Rockets don't burn cash $$$ to reach trajectory. You don't stuff life support systems with pennies (well... unless you're using them as a reactant in the production of vital gases, but you know what I mean.) Pressurized domes aren't constructed out of stock values. Etc.
There are a lot of great arguments here about how expensive it is just to lift weight into orbit, or do a manned flyby of a gas giant (why the hell would we do that, I don't know).
But, realistically, by the time these efforts are undertaken, money will have little to do with it. You can quote the cost of taking a five-hundred year trip to another sustainable planet on a vessel capable of sustaining ten generations of the inhabitants.
Or, my preferred plan: you invent artificial wombs and just send them with some robotic nanny/professors and a sperm and egg library to whichever planet or itinerary of planets. You could get there and discover it's not as habitable as the astrophysics wizards predicted it should be. Maybe there are bad animals or some kind of noxious gas or germ.
So, maybe you should be prepared for multiple centuries-long journeys before hitting 'jackpot'. Or, maybe you should bring along extinction-event weapons to "cleanse" the planet, and accompany the human-genetic library with an Earth life-form library, but the logistics behind robotically replacing the generational training most animals undergo in order to survive in the wilderness is mind-boggling.
And life would be crappy without animals. But you can't do a selective extinction event, not without a robotic laser-sniper sitting in orbit for a long time selectively studying and then shooting dead just certain animals.
And you don't want to risk your valuable cargo's life by plopping them down in a germ soup their evolution hasn't prepared them for, so you'd have to bring all of the Earth germs along with you somehow. So, another genetic library enters the mix, and there's no sure gaurantee the germs will thrive on the new planet. They're pretty unique to Earth.
But, you *need* the germs, so... you almost may as well have sustained the human occupants the entire time. Even if it was just an "Adam and Eve" model system, reproducing from the sperm bank instead of with each other. Of course, such a low number doesn't bode well for the survival of the species. If Eve cuts her hand changing an air supply fan, and the fan turns out to be coated with the sort of strange-ass organic gunk that grows on space vehicles occupied by humans, and she gets seriously fucked up and died, you're fucked. You'd hope you brought your artificial womb for backup....
My apologies, I digress.
Any way you look at it, it's so "expensive" that you won't find the needed assets in the hand of any one person.
So, the only way you'll ever get out to populate space is if you dedicate the entire population to the effort, and you'd have to have a population that finds itself conducive to a single, unified effort, and also conducive to taking a gigantic hit to the entire concept of private property. You'd need to resurrect Adam Weishaupt. You'd have to lead the world with a resurrected Illuminati zombie. I mean, since we're being imaginative, and all.
You'll have to dedicate all of these mineral resources, engineering and labor resources, time and energy to the effort of producing the mechanisms, launching them, all of it. And there's not going to be any way to afford it unless you either pay just for the human effort or pay just for the mineral rights.
People are going to argue for the former, and so you're going to have to secure the mineral rights through governance. But that ultimately means all the private enterprises, hopes and dreams of individuals that those minerals represent is all going to be squashed. People are going to go without those minerals, so the money you're paying them is going to mean less than it would have before the project started.
So, in real terms it's not going to be about dollars, it's going to be about number
And I think this will be popular just because I think you all rather enjoy talking about eating my meat. It's not spelled the same but most people pronounce them both the same. So anyways. Yeah, please, eat my meat. This wine is my blood. LOL. Eat my Petrie meat. Too grand.
I'm sure there are plenty of senior citizens or people with low self esteem who wouldn't mind dying on this asteroid, if you could gaurantee they'll be doing some flyby of other stuff worth looking at before they send-off. Plenty of people would gladly be marooned in space just with a space suit and a huge bag of beef jerky and granola and a big tank of water.
Reading the letter, and listening to the video, it seems to me that Coyne completely blindsided Haught. But, I can't help but feel that Haught's avoidance of anything resembling debate probably has something to do with this statement:
`` Sophisticated argument requires as an essential condition that you have the good manners to understand before you criticize. '' -- John Haught (to Jerry Coyne)
In the video, Haught defines faith explicitly as feeling the presence of something you have absolutely no means or context to comprehend. "Like being carried along by something large." But he also attempts to argue for spiritual awareness and "personal transformation" as necessary for complete thought, by referring to the Biblical writer, Paul.
