Electric cars are fine and dandy, but we still need to produce electricity to power them. Where will that come from? Solar and wind would be the best source as they pollute the least; nuclear is a good option if you're using more modern plant designs. Natural gas might actually be worse in terms of CO2 emissions. Coal would be the worst case scenario; the smoke contains all sorts of pollutants not emitted by modern gasoline engines.
Precisely spot on. Couldn't resist posting that guess what the majority of electricity in India is produced by? coal is 60% of all electricity in India. This actually makes co2 pollution worse than efficient gas engines, or hybrids. Not that it isn't the right move, but they need to couple it with a serious push in green energy or the only thing they will be helping is particulates and smog in the cities, co2 emissions could worsen.
Any "cryogenically frozen brain" is mush: the crystallization of the water inside the brain destroys the tissue. Eventually, we may be able to work around that, but we aren't there yet.
Partially true. Slowly freezing tissues dosent damage them significantly, this we can do fairly well already. The hard bit is thawing them rapidly and uniformly to avoid cellular damage. This already can be done for very very small samples, but methods like this one hold promise for actually thawing large samples, like organs, with minimal damage.
More and more information is coming out that "peer review" is sort of a joke. The basic statistics of many studies isn't even verified. Check this on Ars: https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
While likely true an even more pressing problem is non-scientific clickbait headlines and juiced up summaries and articles about scientific papers/research to simply generate more revenue. No companies seem to care about long term irreparable harm to public consensus. Obligatory xkcd
"This editorial is not founded on good evidence. There is no such thing as 'real food' - the authors don't define what it is so it's meaningless."
I always have difficulty in understanding what "real food" is as well. Most of the time it seems to exclude food that is inexpensive, requires little preparation and tastes good while at other times it seems to exclude foods that are simply too easy to eat. Much of the time it dosent translate into a rational discussion about a balanced intake of protein, carbs and fats and moderation of salt.
By not needing to bring the bulk of the fuel needed for interstellar transportation, and by efficiently utilizing em from nearby stars, it will be very hard to beat its speed for the foreseeable future. Even things like the em drive, if it's real (tldr extremely unlikely is being nice) require onboard fuel and would take far longer to make the same trip.
Ultimately the best setup possible to move through space in a normal fashion would be to create or mine a miniature black hole of roughly a billion metric tons, and utilize the Hawking radiation to convert mass to energy. The output would be a steady 350 Mw or so and the radius of the horizon would be roughly proton sized. One would need a confinement system similar to, but far more advanced than, particle accelerator beams used in research today. On paper you could even harvest mass along the way. Given the laws of physics, it is unlikely one could design a higher power thrust to weight of the drive system/craft over the long hauls of traditional interstellar travel.
I assume you're joking. Or you haven't done high school physics yet. It's the difference between using your arms to push yourself against a wall, and holding both your hands together and claiming that pushing harder with the left arm your entire body will move right.
Technically speaking, if you hold your hands together and yet push harder with the left arm then that would imply a net acceleration of your left arm to the right. Except in the case of massless arms, this would imply a net force acting to push on the body, moving it left in the absense of any other forces. Simply severing the arms near the end of their travel should suffice to keep the body in motion until it is altered by additional forces.
Why is light sail considered entirely possible, while EM-propulsion remains in the domain of evolution-denying (and even Trump-voting)? Aren't they both using light (of some frequency or another) as, uhm, tangible? Something, against which it is possible to push, however slightly?
The difference is not that the momentum of light is different, it is in fact the same for both cases. The problem lies in the weight of the craft itself. With an onboard em source you would need to carry your own fuel and have a massive em emitter. You may perhaps use solar cells to supplement some of the fuel needs at the expense of lower efficiency per photon at the craft and even more mass is needed. With a light sail you can construct a massive array of base laser stations with huge power supplies, yet the craft can be ultra light. Further the brightness of the star(s) at your destination can serve as a light braking system, whereas this is much less effective with an onboard emitter/power source.
tldr - an onboard light drive accelerates like a super tanker propelled by a trolling motor while an ultra light solar sail accelerates like a French fry flung into a fire hose.
