What are you talking about? We can already make holograms! We see because light hits our eyes, and if we can generate it to behave as if it's coming of some objects, we will see those objects. We can do that using the wave behavior of light. To make holographic movies, we need to be capable of adjusting phase of emitted light at any point, not only amplitude (and computational power, I'm not sure how complex generating the image will be). There is no need for teleportation of any kind.
Well, silicon is quite abundant on earth, about 15% of it, and more importantly almost 30% of the crust (still second to oxygen, by the way), but it's not even close to being "the most abundant in the universe". As irrelevant as it is to chip manufacturing, almost all baryonic matter in the universe is hydrogen and helium. Silicon is not even close...
Well, if this id going to be a discussion of rights, please tell me how wealth (as opposed to immediate property, wealth - your stocks not your house) is a right and not a privilege given by the society. You aren't Ayn Rand, and I doubt you'll manage to make a more cogent argument than she ever could...
You see, the limitations on those privileges make a lot of sense once you understand this...
if the people of the assembled group wanted to base their vote on a collective decision, then there isn't anything that should stop such a thing.
If people wanted to vote through the group, there is something that will stop it, however. I'm not an American, so I might be wrong regarding your laws, but you can't give your vote to the corporation and send it to vote for everyone. This right is not transferable. It would make sense that other rights, such as free speech, are also not transferable. If this was the case, you could do whatever you want, publish books and movies and so on, but corporations will not. I see no problem with this.
This question is not well phrased. There is no universal "now" in relativity. You probably mean something like "in our reference frame does this galaxy exist somewhere now", and then the answer is that we can't tell. If you'll choose some other reference frame, you'll get different points to correspond to our "now". So abandon the notion of "still exist", it exists "now" in the most meaningful way, the point we see when we look there...
Desalination costs are about 0.5$ per cubic meter (0.0019$ per gallon) with modern technology (price should drop with scale, this is estimated current costs in Israel and Singapore). It should definitely be lower than transportation costs for this distance, but maybe they wish to make money with high priced bottled water? If someone RTFA maybe he can answer this...
If this is a legal requirement, than you're not in a war. The US congress declared war for the last time (so far) in June 5, 1942 and this is what it takes for you to be formally in a war. So the president probably can't use anything that can be done only in times of war.
This is science, you never know for sure. In science you never have a complete answer, just a series of partial, half wrong answers. Hopefully you get better answers over time, but you never know the exact, complete answer. In this case we have a complicated system, one we have very little success in predicting its behavior. And they didn't say there will be no earthquake, just that the minor ones don't imply an imminent major one. I see no problem with this claim (as long as it is reasonable by modern seismology).
"It's hard to make predictions - especially about the future." --Robert Storm Petersen
How about taking over BP because its assets exceed the damage and selling said assets off to fund national oil independence?
Do you know how big BP is? Its assets are worth 236B$ (according to wikipedia, as of 2009). This is going to be expensive, possibly in the billions of dollars, but I doubt they will have to sell anything, they had net income of 16.5B$ in 2009. As for the rest, I would say that legal action should be taken only after investigation, which is underway, and according to the actual evidence. The liability caps were not issued by the president (any president, by the way) but by the congress, and republicans there are currently blocking the attempt to remove them (claiming they should be increased, but not completely removed).
That's obviously wrong, if this was the goal there was no connection between the time of death and expiration of copyright. There are probably two reasons:
1) copyright is conceived as actual property, so it should be inheritable.
2) some (possibly many, I don't want to make any statistical claim) artists create till they're dead, with some works even published after the author's death. It doesn't fit the general approach that those creations would not have any copyright protection.
This is the general justification, I believe, but it still makes more sense with a fixed period...
I admit one mistake, then, it's not _your_ straw man. You see, this article was written by reporters for the general public. Both of these groups are not known for grasp of technical matters, scientific ones or even numbers. If you'd apply your thinking to actual data, such as papers published by scientists (for example, this and this) you'll see the actual number is about 30kg of water per second per ship, and the proposed method is to use wind powered robotic vessels. The second article, by the way, is very informative.
