Slashdot Mirror

Yes, David Brin even mentioned this in his Blog.

davidbrin.blogspot.com

It's a shame there was no reference to his novel in the article - they even used the word clay to describe the technology. It seems a clear case of plagerism to me - but I guess you do not get funding for ideas you lift from novels... errr except for Space Elevators...

David Brin linked to the New Scientist version of the article.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18 625031.800

I think when you say "nanotubes make ... electric insulators or better than the best superconductors" you are saying that they are "room temperature superconductors"

They are, in a way. Unlike conventional superconductors, they do have resistance (very low) and handle higher current loads (yes, conventional superconductors are current-limited, because too much current creates magnetic fields that destroy their superconductivity) in addition to operating at even above room temperature. The resistance is, interestingly enough, independent of length, given a single tube. There's a (brief) article about it: here. It doesn't cover the most research on the subject, however, which discusses the resistance and current flow issues.

We're already seeing signs of problems to come: buckyballs appear to cause Alzheimer's-like damage when they get into the brains of fish.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/nano technology/dn4825

I have been eagerly awaiting the first self replicating nanomachines ever since reading Engines of Creation (http://www.foresight.org/EOC/) but the tech probably has a long convoluted road ahead to acceptance and safe use. If we are seeing problems already with buckyballs - perhaps the simplest example of nanotech - the implications will be far greater for something like airborne nanobots that clean the air, or your bloodstream.

I'd rather have extra arms than this suit. If that kind of thing pans out, we could create our own custom limbs.

Not just spacecraft: Earth microbes can hitch a ride to Mars on meteorites, too.

Just as meteorites from Mars are found on Earth (eg. in Antarctica), meteorites from Earth may reach Mars, and these meteorites may carry microbes. Some scientists think there's an exchange of biological material between the two planets.

Not just spacecraft: Earth microbes can hitch a ride to Mars on meteorites, too.

Just as meteorites from Mars are found on Earth (eg. in Antarctica), meteorites from Earth may reach Mars, and these meteorites may carry microbes. Some scientists think there's an exchange of biological material between the two planets.

"However, 'the idea of obtaining DNA from dinosaurs, depicted in the film Jurassic Park, remains science fiction.' "

If the scienties don't even READ scientific publications and state that, what of their current 'research.' They almost HAVE dino DNA. From the March 2005 articles, it looks really close. It is like saying the day before the Polio vaccine was tried "it is science fiction that it will work." It is close:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg1862493 5.500

http://geology.about.com/b/a/156358.htm

(different link for above http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?si te=http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns%3Fid=dn7 195 )

Not just spacecraft: Earth microbes can hitch a ride to Mars on meteorites, too.

Just as meteorites from Mars are found on Earth (eg. in Antarctica), meteorites from Earth may reach Mars, and these meteorites may carry microbes. Some scientists think there's an exchange of biological material between the two planets.

The Mars rover Opportunity recently found an iron meteorite on Mars.

If memory serves (I'm not a NS subscriber, so I can't actually read the article now), the argument goes "If intelligent life evolves in a Universe, sooner or later it will have the technological capacity to simuate a Universe. Now, they will inevitably model their own Universe. Since they want to see events relevant to them, they will run time faster than their own Universe. Consequently, in a very short period of their time, there is another intelligent species in the simulated Universe, simulating their Universe, with time running faster. Very quickly, you have an infinite progression of simulation Universes."

I must admit, I didn't think simulating a Universe, thus providing the conditions for such a series of events, would be possible anywhere near my lifetime. But if the tech is developing already..

In a related vein, new laboratory studies theorize that terrestrial microbes that hitchhike on our Mars-bound spacecraft could survive the journey and harsh Mars UV environment indefinetely, and even possibly grow if they found water ice.

NASA's policy on this is summarized here.

When was the last time a manned space mission provided a new answer to a scientific question? Go to the library. Do a web search.

Well, that wasn't very hard. January 2003

Then, basically, you'd be able to patent something now which cannot possibly be produced until the future, then act like you're making steps towards it?
Yup. this one for example - sony patenting a technology that they themselves admit is just IP grabbing: "There were not any experiments done," she says. "This particular patent was a prophetic invention. It was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction that technology will take us."

I would find it funny if it didn't nauseate me.