In the very long-run, once we have functionally built in direct brain to computer interfaces, what is going to stop people from sending a lot of half-baked emails and the like? At least with a phone, you can take it away from someone when they are drunk, but frankly given how incoherent my very late night/early morning thoughts are, I'd be more worried about accidental shitposting that way, or sending really stupid emails.
geez, I was under the impression that was presidential.
He is correct. Many counties/cities have laws prohibiting laundry hung outside. It's a great way to get a fine where I live. Makes no sense as it's more environmentally responsible, but then again I do live in the USA.
The main benefit of laser sintering or 3D printing when it comes to these titanium parts is the optimal shapes you can make. Traditional casting and milling processes have many limitations where you need to support/remove the mold pieces, have specific wall thicknesses, or be able to actually mill with real bits. 3D printing, provided the process is roughly as strong and fatigue resistant as the traditional material, allows you to make impossible shapes that are far more optimal for the weight like cardboard which has internal cutouts impossible to create traditionally. This along with software for optimizing loads can easily save 30% on material weight while still maintaining the same load constraints as a traditional part. For an airplane this shaves off huge $$$ in material costs, allows the same plane to carry more weight and/or be more fuel efficient.
Tech workers have been saying the best talent is self trained for decades. No university can teach someone how to be a passionate nerd. As for their motives.... I think it's much simpler. People with degrees want more money, so they can pay off the loans.
Just because someone attends college doesn't mean they can't be top talent, but being passionate and involved in their personal lives as well is the mark of the most capable and talented people.
And on this note colleges shouldn't be afraid to have a more hands on learning approach. Having gone through and gotten an advanced degree myself, it was amazing to see how many graduates never did anything practical with their knowledge outside of a single class project or two. Knowing how to put a hammer to wood reasonably well in this example would make a better engineer/architect.
They care precisely because they exist to make money. The pool of skilled labour is limited to the point that is making it hard for them to get the staff they need, so the obvious solution is to expand the pool. Diversity, H1B, education programmes...
Do you really think Intel would invest £300m into improving diversity just because some "SJWs" criticised them? No, it's because they expect a return on that investment.
This and there is a strong belief by many in management that the actual performance of the employee isn't as important as cutting costs. It's driven by short term gains.
They just need one of these puppies and a faraday cage to put it in when it lands. No way for the drone to send back video or any information on the attacker and it can be transported to a radio secure location to open and disable it.
You had me until the last paragraph. Gravity is only attractive, we would not see any acceleration in expansion, only uneven deceleration. This is why it was a complete surprise until the groundbreaking type 1a supernova study revealed it. When I was in school the three options were the Big Crunch, expansion that halts after an infinite time, or expansion that continues to slow down but never stop. Acceleration wasnt even considered mainstream.
Don't be a moron. This has nothing to do with minimum wage possibly getting set at a reasonable number. They are going to do it either way and you know it, so stop pushing your absurd political agenda.
The op was making the quite valid point that a reasonable minimum wage only accelerated the problem. This was brought to you by the single ruling party of the invisible hand.
Good luck buying robots to generate an income for you when you don't have a job and everything about the robot is locked down with drm, patents, and proprietary details. Not to mention the overwhelming workload that would be required to keep it running, unlikely that it's even feasible for a single person. Best you could hope for is to earn the smallest amount of money possible while giving the lions share to large mega corporations.
In most states, if the vehicle was moving and not legally stopped or parked, then it is partially at fault. In states without no fault insurance laws, no matter how negligent the other driver is, both vehicles will be blamed.
Slashdot Mirror
Electric cars are fine and dandy, but we still need to produce electricity to power them. Where will that come from? Solar and wind would be the best source as they pollute the least; nuclear is a good option if you're using more modern plant designs. Natural gas might actually be worse in terms of CO2 emissions. Coal would be the worst case scenario; the smoke contains all sorts of pollutants not emitted by modern gasoline engines.