Your arrogance doesn't improve your arguments, as you still attack your straw man. I have no idea where you came up with this "10 tons per ship per second" number, as it doesn't appear anywhere I could find and doesn't match the idea of the operation. The point is not to increase (not significantly) the amount of water in the air, just the distribution of droplets size.
You were modded troll and flamebait (probably) because of your assumption that this is clearly impossible without going into the details, as you still do. If you'll pose your doubts as doubts, giving some respects to the experts that suggested this solution, you'll be modded interesting instead...
I'm not going to continue this argument, as I lack the expertise in this area, but I see no reason to accept your expertise over this of, say Stephen Salter.
You can rant as much as you like, but this is a known approach (I won't say established, since nothing is established in geoengineering). I'm not going to argue about it, I'm only a mathematician, not an expert to anything but figments of the imagination, but I would recommend reading more about Cloud reflectivity enhancement before dismissing the idea.
I know it's slashdot, but I would still like to point out your remarks have nothing to do with the technique described. Besides that, 76% + 1/3 > 1, so you should go over your numbers again...
They talk about producing clouds, not water vapor. Clouds are made of liquid water in tiny drops, forming from vapor around some sort of nuclei, it's actually mentioned even in the summary! The energy issue need not be that much of a problem. Energy is needed, but how much? Probably nothing relevant to global warming, so it's just a matter of cost.
The problem of salt is also insignificant, given the task is done deep in the ocean. The salt will not get carried for 5,000 kilometers without a huge drop in concentration, if at all.
Having said all that, further tests must be carried out, of course, we still have no backup planet. From what I understand, that is the whole point in investing in research.
I guess you didn't mean this, but just to avoid confusion. There is something called "solar wind", charged particles ejected from the sun, it has nothing to do with this sail. The sail uses light pressure, the pressure of light emitted by the sun.
It's in TFA. A strip on the cell is covered by cells, it is not indicated how wide it is, but it's probably pretty narrow. The sail is 7.5 micrometers thick, the cells are 25 micrometers thick. I don't know how heavy is the craft, the sail area is a bit less than 200 square meters (200 square meters minus the hole behind the main body).
Macroscopic objects are extremely rare (even microscopic objects are rare). Space is mostly, well, empty. The craft will cover some space, so it's expected to encounter something, but nothing big. The Sail can't be thicker, the sail area to mass ratio is what defines the efectiveness of the sail.
As long as tiny holes in it won't cause it to collapse in some way or tear down, I can't see any problem.
The formal policy now is this. I can't say how they actually behave, of course. The relevant part here is: "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed". The reason they might carry atrial of their own, in principle, is that their definition of abuse might be different from the legal, and they might have a different evidence threshold for conviction. Note that according to this they believe their definitions are wider (legal abuse falls under: "very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming"). So it might not be the way they actually act, but it is the formal policy.
Seriously, however, he has a lot of influence, so you should care what he says. The things he says might affect our world through the 1.2 billion (approximately) followers he have in the world. By saying those things he definitely change, to some extent, the way they see the world (with the catholic view of him as "Vicar of Christ"), and this might affect you as well...
What is illegal, from what I understand, is distribution of a film of the crime (murder, for example), that was planned as part of the murder (by the murderer), maybe profit must also be there somewhere. I don't think rotten.com publish such films, and it is known they removed some content for legal reasons. However, IANAL and it doesn't really matter. If I'm wrong about snuff, just put child pornography in the argument and it works just as well.
First of all, this is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is the claim that moral principles are relative to the society. This is clearly not the case here.