Haught also refers to reality, existence, and experience, as consisting of multiple layers of meaning which can be deduced by some and not by others. He uses the example of a book: to a monkey, it is "black marks on white paper"; to a toddler learning the alphabet, it is "a treasure trove of possible meaning, a code"; to an adolescent, it's a plain use of language and to an adult with experiences to relate, it's a source of "timeless wisdom".
Relating all of these sentiments back to the Bible, from what authority did the authors write? From what authority does the reader attempt to understand? The suggestion is that the Bible (along with all of the other religious texts) constitutes this "something large" that carried the authors along. But in my personal experience, the use of the Bible more closely resembles this statement:
`` Citation of a few isolated sentences or paragraphs, the meaning of which requires reading and understanding many chapters, is hardly useful criticism. You grossly distorted every quotation you used, and then you coated over your [mis]understanding of these statements with your own uncritical creationist and literalist set of assumptions about the Bible and theology. There was no room for real conversation, as impartial viewers will notice. '' -- John Haught (to Jerry Coyne)
If we replace the word "criticism" with "evangelism" (which we can, because you have to be able to think critically about a subject in order to relate it to others with any cognition):
`` Sophisticated evangelism requires as an essential condition that you have the good manners to understand before you evangelize. ''
`` Citation of a few isolated sentences or paragraphs, the meaning of which requires reading and understanding many chapters, is hardly useful evangelism. You grossly distorted every quotation you used, and then you coated over your [mis]understanding of these statements with your own uncritical creationist and literalist set of assumptions about the Bible and theology. ''
The big problem with religious texts is that they both have to be taken as a whole (in order to be accepted for what they are presented as being by their followers) but they have to be taken in bits and pieces (because that's how humans communicate realistically, not in entire volumes at a time but in small bits that fit the constraints of energy and time).
There are reasons why the biblicists fought against literacy for centuries, and why when they lost that fight they fought against language, and why when they lost that fight they fought against astronomy and all other sciences, and why when they lost that fight they now fight against proper education and comprehension.
Even though Coyne blindsided Haught, and was arrogant and rude, he has some excuse: he's probably carrying the nerd-rage of seeing how your heroes throughout history have been supressed by religion, along with many of the greatest people of all time, and seeing how the worst offender (Christianity) argues that this treatment of people is looked upon highly by their "God". Anyone who looks at Christianity and truly comprehends it for what it is has every right in the world to be either enraged or frustrated.
If someone like Haught can't face debate, it's because that's one o
That's pretty amazing. Knowing that Russia's "Tzar Bomba" test utilized only half of the real weapon's 100 megaton charge, and that the subsequent explosion scared nuclear science into setting a goal of eventually not doing that any more (at least as I interpreted it), I expected our own "biggest bomb" to be some ginormous dinosaur we were too cautious to reveal let alone keep on stock. Here we have this modest, naval warfare weapon. That speaks volumes about America's conservativism towards nuclear weapons. Not only is its disarmament a nice show for people who want to believe nukes never happened, it's also a good mark for the people who are often accused of being trigger-happy, gung-ho, and sci-fi.
CCD isn't some mystery. It has already been solved. Over generations, bee-keepers have lost some of the finer points of bee-keeping, especially where there is an adherence to natural processes involved. This is understandable, given that beekeeping and honey cultivation are productivity-driven processes, intensified toward creating more product and not necessarily accommodating "bee nature". However, "bee nature" is directly affected by fungi such as nosema and cordyceps, and though their forefathers understood the necessity of such things as opening hives for aeration or "letting nature take its course" from time to time, the control-minded and productivity-driven behaviour of current beekeepers has them shrugging their shoulders over what to do. This has already been discussed at length, but you can look all over the internet and find discussions between beekeepers:
"what do I do about my bees having constant diarrhea all over the nest, or fungal infections? should i use a chemical?"
answer: "... open you hives and let them air out. give up harvesting, this year. check again next year. source... some latest findings by grant-driven scientific research? nope! some centuries-old book on beekeeping your grandpa probably had two copies of and probably never had to read once. maybe you should think about another line of work?"
I have a copy of a book on the same subject, "The Child and the Machine: Why computers may put our children's educations at risk". It's pretty interesting even if the author is obviously not a computer tech.
More evidence that our observable, perceivable universe even to its furthest reaches is not "all there is". You cannot find context for sidedness within a unary axiom.
The DeLorean failed because it was too expensive and quickly earned a bad safety reputation for shearing in half during collisions. People didn't buy them when they were offered at 60%. Why would people go back and buy one, now?
