Many GPL fanbois feel the BSD license is evil. I could see them demanding a dual license, and the developer giving them this subtle "go fuck yourself".
That Death and Repudiation license is awesome. I wish I actually published software so I could use it, that's one hell of a mind-fuck.
The only way to use the software is if you are dead (there is an allowance to have your heirs carry out your uses for you), and if you follow the terms of the license it will be repudiated at a time deemed most likely to screw your heirs over.
Now consider the deserts of our planet. Lots of sun, but no water. And the underwater 'dead zones' devoid of sunlight, oxygen, or nutrients. These are all places where there is very little moving and mixing.
There is quite a lot of life in the desert, though they do require water to live they can go without it for quite a long time. The only underwater dead zones are those that have been stripped of oxygen by things like fertilizer runoff. Even the oil spill in the gulf - scientists are worried because microbes are too prolific consuming the oil, creating temporary sections of ocean that are devoid of oxygen and could kill passing fish and other sea life.
In the deep ocean life thrives where atmospheric oxygen does not permeate, and UV light from the sun cannot penetrate. The only raw nutrients are intensely hot water and sulfur, yet massive ecosystems thrive. Anaerobic microbes consume sulfur and produce oxygen, and animals which have never seen the light of day consume the microbes and breathe the oxygen they produce. Yet more animals consume those animals and breathe the oxygen generated by the microbes.
All this in a place that is literally cut off from the life giving energy source of the Sun, and must create its own oxygen and other nutrients to survive. And survive they do, at temperatures that would melt the flesh from your bones. if you subjected to water at such temperatures.
So if it is an environment where we can actually hope to OBSERVE liquid water
That's the real problem here - with current technology we can't even tell whether or not there is liquid water on other planets in our own solar system which is capable of sustaining life, even when we send out probes to within a few thousand miles or rovers onto the surface.
We've mapped Mars reasonably well, with direct observation - even landing on the planet, yet we cannot rule out the possibility of life yet. How could we do so for say, Venus, who's surface we can't even observe, yet has tons and tons of energy (granted, maybe too much energy) that would be great for life? Or Europa, which has an ice crust, yet may be generating enough energy via tidal forces with Jupiter to allow for life?
The problem isn't that looking for water is a bad guide, the problem is we need to find liquid water, which is friggin hard.
Seeing a documentary about that lake a few years ago. At the time they were waiting to actually break through the ice because they wanted to be sure they had a method of studying the lake without contaminating it with surface air and microbes, because they were hoping to find life in the like and wanted to see what would develop in such a completely isolated and unique environment.
It's really cool that when they finally did look, they found a lot more than they expected to!
And in such a high energy environment none of the complex molecules characteristic of life would survive.
You're ignoring pressure. At pressures where water is not a gas at a given temperature, the complex molecule's characteristics are exactly the same as those at surface temperatures. Changing the pressure changes everything.
If life can exist at 90 degrees on the surface, then life can exist where the pressure is great enough that water is still a liquid even at 1200 degrees.
This has been demonstrated several times by absolutely shocking scientists at the conditions where life is found, and there is yet to be discovered a place on earth where liquid water exists and life does not.
You do realize that if water is liquid at 1200C then the pressures are so great that the chemical properties of most substances are very similar in those conditions as they would be on the surface, right?
Microbes have been found in temperatures hot enough to melt lead on the surface. These feed animals that live in water that would boil on the surface.
"Volcanoes of the Deep" - watch it, and expand your horizons man. It's all submersible footage.
It's amazing what they've found inside those volcanic vents (by that I mean microbes, and thriving communities all around them). And the water around the vents is more like a couple hundred degrees, heat radiates you know.
Those volcanic vents are the only place on earth where they have found life that is based entirely on something other than the Sun's energy. Zero light gets down that far, they all live off these vents, some of them in temperatures hot enough to melt lead on the surface.
You should watch "Volcanoes of the Deep". Go rent it, seriously.
They've found microbes living inside the vents of those smokers, in water hot enough to melt lead on the surface, and thriving communities of animals living on the outside of the vents. Absolutely amazing stuff.
And what is the deal with people moderating me over rated lately?
Could it be because all of your posts are over rated?;)
That was the most amazing part of the ocean that I've seen recently - microbes flourishing in temperatures hot enough to melt lead on the surface, which create food for creatures sitting on the outside of these vents which just absolutely thrive in waters over 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Some of the tube worms were ancient, too. I may be miss-speaking but I believe some were said to be around 100 years old or older.
