And mark me, I don't tie guns to humanity. If it want guns it would be something else. It will one day be something other then guns, its just guns right now because everyone is so focused on them. Because humanity externalizes all its power in them right now.
Eliminating guns won't eliminate tragedy and mass murder, there's still chemicals, crazy cults (see Japan, Tokyo, Subways).
It's just not the right solution, no matter how much justification you try to throw at it. But its impossible to implement gun free zones and perfect safety and serenity. Would you take it a step further and just brainwash and medicate people Cockwork Orange style.
Jesus wouldn't demand peoples guns by force if your one of those Christian types. Bhudda wouldn't.
Science if you really want to get into the statistics it can be argued either way depending on how you cherry pick your data. But science cannot answer moral or ethical questions. If you think science can guide ethics I believe your fully insane and have no understanding of science.
Even an atheist with morals, philosophy and ethics knows that science can not help us understand compassion, mercy, love, liberty, dignity, or understanding of the human condition.
This is my belief so I call the people ruled by fear so uncontrollable they would sacrifice their humanity. Irrational and insane.
Hell further more its passing judgment on people you do not even know. That you cant do. We have it codified to even give suspected criminals the benefit of the doubt and prove they did something wrong before passing judgment.
So were just going to pass judgment and call all men and women animals. Even the crazy ones deserve more respect then that. I know a few functional crazy people.
The reason its irrational is its pretty much like taking the teeth away from sharks because they occasionally think people might be tasty.
Shit happens. Life goes on. But making everyone suffer for the protection of a few is far worse then a few shitty events.
It's life and death. And I am very familiar with death. I would gladly risk dieing to some horrible accident or crazy person if it ensured the peace and happiness and dignity of the world. That is the difference between animals and men and reason and uncontrolled fear.
I would be absolutely obliged to pay taxes on a salary for helping these people, especially if it insured we all got to keep our humanity by not loosing our freedom for a what I perceive to be only a tiny bit of safety from a not really big problem.
Honestly I see so many far worse problems we could fix then crazy people with weapons or the power to harm others.
Go back and do some research and try not to post off topic bullshit to forward your own irrational political ideology. Which is not even based in a firm understanding of morality or ethics. Your fear is irrational. Stop letting it control your thoughts. There are not a million billion crazed gun nuts seeking to kill you. Note that I state its irrational. Not illogical.
Sometimes these do good things. Sometimes they don't. Colonization is still an issue in the undeveloped parts of the world. And environmental controls don't do a damn thing about that except make it so the displaced people have clean water for a few extra years.
Agreed. Even if we can't come to a complete consensus on the cause we might want to consider climate engineering anyway if its within our reach even through laws.
But right now I'm frustrated with congress for not subsidizing more diverse energy solutions on the grid in our budget, like Germany is doing.
I don't know it sounds to me like he has the plot to Deus Ex: Human Revolution down pat.
It's at least a good question to ask even though he states it as a fact.
I think there are some people out there who fear what 300 years may be like from now. It's to bad because without judgment because you know we cannot predict the future so well yet. It might be good.
The answer is to know and make our own choices. I would probably draw the line at violating freedom for the advancement of technology.
"What "something"? There's no evidence or theoretical backing for the claim that the EM drive does anything. It's worth noting here that no one has seen a violation of conservation of momentum. Every such case where someone claims they have observed such turns to be observation error or fraud."
There is evidence, there's a video and a peer reviewed white paper translated to english.
"There's no mechanism by which momentum can be transferred from the system to the outside world, but the EM drive needs that in order to work."
What if it works differently then you suppose it could?
I wonder how much it would take to break the original Maxis Sim City 2000 rules down into a mod and tie it into a voxel game like minecraft. That would be a wild new game.
I know sim earth existed in a very small package. So what consists of the rules of these games is not all that computationally complex. And there's room to grow.
Dwarf Fortress is maybe two or three major update versions before it has multiple cities and sovereign groups fully interactive in a voxel like world were anything can be edited.
So it's not inconceivable that a major studio could publish a game like that from scratch. Particularly since the algorithms already exist for city management.
^^ this is the crux of it in a technical legal sense and what should be being mentioned, discussed and understood in courts of law with jailbraiking of phones and drm and all that. Our legal system has people in it smart enough to understand this simple fact if they would not refuse to look and turn a blind eye to anything that they should have been taught in whatever college they went to to get their law degree.