Furthermore, you should back your claims with some data. It seems like you refer to the case of Peter Hullermann in the 70s, simply since I found nothing else about his subordinates. This case was definitely not ignored, as Hullermann was removed from his position and sent to a psychiatric therapy in Munich. It wasn't handled properly, of course, as he was then allowed to work with children there. It also wasn't reported to the police, as was the standard in the church then. However, Ratzinger (the man who's the Pope today) didn't give this order and it's unclear if he knew about it (a memo was sent to his office...).
What is known is that in 2000-2005, when handling those cases was his responsibility (before he became Pope), he attempted to handle those cases properly, in many cases apparently held back by the Pope then, John Paul II. I would suggest looking into the case of Marcial Maciel, and the way it was handled. Since he became Pope he changed, for example, the policy referred to above, instructing that “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes... should always be followed”. In general, it seems he's mostly blamed for the faults of his predecessor (John Paul II) in this area.
Your argument is presenting a false dichotomy, instead of handling the actual claim. I would like to point out that there are some things that are forbidden in any country in the western world (snuff films, for example), yet you won't say that anyone who claims these are dangerous (even after creating them, that is) supports "holding everything locked down tight", I hope.
In fact, all he said was that the "huge widening of the frontiers of communication" has benefits (for example - points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum) and drawbacks (for example - increases the "dangers of... intellectual and moral relativism,"). I guess however, expecting anyone on slashdot (commentators and modders) to RTFA is a bit to much.
TFA, by the way, does not give the speech (or a translation of it) but just tiny parts of it, without any context. So even after reading it, I have no idea what he said. What I do know is that he is not an idiot, there is quite some evidence for this, and so he knows he has no chance of gaining actual direct power (becoming any sort of a tyrant).
Honestly that is probably the worst thing that could happen short of a crash and should be avoided at all costs.
Well, in some cases at least one can avoid crash in even worse cases, I believe. This is not a case of 747 but of a fighter plane, but still, have you heard of this?
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? We can already make holograms! We see because light hits our eyes, and if we can generate it to behave as if it's coming of some objects, we will see those objects. We can do that using the wave behavior of light. To make holographic movies, we need to be capable of adjusting phase of emitted light at any point, not only amplitude (and computational power, I'm not sure how complex generating the image will be). There is no need for teleportation of any kind.
Well, silicon is quite abundant on earth, about 15% of it, and more importantly almost 30% of the crust (still second to oxygen, by the way), but it's not even close to being "the most abundant in the universe". As irrelevant as it is to chip manufacturing, almost all baryonic matter in the universe is hydrogen and helium. Silicon is not even close...
Well, if this id going to be a discussion of rights, please tell me how wealth (as opposed to immediate property, wealth - your stocks not your house) is a right and not a privilege given by the society. You aren't Ayn Rand, and I doubt you'll manage to make a more cogent argument than she ever could... You see, the limitations on those privileges make a lot of sense once you understand this...
if the people of the assembled group wanted to base their vote on a collective decision, then there isn't anything that should stop such a thing.
If people wanted to vote through the group, there is something that will stop it, however. I'm not an American, so I might be wrong regarding your laws, but you can't give your vote to the corporation and send it to vote for everyone. This right is not transferable. It would make sense that other rights, such as free speech, are also not transferable. If this was the case, you could do whatever you want, publish books and movies and so on, but corporations will not. I see no problem with this.
seeing the big bang is easy, it's called cosmic radiation.
This question is not well phrased. There is no universal "now" in relativity. You probably mean something like "in our reference frame does this galaxy exist somewhere now", and then the answer is that we can't tell. If you'll choose some other reference frame, you'll get different points to correspond to our "now". So abandon the notion of "still exist", it exists "now" in the most meaningful way, the point we see when we look there...
Desalination costs are about 0.5$ per cubic meter (0.0019$ per gallon) with modern technology (price should drop with scale, this is estimated current costs in Israel and Singapore). It should definitely be lower than transportation costs for this distance, but maybe they wish to make money with high priced bottled water? If someone RTFA maybe he can answer this...