The next most amazing thing to me was the underwater brine lake they found, which another little ecosystem had developed around. Pretty creepy watching a little lobster swim by above a lake with lapping waves hitting a shore of mussels.
but any planet in an appropriate place makes at least a bit of sense to check.
And what exactly are you checking for? We can't exactly get surface resolution on the majority of the Earth-sized satellites in our own solar system, and we've yet to come up with any other set of substances that are conducive to life other than water and carbon. Most planets outside our solar system we can't even detect directly. You have to have something broad to look for, otherwise what you see in a planet will tell you absolutely nothing about whether or not there is life there, yet you want us to look for something other than water? What exactly?
Finding anything other than water and carbon tell us zilch about the possibility of life. Water and carbon tell us the main ingredients in the only recipe for life we know of are there, and so it's worth looking closer at such a body. Nothing else gives us that much to go on. Nothing else gives us anything to go on at all, unless our understanding of how life can form fundamentally changes.
But no, you must generalize - "Not water, but any liquid solvent... blah blah..". Unfortunately, this "any liquid solvent" does not have a particular spectral pattern from which it is simple to figure out if the planet consists of this "any liquid solvent".
Any liquid solvent does not work. Water is unique in the universe, it has hundreds of properties that, as far as we can tell, are absolutely essential.
For just one example, think about ice. Water is one of only five substances known to be less dense as a solid than a liquid. The others are gallium, bismuth, germanium, and silicon. Now imagine what would happen if ice didn't float in water, but instead sank, like most solids do when placed in their liquid counterpart. First a crust will form, held up by the moderate surface tension of water (another unique and important property). This will probably look pretty similar to a thin layer of normal ice. However, as the crust grows it will eventually become too heavy and sink, crushing much life in the lake. Worse, the layer of ice that normally forms over water acts as insulation, allowing only a few feet of water to freeze. Without that insulating layer, a new crust forms, then sinks, then forms, then sinks, until the entire lake is frozen, destroying any life in the lake.
It's not just that we only know water, so that's what we look for, it's that we haven't been able to come up with a scenario where anything other than water can be used. So far as we can tell, no other solvent even has the potential of replacing water. The only forms of life that are non-water and carbon based that we can imagine are also forms of life that we would be impossible to recognize.
For example, a nebula could be an exotic form of life that we aren't even capable of recognizing as life, or our solar system could be alive but operates on such time scales that render us completely incapable of detecting them.
As far as life on planets though, the only sort of life that we can come up with that could exist uses at the very least water, for all its unique properties that are so ideal for the formation of life. A process that would allow life on a gas giant, for example, we are not yet capable of recognizing as a process needed for life. So we stick with what we do know. How are you supposed to look for something you don't know? If I say "Go find me some diddlyhoogits", you're going to say "What the hell is a diddlyhoogit, at what does it look like?" You can't look for something unless you know what to look for, otherwise it's just blind stinking luck, and we're just as likely to find life that way while looking at other stuff.
We know for sure that water fits the bill for life, and we've already found life in extreme conditions here on earth - basically anything with an energy source and you'll find life here, so when we go looking we look for the conditions we know produce life. We don't go looking for conditions that we have no idea if they produce life or not.
Looking for planets with silicon gets us no-where closer to our goal, looking for planets with water does.
But since it's the only one we've ever found, I suppose your point more readily supports the view that we are alone in the universe.
Personally, thanks to Hawking's reasoning that's what I'm hoping for (paraphrased): There is probably life out there, but if they know where we are we're fucked.
The reasoning being that any form of life sufficiently advanced to detect us here on Earth has probably already consumed, or is close to consuming, the resources on their own home planet. Given that we will be little more than cave-men to such creatures, a mutually beneficial relationship would be impossible because we would have nothing to offer but our raw resources, which they could take quite easily. If they are extremely advanced, then they've probably been wiping out planets and consuming all the resources for millennia. It's just the natural course of evolution. See Battlefield Earth, Independence Day, and War of the Worlds for relevant fiction.
The best case scenario is if we are the most advanced civilization in the universe. It's not likely, but we can hope. Just to be safe though, we should shut down SETI immediately - those damn hippies are going to get us all killed!