You should get a weightless apparatus, which could be any one of the following depending on your budget:
1. Office in outer space 2. Office on a supersonic jet that will do the free fall trick several times an hour (and refuel in air until it's the end of the business day) 3. A skydiving tube (vertical wind tunnel) 4. A huge frame of metal struts and a lot of tension springs connected to a trampoline canopy, with all your work supplies and things on that 5. One of those three-axis, fully rotational strap-down beds that spins around real fast with you in the middle 6. A full-torso, repeating spectre that carries you and your coffee around without expending any energy on the physical plane (not the supersonic plane, not the axial plane, the other kind of plane)
And for tools you should choose from one or more of these:
1. A full sensory immersion tank with electrodes and HDMI directly connected to your synapses through the base of your skull, inside a giant MRI that can read your brain pictures unless your secretary is in the room 2. A talking dildo that pees on your hand when you need water and orders chinese take out when you show signs of malnourishment 3. Laser beams inside of your eyes that burn paper or simply warm up the butts of your coworkers 4. Trained marmosets on a lot of xanax (so they don't freak out), who will fetch small packs of ketchup or instant coffee, lemon juice or dixie cups (which they like to wear for hats), or who will scribble notes on paper for you (if you implant things into their brains and connect them to a remote control connected to a Koala pad built into the arm of your chair)
There's lot of stuff you could get, you just have to learn to make some decisions for yourself!
not only will they make it through, they'll be less top-heavy and more bouyant in the end.
i mean, why should they rethink it? they're going to revolutionize computing in two years. shouldn't the focus be on getting existing warehouse and/or factory space down to bare minimal and ready to process memristor based components? they can get ahead of the game by cleaning out and retooling right now.
i wish i had the money to invest. surely remarks such as they're making will drive down the value of their stock, and they'll have another opportunity to only have shareholders on who are genuinely interested in the product and who know what they're got their hands on. this will make them smarter long-term investors who are more likely to hold onto their stock during mild troubles.
it's a great strategy, if that's what they're doing. it should be a model for the future: being honestly concerned about one's own business decisions, in front of everyone. the whole "don't lose your cool" presence has........ strained...... things.
. . . property of government thus not subject to "Warrant" being their property by default, especially if you sign any contract to "relinquish service" or "relinquish ownership" or otherwise "relinquish [rights]" in the involvement? Or, should we always ask them to serve a warrant when they want to get the data off the wire they let us carry around?
Or are all the wall street little startups suddenly advertising the fuck out of every single online publication that publishes an article about the occupy wall street movement?
Try with mozilla aurora and "always ask" on cookies. I used irishcentral and news.google.com for article research.
some indications point to memristor as good for a new sort of processor.
from wikipedia:
"HP prototyped a crossbar latch memory using the devices that can fit 100 gigabits in a square centimeter,[5] and has designed a highly scalable 3D design (consisting of up to 1000 layers or 1 petabit per cm3).[citation needed] HP has reported that its version of the memristor is currently about one-tenth the speed of DRAM.[36] The devices' resistance would be read with alternating current so that the stored value would not be affected.[37]"
100 gigabits in a square centimeter. I also read that these memristor beds are easily stacked into cubic "chips" without consequence. Wouldn't that mean E+9*9 or E+81 bits of storage per cubic centimeter?
This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor/ is more interesting. But, which one are we going to see, first? I'd prefer to see HP's memristor dominate the memory, storage, and processor markets. But are we going to have to wait through some stage of planned obsolescence, first, while all these minor variations on existing components arrive and all companies seek to maximize profits on those before moving onto something that makes them all obsolete?
This is a great comment, BTW. I love how many times you say "dead birds". I'm not sure but I think you're saying that there are dead birds littering up outer space. Is that true? That's fucking atrocious! How the hell are they getting up there?!!?!?!?!?
Entirely true. You can only protect your rights within your own nationality -- it could be airtight and perfect for your needs (whatever protection you come up with) and somebody from China or Turky will still distribute it in some way that earns them American cash or Euros.
Slashdot Mirror
Rockets don't burn cash $$$ to reach trajectory. You don't stuff life support systems with pennies (well... unless you're using them as a reactant in the production of vital gases, but you know what I mean.) Pressurized domes aren't constructed out of stock values. Etc.
There are a lot of great arguments here about how expensive it is just to lift weight into orbit, or do a manned flyby of a gas giant (why the hell would we do that, I don't know).