I prefer to fight cancer in other ways.

Next, genetic testing before an insurance company will sell you health insurance.

This is actually unlawful. A few years ago a company out in the midwest I believe got in trouble for doing genetic testing on employees. It turns out the employees were suing the company saying the work caused permanent damage to to their hands, while the company tried to use genetic testing to say they were predisposed to the condition. Somewhere along the lines the court stepped in and said they can't test their employees like that as it violates their privacy.

There's a great movie you should watch that covers some of these points, it's called Gattaca http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ . It's a movie about a guy born into a society, where on birth, you're given an expected lifespan and the diseases you will get. He's born into the society right before they start genetically screening-- as would be expected, he wasn't perfect. He spends his life trying to compete in a society where job interviews are based on DNA tests, and all along the way he is constantly being pushed down by people because he was labeled as having bad genes-- especially by his brother, who was born several years after him perfect. Eventually he steals the identity of someone who is perfect and tries to conquer his dream of flying into a space. It's a very interesting and touching movie given the topic, and I would suggest that everyone watch it.

Of course, we can always ask Watson what he thinks about the situation:
"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3451/

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men are likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins are likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men are likewise homosexual

Homosexuality is also not confined to humans - 10% of sheep are exclusively homosexual, to pick a random example. Perhaps they chose it too?
To anyone who's looked at the research, a biological basis is not really in doubt. I am always puzzled by people who come out with statements like "I don't think that's something you're born with." on the basis of exactly zero evidence. I would be interested to know if you still believe that.

NewScientist just ran an article that talks about "slime worlds", areas on planets that emit a near-infrared light, but amazingly there was no mention of the bright red spot on Titan. Perhaps we have found a slime world?

I read a new scientist article about people modelling money transfers in society (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7107) .

One of the teams models produced the striking conclusion that "if you save more you are more likely to end up rich".

Are they even X-rays? Seems T-rays would be a more
realistic choice. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6118

or cutting your finger off, and that's all in the realm of science fiction and left wing propaganda...


You mean like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/moto ring-tech/mg18624943.600

jajtsfj

I think you may be right.

I just found an article in new scientist:


And now, NanoCoolers, based in Texas, US, has developed a liquid metal cooling system that promises to be even quieter and more efficient. The system draws heat away from a circuit by pumping liquid gallium alloy through a series of pipes. The temperature of the liquid is brought back down to normal within an ambient air-cooled chamber.

link here

And gallium it is. The New Scientist article doesn't state the melting temp but it does say the boiling temp is 2000 degrees so it can take a lot more than water and can be moved by quieter electromagnetic pumps.

Hazardous fumes result from being heated to decomposition and contact to water for at least one gallium compound. I wasn't able to find out exactly which "gallium alloy" is used for cooling.

Yeah man talk about 2000 Amps continuous operation in a 25 kg (55 lb) device - I saw that 25 kg number tossed at
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7403
With 2000 amps you probably don't need a solar furnace because it's self heating anyway inside a 25 kg device - cross section can't be that big, considering you can't use tinfoil thin stuff, because you need a pressure rating, to withstand vacuum. But does the 25 kg include the solar panels, or is that provided to us, as much as we want? For 2000 amps you need quite a farm of solar panels. Once you account for all the efficiencies, including ohmic heating, mining/grinding/powder separating robots coming home to recharge, etc, you're probably looking at a 5kW solar power station. Solar panels can be paperthin though.
You can probably only do this fast enough if you use very hot temperatures, otherwise ionic mobilities and diffusion rates/reaction rates may be too slow. Still, you're looking at quite some foaming, whatever you do, that's a massive amount of gas, especially if it's released at high temperatures - at 1000C the volume is 4x that of room temp volume, and at 1000C I calculate you're dealing with 0.5L gas/sec, at 1 atm pressure, which sounds manageable, but it's still a lot. You may also need some massive heat exchangers when dealing with such high throughputs, especially that there is nothing to thermally contact with - no atmosphere to air cool, no cooling water tower, so all you can do is radiatively cool, unless you dig holes deep into the surface, but "geothermal" is a great insulator in the long run - here on Earth you can pump warm water into the ground in the summer, and get it back in the winter.