That and the people defending the letter of the law as Entropius described this should be patted on the back and rewarded for their good citizenship.
That's fine, I will not argue that. I will argue though that fire, the wheel, and a lot of chemistry was done without science as pseudoscience. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean it cannot be harnessed and used and experimented on.
To dismiss something because it doesn't fit our understanding and call it a scam is short sited. And frustrating to people who are curious.
Anyway I thought I would be a smart ass and bring it up here. To see if I got any more informative replies, then it's impossible. Not that it's impossible is an invalid reply, but it was more or less already known as an answer;p
I'm not even sure we can bring in the conservation of momentum as an issue because of how it is claimed to work. I linked the page because anyone who's really interested in physics can go have a read of the pdfs and articles and decide if thats really the case. The wiki article calling it a scam and bringing up the conservation of momentum is biased and based on false information, thats why I linked the talk page.
I understand that my lack of making a sound argument for all this without citations means I will mostly be ignored or flamed. And that is OK.
"Can someone edit the analysis page, it was blatently written by someone who hasn't read either the New Scientist article or the more recent Eureka article. It doesn't violate either the conservation of momentum or energy, as it uses energy!
Every article on it specifically states that when the equipment accelerates it loses thrust. If anyone would like to check, this happens with every form of propultion and just because it doesn't spew matter out of it doesn't make it reactionless."
Equating cold fusion to an emdrive and a scam makes stating cold fusion as existing relevant. Most people put it off out of hand. I put it here for people to do further research. There's plenty of debate as to whether cold fusion is feasible as a power generating technology. Its not out of the race yet. I believe the same thing about emdrive.
It doesn't violate the conservation of momentum because it is speculated to be an OPEN SYSTEM.
I am putting more faith in the 2008 Chinese peer review then random wiki about it and it also makes sense the way its described on the emdrive website.
It's plausible that you can get thrust from this machine. Regardless of the physics involved.
Cold fusion exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation - there's even articles citing NASA Langley types talking about how they think its a reasonable research but they don't for whatever politics or funding issues.
The difference between this and cold fusion though is that this is cheap to experiment on. Copper and microwave frequency transmitters are not that expensive. 4.5 ghz at what power I don't know exactly though. But it doesn't look like a lot and from white papers I read on their website, their own and the Chinese ones it seems like it should be reproducible.
We may not understand the math for this, but I am surprised some people out there haven't dumped a few thousand dollars into the tech to make it more efficient and powerful.
There's been some argument that because you can't patent something you can't explain in a scientific way means no large industry will pursue the tech without math they can legally use to protect their investment.
That doesn't mean me linking it here seeing if other people might be interested in it is dumb. Yeah I'm doing free advertising for what I think is the next best thing. It's a serious technology though. It's just immature and we don't have a way to make CAD spit out plans for us automatically. Its going to require trial and error.
I'm seriously tempted to try and reproduce it on a small scale.
I have heard some serious claims that life is pretty ubiquitous in space dust but its not commonly accepted or known about. See conspiracy. There's now been several meteors that have made noise in the scientific community which are still hotly debated by people that care to. There has also been interesting spectroscopy from mars. The scientific data from viking is still interpretable as proof for life rather then dis-proof. Its just not enough data to say "Yes life for sure". Tons of blogs and articles roaming the interwebs.
I think we won't know until theres a few hundred thousand of us all working and living in space and at that point knowledge like this will be common because the level of data collection and interaction amongst humanity will be great enough to overcome any obstacles.
Slashdot Mirror
History at its finest. And we call it a science.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_history_a_science
I would wish they taught shit like this to science graduates. So many miss this lesson.
And mark me, I don't tie guns to humanity. If it want guns it would be something else. It will one day be something other then guns, its just guns right now because everyone is so focused on them. Because humanity externalizes all its power in them right now.
Eliminating guns won't eliminate tragedy and mass murder, there's still chemicals, crazy cults (see Japan, Tokyo, Subways).
It's just not the right solution, no matter how much justification you try to throw at it. But its impossible to implement gun free zones and perfect safety and serenity. Would you take it a step further and just brainwash and medicate people Cockwork Orange style.