Precisely spot on. Couldn't resist posting that guess what the majority of electricity in India is produced by? coal is 60% of all electricity in India. This actually makes co2 pollution worse than efficient gas engines, or hybrids. Not that it isn't the right move, but they need to couple it with a serious push in green energy or the only thing they will be helping is particulates and smog in the cities, co2 emissions could worsen.
Any "cryogenically frozen brain" is mush: the crystallization of the water inside the brain destroys the tissue. Eventually, we may be able to work around that, but we aren't there yet.
Partially true. Slowly freezing tissues dosent damage them significantly, this we can do fairly well already. The hard bit is thawing them rapidly and uniformly to avoid cellular damage. This already can be done for very very small samples, but methods like this one hold promise for actually thawing large samples, like organs, with minimal damage.
More and more information is coming out that "peer review" is sort of a joke. The basic statistics of many studies isn't even verified. Check this on Ars: https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
While likely true an even more pressing problem is non-scientific clickbait headlines and juiced up summaries and articles about scientific papers/research to simply generate more revenue. No companies seem to care about long term irreparable harm to public consensus. Obligatory xkcd
FTA
"This editorial is not founded on good evidence. There is no such thing as 'real food' - the authors don't define what it is so it's meaningless."
I always have difficulty in understanding what "real food" is as well. Most of the time it seems to exclude food that is inexpensive, requires little preparation and tastes good while at other times it seems to exclude foods that are simply too easy to eat. Much of the time it dosent translate into a rational discussion about a balanced intake of protein, carbs and fats and moderation of salt.
Whew, was afraid it might be C-137
Pretty sure this product idea is more inciteful than insightful.
Fat finger modded down by accident, posting to remove...
By not needing to bring the bulk of the fuel needed for interstellar transportation, and by efficiently utilizing em from nearby stars, it will be very hard to beat its speed for the foreseeable future. Even things like the em drive, if it's real (tldr extremely unlikely is being nice) require onboard fuel and would take far longer to make the same trip.
Ultimately the best setup possible to move through space in a normal fashion would be to create or mine a miniature black hole of roughly a billion metric tons, and utilize the Hawking radiation to convert mass to energy. The output would be a steady 350 Mw or so and the radius of the horizon would be roughly proton sized. One would need a confinement system similar to, but far more advanced than, particle accelerator beams used in research today. On paper you could even harvest mass along the way. Given the laws of physics, it is unlikely one could design a higher power thrust to weight of the drive system/craft over the long hauls of traditional interstellar travel.
I assume you're joking. Or you haven't done high school physics yet. It's the difference between using your arms to push yourself against a wall, and holding both your hands together and claiming that pushing harder with the left arm your entire body will move right.
Technically speaking, if you hold your hands together and yet push harder with the left arm then that would imply a net acceleration of your left arm to the right. Except in the case of massless arms, this would imply a net force acting to push on the body, moving it left in the absense of any other forces. Simply severing the arms near the end of their travel should suffice to keep the body in motion until it is altered by additional forces.
Why is light sail considered entirely possible, while EM-propulsion remains in the domain of evolution-denying (and even Trump-voting)? Aren't they both using light (of some frequency or another) as, uhm, tangible? Something, against which it is possible to push, however slightly?
The difference is not that the momentum of light is different, it is in fact the same for both cases. The problem lies in the weight of the craft itself. With an onboard em source you would need to carry your own fuel and have a massive em emitter. You may perhaps use solar cells to supplement some of the fuel needs at the expense of lower efficiency per photon at the craft and even more mass is needed. With a light sail you can construct a massive array of base laser stations with huge power supplies, yet the craft can be ultra light. Further the brightness of the star(s) at your destination can serve as a light braking system, whereas this is much less effective with an onboard emitter/power source.
tldr - an onboard light drive accelerates like a super tanker propelled by a trolling motor while an ultra light solar sail accelerates like a French fry flung into a fire hose.