But, realistically, by the time these efforts are undertaken, money will have little to do with it. You can quote the cost of taking a five-hundred year trip to another sustainable planet on a vessel capable of sustaining ten generations of the inhabitants.
Or, my preferred plan: you invent artificial wombs and just send them with some robotic nanny/professors and a sperm and egg library to whichever planet or itinerary of planets. You could get there and discover it's not as habitable as the astrophysics wizards predicted it should be. Maybe there are bad animals or some kind of noxious gas or germ.
So, maybe you should be prepared for multiple centuries-long journeys before hitting 'jackpot'. Or, maybe you should bring along extinction-event weapons to "cleanse" the planet, and accompany the human-genetic library with an Earth life-form library, but the logistics behind robotically replacing the generational training most animals undergo in order to survive in the wilderness is mind-boggling.
And life would be crappy without animals. But you can't do a selective extinction event, not without a robotic laser-sniper sitting in orbit for a long time selectively studying and then shooting dead just certain animals.
And you don't want to risk your valuable cargo's life by plopping them down in a germ soup their evolution hasn't prepared them for, so you'd have to bring all of the Earth germs along with you somehow. So, another genetic library enters the mix, and there's no sure gaurantee the germs will thrive on the new planet. They're pretty unique to Earth.
But, you *need* the germs, so... you almost may as well have sustained the human occupants the entire time. Even if it was just an "Adam and Eve" model system, reproducing from the sperm bank instead of with each other. Of course, such a low number doesn't bode well for the survival of the species. If Eve cuts her hand changing an air supply fan, and the fan turns out to be coated with the sort of strange-ass organic gunk that grows on space vehicles occupied by humans, and she gets seriously fucked up and died, you're fucked. You'd hope you brought your artificial womb for backup....
My apologies, I digress.
Any way you look at it, it's so "expensive" that you won't find the needed assets in the hand of any one person.
So, the only way you'll ever get out to populate space is if you dedicate the entire population to the effort, and you'd have to have a population that finds itself conducive to a single, unified effort, and also conducive to taking a gigantic hit to the entire concept of private property. You'd need to resurrect Adam Weishaupt. You'd have to lead the world with a resurrected Illuminati zombie. I mean, since we're being imaginative, and all.
You'll have to dedicate all of these mineral resources, engineering and labor resources, time and energy to the effort of producing the mechanisms, launching them, all of it. And there's not going to be any way to afford it unless you either pay just for the human effort or pay just for the mineral rights.
People are going to argue for the former, and so you're going to have to secure the mineral rights through governance. But that ultimately means all the private enterprises, hopes and dreams of individuals that those minerals represent is all going to be squashed. People are going to go without those minerals, so the money you're paying them is going to mean less than it would have before the project started.
So, in real terms it's not going to be about dollars, it's going to be about number
And I think this will be popular just because I think you all rather enjoy talking about eating my meat. It's not spelled the same but most people pronounce them both the same. So anyways. Yeah, please, eat my meat. This wine is my blood. LOL. Eat my Petrie meat. Too grand.
... Tomorrow, my garment-sleeves!!!
The spirit of Steve Jobs lives on.
I'm sure there are plenty of senior citizens or people with low self esteem who wouldn't mind dying on this asteroid, if you could gaurantee they'll be doing some flyby of other stuff worth looking at before they send-off. Plenty of people would gladly be marooned in space just with a space suit and a huge bag of beef jerky and granola and a big tank of water.
"The Final Countdown" just popped into my head. Thanks. ):
Reading the letter, and listening to the video, it seems to me that Coyne completely blindsided Haught. But, I can't help but feel that Haught's avoidance of anything resembling debate probably has something to do with this statement:
`` Sophisticated argument requires as an essential condition that you have the good manners to understand before you criticize. '' -- John Haught (to Jerry Coyne)
In the video, Haught defines faith explicitly as feeling the presence of something you have absolutely no means or context to comprehend. "Like being carried along by something large." But he also attempts to argue for spiritual awareness and "personal transformation" as necessary for complete thought, by referring to the Biblical writer, Paul.
Haught also refers to reality, existence, and experience, as consisting of multiple layers of meaning which can be deduced by some and not by others. He uses the example of a book: to a monkey, it is "black marks on white paper"; to a toddler learning the alphabet, it is "a treasure trove of possible meaning, a code"; to an adolescent, it's a plain use of language and to an adult with experiences to relate, it's a source of "timeless wisdom".