If this is a legal requirement, than you're not in a war. The US congress declared war for the last time (so far) in June 5, 1942 and this is what it takes for you to be formally in a war. So the president probably can't use anything that can be done only in times of war.
This is science, you never know for sure. In science you never have a complete answer, just a series of partial, half wrong answers. Hopefully you get better answers over time, but you never know the exact, complete answer. In this case we have a complicated system, one we have very little success in predicting its behavior. And they didn't say there will be no earthquake, just that the minor ones don't imply an imminent major one. I see no problem with this claim (as long as it is reasonable by modern seismology).
"It's hard to make predictions - especially about the future." --Robert Storm Petersen
How about taking over BP because its assets exceed the damage and selling said assets off to fund national oil independence?
Do you know how big BP is? Its assets are worth 236B$ (according to wikipedia, as of 2009). This is going to be expensive, possibly in the billions of dollars, but I doubt they will have to sell anything, they had net income of 16.5B$ in 2009. As for the rest, I would say that legal action should be taken only after investigation, which is underway, and according to the actual evidence. The liability caps were not issued by the president (any president, by the way) but by the congress, and republicans there are currently blocking the attempt to remove them (claiming they should be increased, but not completely removed).
Who put us in charge anyway... That wasnt too smart.
You did, so it makes sense.
That's obviously wrong, if this was the goal there was no connection between the time of death and expiration of copyright. There are probably two reasons:
1) copyright is conceived as actual property, so it should be inheritable.
2) some (possibly many, I don't want to make any statistical claim) artists create till they're dead, with some works even published after the author's death. It doesn't fit the general approach that those creations would not have any copyright protection.
This is the general justification, I believe, but it still makes more sense with a fixed period...
I admit one mistake, then, it's not _your_ straw man. You see, this article was written by reporters for the general public. Both of these groups are not known for grasp of technical matters, scientific ones or even numbers. If you'd apply your thinking to actual data, such as papers published by scientists (for example, this and this) you'll see the actual number is about 30kg of water per second per ship, and the proposed method is to use wind powered robotic vessels. The second article, by the way, is very informative.
Your arrogance doesn't improve your arguments, as you still attack your straw man. I have no idea where you came up with this "10 tons per ship per second" number, as it doesn't appear anywhere I could find and doesn't match the idea of the operation. The point is not to increase (not significantly) the amount of water in the air, just the distribution of droplets size.
You were modded troll and flamebait (probably) because of your assumption that this is clearly impossible without going into the details, as you still do. If you'll pose your doubts as doubts, giving some respects to the experts that suggested this solution, you'll be modded interesting instead...
I'm not going to continue this argument, as I lack the expertise in this area, but I see no reason to accept your expertise over this of, say Stephen Salter.
You can rant as much as you like, but this is a known approach (I won't say established, since nothing is established in geoengineering). I'm not going to argue about it, I'm only a mathematician, not an expert to anything but figments of the imagination, but I would recommend reading more about Cloud reflectivity enhancement before dismissing the idea.
I know it's slashdot, but I would still like to point out your remarks have nothing to do with the technique described. Besides that, 76% + 1/3 > 1, so you should go over your numbers again...
They talk about producing clouds, not water vapor. Clouds are made of liquid water in tiny drops, forming from vapor around some sort of nuclei, it's actually mentioned even in the summary! The energy issue need not be that much of a problem. Energy is needed, but how much? Probably nothing relevant to global warming, so it's just a matter of cost.
The problem of salt is also insignificant, given the task is done deep in the ocean. The salt will not get carried for 5,000 kilometers without a huge drop in concentration, if at all.
Having said all that, further tests must be carried out, of course, we still have no backup planet. From what I understand, that is the whole point in investing in research.
...harnessing the solar "wind" to move its mass.
