaster University, found that within 20 minutes the air temperature in a previously air-conditioned small car exposed to the sun on a 35C day (95 F) exceeded 50C (122 F). Within 40 minutes the temperature soared to 65.5C (150 F)."
http://www.safety-council.org/quiz/sun_cars_and_ch ildrena.html

So I'll have to remember to bring my sunglasses too now if I want to cross into the USA illegally, as well as the tinfoil suit to ward off their microwave guns http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg187250 95.600

Since you didn't want to come up with an analogy in the first place, I know you wouldn't appreciate it if I picked holes in it. So I won't.

Problem #1: There are some things generally considered amoral by the population. Murder. Rape. Hunting a species to extinction" Sure, we can get behind that, throw that on the list. "Closed source software" isn't something that leaps into people's heads, and even if it did I doubt most people would put it in the top fifty. "That guy who drives past all the waiting cars and then cuts into the turning lane" would likely rank higher than "closed source software".

Richard Stallman is not the pope of PCs. His saying closed source is immoral doesn't mean anything. You may agree with him, and I agree that closed source isn't preferable. But while most people mind murder and rape and extinction of cute animals most people don't give a damn about software. For them it's a means to an end, and nothing more. Hence our current situation.

Problem #2: I'm pro free software, but think Stallman is going about promoting it in the wrong way. He's literally giving talks to the programmers of tomorrow and saying, "Don't release closed source. It's immoral." Does he offer alternatives? Somewhat - he did say that one can program for open source on commission, but can one earn a good living at it? He's hardly a proof of principle himself. I know there are examples and whole business models, but he didn't talk about them.

We're talking about two different things. You're assuming that average people, when faced with two options, will pick the difficult one with no benefit to themselves, magically listening to an inconvenient person telling them that the easy option is "amoral". I'm more concerned with how Stallman will get people to actually listen to him. At this rate, he's bound to have as much success as the anti-whalers.

even if all corn grown in the US was used for fuel, it would only offset 15% of the country's gasoline use, according to the study. The same reduction could be achieved by a 3.5-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency standards for all cars and light trucks, according a federal figures cited in the report.

And using corn-derived ethanol does not necessarily even reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A number of recent studies have attempted to assess the total carbon footprint - from the field to the tailpipe - of the biofuel. Conclusions vary widely from being worse than gasoline to being about the same. [emphasis mine]
...
...cellulosic ethanol could reduce emissions by 87% compared to gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol produces fuel from non-food sources such as prairie grasses and woody plants, but production is still under development.

Sorry, but...

If you are interested in the chemistry and thermodynamics behind gasification you should obtain and read "Synthetic Fuels" by Ronald F. Probstein and R. Edwin Hicks, published by Dover (1982, 1990, 2006), ISBN 0-486-44977-7. The first portion of it deals with gasification. The later parts of it deal with taking the "synthesis gas" and forming it into bigger molecules of methane or even liquid fuels. The amount of energy consumed, and the heats and presures and sometimes expensive catalysts, are fairly depressing to the backyard hobbiest.

However, it might be possible to build something that gasifies waste into hydorgen and steam and carbon dioxide, which would then be burned in an engine. A recent slashdot article about a gasification procedure that uses microwaves seems hopeful, because if you gasified in the presense of steam with no oxygen you might have less carbon monoxide. Usually, oxygen has to be present because a portion of the waste is burnt in the same chamber as the gasification occurs, to provide the heat needed.

Of course, playing around with a microwave magnetron has it's own dangers as well.

I believe it is possible to build an apparatus about the size of two shipping pallets and 6 feet high that would take in household garbage and yard waste and produce a considerable amount of electricity. Whether it would be economical, except in places where grid electricity is not available, is a different matter. Having it produce a liquid fuel suitable for storage and use in an internal combustion engine seems like a big leap, but that's what I would like to aim for.

Longo favours a more radical theory proposed by Paolo Cea of the University of Bari, in Italy, and Leonardo Campanelli of the University of Ferrara, Italy, which suggests that magnetic fields stretched across the universe could be responsible (New Scientist, 2 September 2006, p 2. "A magnetic field would naturally orient the spiral galaxies," says Longo.

Regardless of the reasons, one thing is clear: the axis of evil won't be written off any time soon. "Interest keeps growing as people find more weirdly connected observations that can't all be put down to coincidence," says Land. "And hey, everybody loves a conspiracy."

The catalog would help researchers understand how galaxies form and interact.

"At some level, what we learn about these galaxies could tell us something quite fundamental about cosmology and particle physics,'' Nichol said.

The catalog would help researchers understand how galaxies form and interact.

"At some level, what we learn about these galaxies could tell us something quite fundamental about cosmology and particle physics,'' Nichol said.