Relating all of these sentiments back to the Bible, from what authority did the authors write? From what authority does the reader attempt to understand? The suggestion is that the Bible (along with all of the other religious texts) constitutes this "something large" that carried the authors along. But in my personal experience, the use of the Bible more closely resembles this statement:
`` Citation of a few isolated sentences or paragraphs, the meaning of which requires reading and understanding many chapters, is hardly useful criticism. You grossly distorted every quotation you used, and then you coated over your [mis]understanding of these statements with your own uncritical creationist and literalist set of assumptions about the Bible and theology. There was no room for real conversation, as impartial viewers will notice. '' -- John Haught (to Jerry Coyne)
If we replace the word "criticism" with "evangelism" (which we can, because you have to be able to think critically about a subject in order to relate it to others with any cognition):
`` Sophisticated evangelism requires as an essential condition that you have the good manners to understand before you evangelize. ''
`` Citation of a few isolated sentences or paragraphs, the meaning of which requires reading and understanding many chapters, is hardly useful evangelism. You grossly distorted every quotation you used, and then you coated over your [mis]understanding of these statements with your own uncritical creationist and literalist set of assumptions about the Bible and theology. ''
The big problem with religious texts is that they both have to be taken as a whole (in order to be accepted for what they are presented as being by their followers) but they have to be taken in bits and pieces (because that's how humans communicate realistically, not in entire volumes at a time but in small bits that fit the constraints of energy and time).
There are reasons why the biblicists fought against literacy for centuries, and why when they lost that fight they fought against language, and why when they lost that fight they fought against astronomy and all other sciences, and why when they lost that fight they now fight against proper education and comprehension.
Even though Coyne blindsided Haught, and was arrogant and rude, he has some excuse: he's probably carrying the nerd-rage of seeing how your heroes throughout history have been supressed by religion, along with many of the greatest people of all time, and seeing how the worst offender (Christianity) argues that this treatment of people is looked upon highly by their "God". Anyone who looks at Christianity and truly comprehends it for what it is has every right in the world to be either enraged or frustrated.
If someone like Haught can't face debate, it's because that's one o
That's pretty amazing. Knowing that Russia's "Tzar Bomba" test utilized only half of the real weapon's 100 megaton charge, and that the subsequent explosion scared nuclear science into setting a goal of eventually not doing that any more (at least as I interpreted it), I expected our own "biggest bomb" to be some ginormous dinosaur we were too cautious to reveal let alone keep on stock. Here we have this modest, naval warfare weapon. That speaks volumes about America's conservativism towards nuclear weapons. Not only is its disarmament a nice show for people who want to believe nukes never happened, it's also a good mark for the people who are often accused of being trigger-happy, gung-ho, and sci-fi.
CCD isn't some mystery. It has already been solved. Over generations, bee-keepers have lost some of the finer points of bee-keeping, especially where there is an adherence to natural processes involved. This is understandable, given that beekeeping and honey cultivation are productivity-driven processes, intensified toward creating more product and not necessarily accommodating "bee nature". However, "bee nature" is directly affected by fungi such as nosema and cordyceps, and though their forefathers understood the necessity of such things as opening hives for aeration or "letting nature take its course" from time to time, the control-minded and productivity-driven behaviour of current beekeepers has them shrugging their shoulders over what to do. This has already been discussed at length, but you can look all over the internet and find discussions between beekeepers:
"what do I do about my bees having constant diarrhea all over the nest, or fungal infections? should i use a chemical?"
answer: "... open you hives and let them air out. give up harvesting, this year. check again next year. source... some latest findings by grant-driven scientific research? nope! some centuries-old book on beekeeping your grandpa probably had two copies of and probably never had to read once. maybe you should think about another line of work?"
I have a copy of a book on the same subject, "The Child and the Machine: Why computers may put our children's educations at risk". It's pretty interesting even if the author is obviously not a computer tech.
More evidence that our observable, perceivable universe even to its furthest reaches is not "all there is". You cannot find context for sidedness within a unary axiom.
The DeLorean failed because it was too expensive and quickly earned a bad safety reputation for shearing in half during collisions. People didn't buy them when they were offered at 60%. Why would people go back and buy one, now?