Extra Notes: Thinking about colder temperatures, such as some acid digestion/liquid system, whether based on water or phosphoric acid fuel cell stuff may be too time consuming (may need a day to digest at room temp), and one problem is that titanium in any kind of solution loves going round trips between electrodes, doing a Ti3+-Ti4+ redox cycle, wasting your time. Why do they talk about ilmenite FeTiO3, when it only has 30% oxygen, when sodium-aluminum-silicate has 50%? Just magnetically eliminate ilmenite and don't waste your time with it, when it comes to oxygen - you should get O2+aluminum (I think, unless you get O2+silicon, or O2+Al/Si Alloy instead) - so you may not even need titanium-iron for construction, at least for start, you may have plenty aluminum. Also, with extra reagents such as water/hydrogen/phosphoric acid your recovery of these reagests would be less than 100%. True you may be able to get just enough hydrogen/helium/nitrogen from the rocks to replenish yourself, but those are very precious things. So forget it, just use sodium-alumino-silicate, melt it into an ionic liquid, (you just need to kickstart the melting a bit, the rest will ohmicaly self heat) and just drive electricity through it.

I would suggest that you look more at this article from New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7403

The big deal is that you are going to be given a lunar soil simulant (they say that getting the real stuff is just too expensive to do anything but a final proof test with) that comes from a volcanic ash deposit near Flagstaff, AZ. For a small fee a research team can obtain samples of this simulant for experimental purposes.

It must put out at least 5 kg of oxygen (assuming that the time to produce this is limited to a short period of time... 24 hours or less), and the whole device must weight less than 25 kg. I would also guess that space considerations are also something to worry about, but that the weight of the device is a bigger deal.

I guess the Wired news article says 11 kg in 8 hours.

In short, it is something that should fit in a foot locker that astronauts could pull out and set up once another lunar mission actually occurs.

This is a bigger deal than the tether challenge, and something that has some hard short-term practical applications in the space industry. Also, the $250,000 is something you can pay a research team to do more than hold a pizza party afterward with when you win. If you already have a minerology lab, this would be worth pulling a couple of interns/lab assistants over to wrap their energies around. And potentially some very nice contracts in the future if NASA gets off their behind and gets back to the moon.

The consumer versions would probably be coated by this: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6583 As stated in the News section of blu-ray.com Oct 30, 2004 - TDK Develops New Hard-Coating Technology for Blu-ray Discs Also, i'd like to comment that it's wrong to call a Blu-ray media DVD.. it's not like you go calling your DVD's CD's either, do you?

I think the reason why people became "pro-patent in this case" is that the CSIRO actually use patents the way they were intended to be used. They invent something, then re-invest the money back into current research. They have been quietly doing this under various names since 1916 and have a very impressive record of practical innovation and basic research.

"...the ideas there such as OFDM and FEC, etc. are actually not all that ingenious." - CSIRO developed and patented the idea a decade ago, hindsight is always 20/20. As you say, anyone with a "deep understanding" could have thought of the idea but the fact remains that nobody did.

"I oppose anyone who wants to use them offensively" - The corporations that are now whinning about paying $4 per chip are the same ones that pushed hard for US IP laws to be adopted under the recently signed free trade agreement. To me, (an Aussie), it is poetic justice when a "non-profit" can screw a cartel of the largest "for-profits" with thier own rules. Before the 1980's corporations used to buy CSIRO patents for a pitance and the Australian public would watch as Agri-corps and Drug-pushing-corps turned govt funded research into a private cash cow. The use of licenses to make "for-profits" pay for basic research is one of CSIRO's greatest innovations.

Some examples of IP idiocy in Australia, patent for the wheel, Ugg boots.

Indeed, this hardware is so powerful, I would not be surprised that it will be used to power some regime's WMD.

Do not be too surprised when the next great dictator is discovered through their affiliation and love for this "Play"station.

That's why I'd much rather have an alcohol battery. Water would cause dilution rather than explosion. Probably not small enough for an iPod though.

There already are a few, although not as high in capacity as the iPod. Here's some links:

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/motor ola-mpxcell-phone-pda-mp3-player-camera-allinone.a sp
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7312

The second aticle seems to be inspired by Bill Gates' view (or vice-versa?) that iPods may be killed by cellphones (Nokia in this case).