I don't want to rain on anybody's parade but every time when some new technological development frees us time, it is immediately filled with more work, not more recreation or hobbies or family life.
I see this argument a lot on articles like these, and it's incredibly short sighted. You're completely ignoring the benefits being able to do more work with the same effort brings. It's true it doesn't give us any more free time immediately, however it greatly increases our options for leisure time and greatly increases our standard of living. And as the effects of increased technological advancement accumulate, leisure time does increase.
Take automobiles: In the 1890's only the obscenely rich could afford an automobile. By 1900 there were only a few hundred automobiles on the road in America. Today, anybody with $500 to spare can buy a used car that is a thousand times more powerful, fuel efficient, and reliable than the expensive rich toy in 1900. Would you seriously argue that this is not a case of getting more and higher quality goods per person than we had in 1900? If you would, I'd call you an utter fool.
What you argue this is costing us is actually exactly what this is giving us. By dropping the fuel price and increasing the ability to fly, people are able to go more places, see more things, and overall have a higher quality of life than they had previously. Again, I point back to travel 100 years ago - only the obscenely rich could afford to go on long leisure trips, yet today anybody with a couple thousand dollars in their pocket can take a week long cruise that puts the high-class tickets on the Titanic to shame. Flying to a country halfway around the world was not even possible, let alone available for $1000 or less at times, like it is today.
Vacations didn't even exist except for the rich (lords and kings prior to the industrial revolution, then broadened to tycoons after) until around 100 years ago. Most people were farmers, something like 80% of people in fact at the late 1800's. Farms don't take days off, and travel was long and slow. Taking a week long break was simply impossible for most people, and even if you did, where would you go? All travel was extremely slow, so you'd probably just end up staying on your farm. If you were staying on your farm, it would be foolish not to work, because there was always work to be done. Yet today, almost everybody takes a couple weeks off during the year, it's an expectation. Our work days are usually limited to 8 hours, and our work week is only 5 days long. It's even less than that in Europe. We go fishing or hunting or do other recreational activities on a regular basis, not just when we have large blocks of time to commit. Compare that to the life of a farmer (again, 70-80% of people 100 years ago), who works 10+ hour days as a matter of course, with 12-16 hour or longer days during harvest season. They could get away with taking most of Sundays off, but that also meant a little more work the rest of the week. Vacations were unheard of.
The idea that technology has not generated significant amounts of leisure time is not just false, it's absurd, and can only be taken seriously with an incredibly myopic view of history. The idea that we should slow progress because of this is simply nonsensical. It's plain idiotic.
I hate to rain on your parade, but you are completely and demonstrably wrong. Progress does absolutely increase leisure time and quality of life. We live today better than kings of old could ever have hoped to have lived. We live longer than at any time in human history. Most people today expect to quit working altogether at some time in their lives, and do nothing but pursue leisure. This is an absolutely new concept in the last 100 years or so, even the extreme rich a few hundred years ago couldn't reliably expect to do this, yet the average person in the Western world is completely capable of achieving this, and a large percentage of people do.
The idea that technology gives a net zero, or even a net loss in quality of life is just plain ignorant.
We have these cool, newfangled things called computers and for the last twenty years have been using them to model real-world physics to test the aerodynamics for things like cars and airplanes.
See, the idea is they can design a plane in CAD (that's Computer Aided Drafting, for the ignorant), and then plug it in to a simulator and get a really good idea of what it's going to do when they put it through a wind tunnel or actually build the thing. See, once they do that, they can decide whether it's worth building a prototype, and then a production model. Building a prototype is more a proof that the concept can be built reasonably than anything else. They are pretty certain a concept is going to work well before they decide to drop $150 million to build and test it in the real world. It's more of a verification that they can put all the pieces together in a reasonable way than anything related to whether or not the design will do what it claims to do. You can be certain that these MIT designs have been well tested in simulations, and possibly already run through a wind tunnel with a scale model. It's not like a computer game where they just turn the dial for "fuel consumption" down and say "hey, check it out! I've got 70% less fuel consumption!".
You don't actually think they build every pie in the sky idea designers come up with just to see if it's a viable concept do you? What world have you been living in? The fact that they already know the plane will have to fly 10% slower than current planes because of placing the engines at the rear of the plane should tell you that the concept has already been thoroughly tested by now.