In the very long-run, once we have functionally built in direct brain to computer interfaces, what is going to stop people from sending a lot of half-baked emails and the like? At least with a phone, you can take it away from someone when they are drunk, but frankly given how incoherent my very late night/early morning thoughts are, I'd be more worried about accidental shitposting that way, or sending really stupid emails.
geez, I was under the impression that was presidential.
He is correct. Many counties/cities have laws prohibiting laundry hung outside. It's a great way to get a fine where I live. Makes no sense as it's more environmentally responsible, but then again I do live in the USA.
The main benefit of laser sintering or 3D printing when it comes to these titanium parts is the optimal shapes you can make. Traditional casting and milling processes have many limitations where you need to support/remove the mold pieces, have specific wall thicknesses, or be able to actually mill with real bits. 3D printing, provided the process is roughly as strong and fatigue resistant as the traditional material, allows you to make impossible shapes that are far more optimal for the weight like cardboard which has internal cutouts impossible to create traditionally. This along with software for optimizing loads can easily save 30% on material weight while still maintaining the same load constraints as a traditional part. For an airplane this shaves off huge $$$ in material costs, allows the same plane to carry more weight and/or be more fuel efficient.
Tech workers have been saying the best talent is self trained for decades. No university can teach someone how to be a passionate nerd. As for their motives.... I think it's much simpler. People with degrees want more money, so they can pay off the loans.
Just because someone attends college doesn't mean they can't be top talent, but being passionate and involved in their personal lives as well is the mark of the most capable and talented people.
And on this note colleges shouldn't be afraid to have a more hands on learning approach. Having gone through and gotten an advanced degree myself, it was amazing to see how many graduates never did anything practical with their knowledge outside of a single class project or two. Knowing how to put a hammer to wood reasonably well in this example would make a better engineer/architect.
They care precisely because they exist to make money. The pool of skilled labour is limited to the point that is making it hard for them to get the staff they need, so the obvious solution is to expand the pool. Diversity, H1B, education programmes...
Do you really think Intel would invest £300m into improving diversity just because some "SJWs" criticised them? No, it's because they expect a return on that investment.
This and there is a strong belief by many in management that the actual performance of the employee isn't as important as cutting costs. It's driven by short term gains.
They hit some kind of large stupid metal ring with symbols around it. Melting it down did help pay for the drilling operation though.
You get free drone parts as a bonus?
They just need one of these puppies and a faraday cage to put it in when it lands. No way for the drone to send back video or any information on the attacker and it can be transported to a radio secure location to open and disable it.
You had me until the last paragraph. Gravity is only attractive, we would not see any acceleration in expansion, only uneven deceleration. This is why it was a complete surprise until the groundbreaking type 1a supernova study revealed it. When I was in school the three options were the Big Crunch, expansion that halts after an infinite time, or expansion that continues to slow down but never stop. Acceleration wasnt even considered mainstream.
If the expansion of the universe is not consistent, what causes the variation?
Its the inconsistency in the acoustic whooshing of the matter that causes it to be expansive.
Don't be a moron. This has nothing to do with minimum wage possibly getting set at a reasonable number. They are going to do it either way and you know it, so stop pushing your absurd political agenda.
The op was making the quite valid point that a reasonable minimum wage only accelerated the problem. This was brought to you by the single ruling party of the invisible hand.
Good luck buying robots to generate an income for you when you don't have a job and everything about the robot is locked down with drm, patents, and proprietary details. Not to mention the overwhelming workload that would be required to keep it running, unlikely that it's even feasible for a single person. Best you could hope for is to earn the smallest amount of money possible while giving the lions share to large mega corporations.
In most states, if the vehicle was moving and not legally stopped or parked, then it is partially at fault. In states without no fault insurance laws, no matter how negligent the other driver is, both vehicles will be blamed.
Article found here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
You must be new here. People often don't read the summary, much less the linked article.