From the article: GOOGLE has plans that will dramatically improve the results of internet news searches, by ranking them according to quality rather than simply by their date and relevance to search terms. The ambitious system is revealed by patents filed in the US and around the world (WO 2005/029368) by researchers based at the company's headquarters in Mountain View, California.

new scientist covered this more than a year ago

Silicon-based magnets boost spintronics - 22 March 2004
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4801

The difference is that questions in Science are generally raised by theories and explanations clashing with observations. Here are some examples of that. This is where Science happens -- where observation clashes with explanation.

In this case, though, the questions are being created by an internal flaw in the theory -- that is, how do you get around the infinite regression problem in the intelligent design theory? if you take the point of view that "only one intelligent designer exists, and nothing created Him", then you've pretty much shot your irrdecuable complexity argument in the foot -- because now you have something complex (the creator) that hasn't been designed. if a creator doesn't have to be designed, then why do we have to be designed? This is a problem internal to the theory, and has nothing to do with it's predictions (if there are any) clashing with observed reality.

For a fictional treatment of exactly this, See Kim Stanley Robinson's Forty Signs of Rain . In this the catastrophe is a massive storm and flooding of Washington DC. This is not like the rather silly Day After Tomorrow, but seems well-grounded, in the same style as his Mars trilogy, and he seems to be rather better at writing believable characters and politics now. I suspect this is the first in a trilogy too.

Well, /. submission FAQ warns about such a thing and asks me not to get pissed but to blame my stars, so I was mentally prepared for this.. but this Ronald unmasking brought an interesting thing..

what if one constantly sees a site like freshnews, would it not increase the probability of a story getting posted.. I mean it has all sites from cnet to techdirt to porn-tech site like madville, you name it they have it..

and then there are tech mags like nature, newscientist and trnmag, which have good articles.. so how can such a situation be tackled? or how does accepting of articles get streamlined and give a fair chance to all? I agree that it also depends upon the way the article is submitted instead of just sending the link and a line..

There's always someone claiming at least some part of the laws of physics has changed recently.

New Scientist has the story from about 2 weeks ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7284

"The rover has six wheels aligned in two rows and each of the four corner wheels has its own steering mechanism. The problem is with the front right wheel, which can still roll but is now stuck at a 7 inward angle. NASA rover project manager Jim Erickson says it is like a car losing its power steering."

It continues with a quote from the "Quote I wish I could take back" department:

"At this point, with this one actuator failed, it's an inconvenience, nothing more," says rover chief scientist Steven Squyres.

The JPL statement on the issue at that time is here: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status_oppo rtunityAll.html#sol430
[...]
"Opportunity's right-front steering motor stalled out on sol 433 during an end-of-drive turn. While performing tests to help the team diagnose the condition of that motor, the rover also continued to make remote-sensing observations. Testing in sol 435 did show motion in the steering motor, but analysis is still underway. The rover resumed normal science and driving operations on sol 436, but with restrictions on use of the right-front steering motor. It drove 30 meters on sol 437. Opportunity and Spirit are capable of driving with one or more steering motors disabled, though turns would be less precise. The latest revision in flight software on both rovers, uploaded in February, gives them improved capabilities for dealing with exactly this type of condition. It gives them upgraded ability to repeatedly evaluate how well they are following the intended course during a drive, and to adjust the steering autonomously if appropriate."

So the JPL story seems to say on sol 435 that the steering motor was still working, but testing was still underway and its use was restricted.

Also Opportunity and Spirit were given a further 18-month mission extension on 5 April 2005.

I know you were kidding, but wireless power Does exist. T

In this weeks New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7315 including links ot the people involved and their papers.

New Scientist has a right up as well. The seemed to have written off the whole idea of using it to produce energy. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7315

If you are talking about the shuttle, then we are currently running at 14 deaths from about 100 shuttle launches (rounding for simplicity), or over 100,000 per million shuttle launches. The shuttles are running a bit behind.

If you are talking about satellites, then I don't know what the numbers are, but they blow up all the time. The fact that they achieve 30 deaths per million launches is because they are unmanned and usually launched over the sea, not because of any inherant safety record.

Well, apparently it really rounds up those frogs and toads as well: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg186249 43.900

New research show greater releases of methane from hydropower:

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

And it isn't just from the initial load of dead biomass:

Seasonal changes in water depth mean there is a continuous supply of decaying material.