Jesus wouldn't demand peoples guns by force if your one of those Christian types. Bhudda wouldn't.
Science if you really want to get into the statistics it can be argued either way depending on how you cherry pick your data. But science cannot answer moral or ethical questions. If you think science can guide ethics I believe your fully insane and have no understanding of science.
Even an atheist with morals, philosophy and ethics knows that science can not help us understand compassion, mercy, love, liberty, dignity, or understanding of the human condition.
This is my belief so I call the people ruled by fear so uncontrollable they would sacrifice their humanity. Irrational and insane.
Hell further more its passing judgment on people you do not even know. That you cant do. We have it codified to even give suspected criminals the benefit of the doubt and prove they did something wrong before passing judgment.
So were just going to pass judgment and call all men and women animals. Even the crazy ones deserve more respect then that. I know a few functional crazy people.
The reason its irrational is its pretty much like taking the teeth away from sharks because they occasionally think people might be tasty.
Shit happens. Life goes on. But making everyone suffer for the protection of a few is far worse then a few shitty events.
It's life and death. And I am very familiar with death. I would gladly risk dieing to some horrible accident or crazy person if it ensured the peace and happiness and dignity of the world. That is the difference between animals and men and reason and uncontrolled fear.
Hell I would pay extra tax on any medication or any income I had if it went to keeping society together while protecting peoples liberty.
I would be absolutely obliged to pay taxes on a salary for helping these people, especially if it insured we all got to keep our humanity by not loosing our freedom for a what I perceive to be only a tiny bit of safety from a not really big problem.
Honestly I see so many far worse problems we could fix then crazy people with weapons or the power to harm others.
But thanks for sharing your opinion.
Go back and do some research and try not to post off topic bullshit to forward your own irrational political ideology. Which is not even based in a firm understanding of morality or ethics. Your fear is irrational. Stop letting it control your thoughts. There are not a million billion crazed gun nuts seeking to kill you. Note that I state its irrational. Not illogical.
These numbers are actually accurate this time. Even if made up on the spot.
That is a really interesting idea, not sure why you felt the need to post AC.
Sometimes these do good things. Sometimes they don't. Colonization is still an issue in the undeveloped parts of the world. And environmental controls don't do a damn thing about that except make it so the displaced people have clean water for a few extra years.
Agreed. Even if we can't come to a complete consensus on the cause we might want to consider climate engineering anyway if its within our reach even through laws.
But right now I'm frustrated with congress for not subsidizing more diverse energy solutions on the grid in our budget, like Germany is doing.
I don't know it sounds to me like he has the plot to Deus Ex: Human Revolution down pat.
It's at least a good question to ask even though he states it as a fact.
I think there are some people out there who fear what 300 years may be like from now. It's to bad because without judgment because you know we cannot predict the future so well yet. It might be good.
The answer is to know and make our own choices. I would probably draw the line at violating freedom for the advancement of technology.
This is the best response and I to wonder this same thing.
I can't say that the drive is a scam flat out based on textbook physics though and thats mostly what I have been attempting to respond to.
"What "something"? There's no evidence or theoretical backing for the claim that the EM drive does anything. It's worth noting here that no one has seen a violation of conservation of momentum. Every such case where someone claims they have observed such turns to be observation error or fraud."
There is evidence, there's a video and a peer reviewed white paper translated to english.
"There's no mechanism by which momentum can be transferred from the system to the outside world, but the EM drive needs that in order to work."
What if it works differently then you suppose it could?
I wonder how much it would take to break the original Maxis Sim City 2000 rules down into a mod and tie it into a voxel game like minecraft. That would be a wild new game.
I know sim earth existed in a very small package. So what consists of the rules of these games is not all that computationally complex. And there's room to grow.
Dwarf Fortress is maybe two or three major update versions before it has multiple cities and sovereign groups fully interactive in a voxel like world were anything can be edited.
So it's not inconceivable that a major studio could publish a game like that from scratch. Particularly since the algorithms already exist for city management.
^^ this is the crux of it in a technical legal sense and what should be being mentioned, discussed and understood in courts of law with jailbraiking of phones and drm and all that. Our legal system has people in it smart enough to understand this simple fact if they would not refuse to look and turn a blind eye to anything that they should have been taught in whatever college they went to to get their law degree.