You should get a weightless apparatus, which could be any one of the following depending on your budget:
1. Office in outer space
2. Office on a supersonic jet that will do the free fall trick several times an hour (and refuel in air until it's the end of the business day)
3. A skydiving tube (vertical wind tunnel)
4. A huge frame of metal struts and a lot of tension springs connected to a trampoline canopy, with all your work supplies and things on that
5. One of those three-axis, fully rotational strap-down beds that spins around real fast with you in the middle
6. A full-torso, repeating spectre that carries you and your coffee around without expending any energy on the physical plane (not the supersonic plane, not the axial plane, the other kind of plane)
And for tools you should choose from one or more of these:
1. A full sensory immersion tank with electrodes and HDMI directly connected to your synapses through the base of your skull, inside a giant MRI that can read your brain pictures unless your secretary is in the room
2. A talking dildo that pees on your hand when you need water and orders chinese take out when you show signs of malnourishment
3. Laser beams inside of your eyes that burn paper or simply warm up the butts of your coworkers
4. Trained marmosets on a lot of xanax (so they don't freak out), who will fetch small packs of ketchup or instant coffee, lemon juice or dixie cups (which they like to wear for hats), or who will scribble notes on paper for you (if you implant things into their brains and connect them to a remote control connected to a Koala pad built into the arm of your chair)
There's lot of stuff you could get, you just have to learn to make some decisions for yourself!
not only will they make it through, they'll be less top-heavy and more bouyant in the end.
i mean, why should they rethink it? they're going to revolutionize computing in two years. shouldn't the focus be on getting existing warehouse and/or factory space down to bare minimal and ready to process memristor based components? they can get ahead of the game by cleaning out and retooling right now.
i wish i had the money to invest. surely remarks such as they're making will drive down the value of their stock, and they'll have another opportunity to only have shareholders on who are genuinely interested in the product and who know what they're got their hands on. this will make them smarter long-term investors who are more likely to hold onto their stock during mild troubles.
it's a great strategy, if that's what they're doing. it should be a model for the future: being honestly concerned about one's own business decisions, in front of everyone. the whole "don't lose your cool" presence has........ strained...... things.
. . . property of government thus not subject to "Warrant" being their property by default, especially if you sign any contract to "relinquish service" or "relinquish ownership" or otherwise "relinquish [rights]" in the involvement? Or, should we always ask them to serve a warrant when they want to get the data off the wire they let us carry around?
Or are all the wall street little startups suddenly advertising the fuck out of every single online publication that publishes an article about the occupy wall street movement?
Try with mozilla aurora and "always ask" on cookies. I used irishcentral and news.google.com for article research.
ask mee ask me askme
buh duuuuhhhh duh buh bubu doo duh duuhhhh!
duh buh buhbuh, duh, uh, uhhHHHHHh!
oh, it's right in the quote. 1 petabit/cm^3 so it's E+9+3, not E+9*x. But STILL! A petabit on a keychain.
some indications point to memristor as good for a new sort of processor.
from wikipedia:
"HP prototyped a crossbar latch memory using the devices that can fit 100 gigabits in a square centimeter,[5] and has designed a highly scalable 3D design (consisting of up to 1000 layers or 1 petabit per cm3).[citation needed] HP has reported that its version of the memristor is currently about one-tenth the speed of DRAM.[36] The devices' resistance would be read with alternating current so that the stored value would not be affected.[37]"
100 gigabits in a square centimeter. I also read that these memristor beds are easily stacked into cubic "chips" without consequence. Wouldn't that mean E+9*9 or E+81 bits of storage per cubic centimeter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc7yUo9jqYY
... It's likely to be:
* Overpriced
* Underthought
* ^-- + Underdeveloped
* ^-- + + Bloated
* Insecure
This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor/ is more interesting. But, which one are we going to see, first? I'd prefer to see HP's memristor dominate the memory, storage, and processor markets. But are we going to have to wait through some stage of planned obsolescence, first, while all these minor variations on existing components arrive and all companies seek to maximize profits on those before moving onto something that makes them all obsolete?
This is a great comment, BTW. I love how many times you say "dead birds". I'm not sure but I think you're saying that there are dead birds littering up outer space. Is that true? That's fucking atrocious! How the hell are they getting up there?!!?!?!?!?
create: memory{ ^muscle; "calculator" };
create: memory{ ^muscle; "phone" };
create: shut{ ^the fuck; "up" };
Entirely true. You can only protect your rights within your own nationality -- it could be airtight and perfect for your needs (whatever protection you come up with) and somebody from China or Turky will still distribute it in some way that earns them American cash or Euros.