This again shows the risk of non-dense energy sources. Who knows what goes in and out of a massive hydroelectric reservoir. How can you effectively monitor that? What about a massive tidal power installation? Thousands of wind power generators? Square miles of photovoltaic cells?

On the other hand, we know what goes into and out of a nuclear power plant, because the fuel and waste are so dense, and the small amount of gas produced is easilly recovered and monitored.

A parameter that can be used to characterized the closeness of a given fluid to being perfect is the ratio of its viscosity to its volume density of entropy. This ratio is conjectured to be always larger than hbar/(4 pi) (hbar being the Planck constant).

At first sight this conjecture is violated by superfluid helium. But according to Landau superfluid helium at nonzero temperature can be thought of as having two components: the superfluid component which can flow without friction, and the normal component which has finite viscosity. The viscosity of the normal component satisfies the conjecture.

See this article or this blog.

Hear, hear.

I've been quite surprised at the influx of "odd" observations over the past few years; I certainly wasn't expecting local pancake structures.

You raise a pretty good point, though, on the structure of disks, large and small, in the first place.

Plasma physicists jump up and down that the in-vogue theories treat large-scale magnetic fields and currents as non-existent, as though charge must cancel out on the large scale, therefore it has no effect. Sometimes, they make a good point - some of the disk systems do resemble dynamos.

Some of the papers I've read in passing on "push" gravity theories estimate that the force of gravity is proportional to 1/d**2 locally, but trends to 1/d on the outsides of the galaxy. Otherwise, there's a lot of unseen matter there (and we haven't seen anything resembling the high-velocity clouds gathering on the edges of the galaxy)... or, alternately, we're ignoring a dynamo effect.

Or... etc. (Assuming we stop before postulating that angels sit on the edge fanning galaxies with their wings ;)

It's the bank of poorly-explained pieces that will lead us to our next big theoretical breakthrough (or revolution) - but it takes some special vigilance to keep track of what hasn't actually been explained properly, and what's been merely papered over.

Too many tweaks. They should have realized something was wrong sometime between inflation theory, and dark-energy-requiring ever-increasing-acceleration theory. Plenty of duct tape on things already :)

By the way, speaking of aether... ;)

I can understand the establishment position somewhat... it's either duct tape or anarchy. There's got to be a standard to measure against, but if the explanations start stretching thin, they need an exit strategy.

If that day comes, they will need to exit to something, though. What's out there that can explain the pancakes at multiple scales of the universe and other phenomena as well?

Perhaps they need to take a page out of other research and development, and apportion some funds to "blue sky" research.

The biggest dividends will come from research that's reviewed for logic, self-consistency and explanation of phenomena without regard to how well it fits into prior patterns. Pro-Ams and people in fields with more easily measureable results (applied sciences, for one) realize these benefits, but being in a field where so many assumptions have to be made to interpret the results in the first place make this next to impossible for the theoreticians to condone dissent.

Everybody's MMV :)

-- Ritchie

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4248

Not definitly...I've seen that technology for games(see link) and I remember microsoft had suggested doing that for MP3s and some other things with DRM. I don't know if the it's been put into place yet or not.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/m g18624951.800

This already comes to 32% of the adult male black population (and 8% of adult male whites) although females are not generally in the database.

Of course the government's dream is to tie this all in together (with supermarket loyalty cards chucked in, if you take a David Blunkett quip that way) to get files on each citizen that would make the Stasi envious (much easier to data-mine when its all digitised). If they could get face recognition technology to work with the dozens of cameras on each central london street they would be even happier...

I was referring to the fact that while some species died life as a whole went on. As far as major cataclysmic events we've had 5 major ones over the past 4 billion years so I'd say we're not doing too bad.

Again, humans have been around for 2 million years roughly.. consider that moden human history as it stands spans some 4000 years or so, and compare that to the speed at which we develop weapons and consume resources.

If you're looking for a more tangible mass extinction to debate may I suggest http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4797

Why not just combine this technology new way of detecting speech and this one citywide wireless access service and just deduct money directly out of our bank accounts every time we hum a copyrighted song?

Another article covering it here [www.newscientist.org].