That and the people defending the letter of the law as Entropius described this should be patted on the back and rewarded for their good citizenship.
That's fine, I will not argue that. I will argue though that fire, the wheel, and a lot of chemistry was done without science as pseudoscience. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean it cannot be harnessed and used and experimented on.
To dismiss something because it doesn't fit our understanding and call it a scam is short sited. And frustrating to people who are curious.
Anyway I thought I would be a smart ass and bring it up here. To see if I got any more informative replies, then it's impossible. Not that it's impossible is an invalid reply, but it was more or less already known as an answer ;p
I'm not even sure we can bring in the conservation of momentum as an issue because of how it is claimed to work. I linked the page because anyone who's really interested in physics can go have a read of the pdfs and articles and decide if thats really the case. The wiki article calling it a scam and bringing up the conservation of momentum is biased and based on false information, thats why I linked the talk page.
I understand that my lack of making a sound argument for all this without citations means I will mostly be ignored or flamed. And that is OK.
Thanks for your time =)
You never know, damn Marxist feminists being given power and all ;p (sarcasm)
Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_2Jduxc2P8&feature=player_embedded#!
Maybe I should have left it at that. The thing is, people will do what they want and its crazy for this news paper to swim upstream. I hope they fail.
Also see the wiki talk page for more debate about the articles in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EmDrive
"Can someone edit the analysis page, it was blatently written by someone who hasn't read either the New Scientist article or the more recent Eureka article. It doesn't violate either the conservation of momentum or energy, as it uses energy!
Every article on it specifically states that when the equipment accelerates it loses thrust. If anyone would like to check, this happens with every form of propultion and just because it doesn't spew matter out of it doesn't make it reactionless."
Equating cold fusion to an emdrive and a scam makes stating cold fusion as existing relevant. Most people put it off out of hand. I put it here for people to do further research. There's plenty of debate as to whether cold fusion is feasible as a power generating technology. Its not out of the race yet. I believe the same thing about emdrive.
If your refering to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive
It doesn't violate the conservation of momentum because it is speculated to be an OPEN SYSTEM.
I am putting more faith in the 2008 Chinese peer review then random wiki about it and it also makes sense the way its described on the emdrive website.
It's plausible that you can get thrust from this machine. Regardless of the physics involved.
Cold fusion exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation - there's even articles citing NASA Langley types talking about how they think its a reasonable research but they don't for whatever politics or funding issues.
The difference between this and cold fusion though is that this is cheap to experiment on. Copper and microwave frequency transmitters are not that expensive. 4.5 ghz at what power I don't know exactly though. But it doesn't look like a lot and from white papers I read on their website, their own and the Chinese ones it seems like it should be reproducible.
We may not understand the math for this, but I am surprised some people out there haven't dumped a few thousand dollars into the tech to make it more efficient and powerful.
There's been some argument that because you can't patent something you can't explain in a scientific way means no large industry will pursue the tech without math they can legally use to protect their investment.
That doesn't mean me linking it here seeing if other people might be interested in it is dumb. Yeah I'm doing free advertising for what I think is the next best thing. It's a serious technology though. It's just immature and we don't have a way to make CAD spit out plans for us automatically. Its going to require trial and error.
I'm seriously tempted to try and reproduce it on a small scale.
I have heard some serious claims that life is pretty ubiquitous in space dust but its not commonly accepted or known about. See conspiracy. There's now been several meteors that have made noise in the scientific community which are still hotly debated by people that care to. There has also been interesting spectroscopy from mars. The scientific data from viking is still interpretable as proof for life rather then dis-proof. Its just not enough data to say "Yes life for sure". Tons of blogs and articles roaming the interwebs.
http://earthsky.org/space/did-the-viking-landers-find-life-on-mars-in-1976 illustrates what I am trying to say.
I think we won't know until theres a few hundred thousand of us all working and living in space and at that point knowledge like this will be common because the level of data collection and interaction amongst humanity will be great enough to overcome any obstacles.
http://www.emdrive.com/ Why not develop this technology so everyone can use their microwaves and a copper cone to have a spaceport in their driveway?
Governments could even rake in tons of revenue and taxes on emdrive certification and licensing fees. This would be great for the economy.