I guess you didn't mean this, but just to avoid confusion. There is something called "solar wind", charged particles ejected from the sun, it has nothing to do with this sail. The sail uses light pressure, the pressure of light emitted by the sun.
It's in TFA. A strip on the cell is covered by cells, it is not indicated how wide it is, but it's probably pretty narrow. The sail is 7.5 micrometers thick, the cells are 25 micrometers thick. I don't know how heavy is the craft, the sail area is a bit less than 200 square meters (200 square meters minus the hole behind the main body).
Macroscopic objects are extremely rare (even microscopic objects are rare). Space is mostly, well, empty. The craft will cover some space, so it's expected to encounter something, but nothing big. The Sail can't be thicker, the sail area to mass ratio is what defines the efectiveness of the sail. As long as tiny holes in it won't cause it to collapse in some way or tear down, I can't see any problem.
Even if it's destroyed, it's very cheap...
The formal policy now is this. I can't say how they actually behave, of course. The relevant part here is: "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed". The reason they might carry atrial of their own, in principle, is that their definition of abuse might be different from the legal, and they might have a different evidence threshold for conviction. Note that according to this they believe their definitions are wider (legal abuse falls under: "very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming"). So it might not be the way they actually act, but it is the formal policy.
Aside from his followers, who cares what he said?
Apparently, kdwason cares.
Seriously, however, he has a lot of influence, so you should care what he says. The things he says might affect our world through the 1.2 billion (approximately) followers he have in the world. By saying those things he definitely change, to some extent, the way they see the world (with the catholic view of him as "Vicar of Christ"), and this might affect you as well...
What is illegal, from what I understand, is distribution of a film of the crime (murder, for example), that was planned as part of the murder (by the murderer), maybe profit must also be there somewhere. I don't think rotten.com publish such films, and it is known they removed some content for legal reasons. However, IANAL and it doesn't really matter. If I'm wrong about snuff, just put child pornography in the argument and it works just as well.
First of all, this is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is the claim that moral principles are relative to the society. This is clearly not the case here.
Furthermore, you should back your claims with some data. It seems like you refer to the case of Peter Hullermann in the 70s, simply since I found nothing else about his subordinates. This case was definitely not ignored, as Hullermann was removed from his position and sent to a psychiatric therapy in Munich. It wasn't handled properly, of course, as he was then allowed to work with children there. It also wasn't reported to the police, as was the standard in the church then. However, Ratzinger (the man who's the Pope today) didn't give this order and it's unclear if he knew about it (a memo was sent to his office...).
What is known is that in 2000-2005, when handling those cases was his responsibility (before he became Pope), he attempted to handle those cases properly, in many cases apparently held back by the Pope then, John Paul II. I would suggest looking into the case of Marcial Maciel, and the way it was handled. Since he became Pope he changed, for example, the policy referred to above, instructing that “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes... should always be followed”. In general, it seems he's mostly blamed for the faults of his predecessor (John Paul II) in this area.
Your argument is presenting a false dichotomy, instead of handling the actual claim. I would like to point out that there are some things that are forbidden in any country in the western world (snuff films, for example), yet you won't say that anyone who claims these are dangerous (even after creating them, that is) supports "holding everything locked down tight", I hope.
In fact, all he said was that the "huge widening of the frontiers of communication" has benefits (for example - points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum) and drawbacks (for example - increases the "dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,"). I guess however, expecting anyone on slashdot (commentators and modders) to RTFA is a bit to much.
TFA, by the way, does not give the speech (or a translation of it) but just tiny parts of it, without any context. So even after reading it, I have no idea what he said. What I do know is that he is not an idiot, there is quite some evidence for this, and so he knows he has no chance of gaining actual direct power (becoming any sort of a tyrant).
Honestly that is probably the worst thing that could happen short of a crash and should be avoided at all costs.
Well, in some cases at least one can avoid crash in even worse cases, I believe. This is not a case of 747 but of a fighter plane, but still, have you heard of this?