Given the present state of known oil reserves (and the difficulties in accessing those reserves), the current depletion rate, and the expanding rate of oil usage in the developing world, NO ONE seriously expects air traffic to double by 2035.
And we can see evidence of this, because the oil prices have been skyrocketing since the 50's, which directly corresponds to a drop in the amount of air traffic since that time.
Right? No?
It's reality we operate in, not fantasy land. The fact is, despite absurd cuts that dramatically decrease people's desire to fly (like smaller seats and more expensive tickets), air traffic has been steadily increasing. There is a very minor dip when the economy was at its worse, but it is already back close to peak levels and will continue to climb.
There will still be a lot of oil in 2035, I don't think you understand the way oil works, or how "tapped" the oil wells actually are. 20 years ago we were going to run out in 30 years, and today we are going to run out in 20-25. I expect in 2035 we'll be another 15-20 years away from oil exhaustion, and the target will continue to move slowly closer to the final day when oil is no longer a viable energy source. This is for a number of reasons: One, we find new oil. We find it in places we weren't expecting to find it, and if it is somewhere we can get at it it means we adjust our reserve figures. Two, technology improves. With current technology, we can reliably extract about 20-30% of the oil from an oil well, period. Beyond that we cannot get it to the surface. As technology improves, that number goes up. Also, previously inaccessible wells, like wells a mile below sea-level, are possible as technology improves. 50 years ago they may have only gotten 10% of the total oil in a reservoir. This causes us to shift our total numbers for peak oil, proved reserves, probable reserves, and possible reserves. Three, oil consuming processes are continually becoming more efficient. This means the demand for oil-consuming products may rise by 20% but our consumption will only rise by 10%. (those aren't actual figures, just examples to make the point)
So yes, it will continue to dwindle, but our projection constantly increases, offsetting that. Using just today's figures, we have oil to last about 20-30 years. If we can pull another 5% of oil out of every well in the world, that shoots up to 40-50 years. It's a moving target, and it always has been. Take a look at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, for an example. Five years ago we eclipsed the amount of oil that was expected to exist in the field when it was first discovered and surveyed by 10% (1 billion barrels - 11 billion total), which far, far exceeds what was possible to recover at the time, yet it is still producing a lot of oil - at a rate of almost 1 million barrels per day, half the field's peak of 2 million per day 12 years ago. Obviously the proved, probable, and possible reserve figures were way off, and have been adjusted significantly over the years. There isn't some magical technology up here that allows us to pull 110% of the oil out of the ground, it means the figures were wrong by about a factor of three (the new official number for barrels in Prudhoe Bay is 25 billion).
Proved and probable reserve estimates are actually pretty conservative. Proved reserves means they have a 90+% confidence that they can extract that much oil with today's technology. Probable reserves have a 50+% confidence in recovery. Possible reserves have a 10+% confidence. What's really interesting is when the price of oil goes up, these numbers all go up. That's because economic viability is a primary factor in determining how much can be spent to extract the oil, which heavily influences the amount of oil that can be extracted. Possible reserves shift into probable reserves, and probable reserves shift into proved reserves, all because the price of oil keeps going up.
I don't recall the article ever saying they invented anything new, they just put all the pieces together (i.e. designed it) such that they expect a 50-70% drop in fuel consumption.
Since the designs and their problems are well known, they have quite a lot to work with to figure out how to make it all work.
It's like the B-1 Bomber - such wing designs had been around for years, and the potential gains were well known. The trouble was, until the B-1 was developed some people thought the inherent instability in such a design was insurmountable, and such a plane would never fly (because all other attempts always crashed).
But then, someone figured out how to compensate, and now it works great.
MIT is well known for their engineering and technology programs, they are about as prestigious as a tech school gets. Given the number of technological innovations that come out of MIT, it's quite likely this is yet another MIT breakthrough. They can be pretty sure by running it through their simulations, but won't know for certain until a prototype is actually built some years down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean if you don't accept the BSD license. If you accept the D&R license, you're fucked.
Many GPL fanbois feel the BSD license is evil. I could see them demanding a dual license, and the developer giving them this subtle "go fuck yourself".
That Death and Repudiation license is awesome. I wish I actually published software so I could use it, that's one hell of a mind-fuck.
The only way to use the software is if you are dead (there is an allowance to have your heirs carry out your uses for you), and if you follow the terms of the license it will be repudiated at a time deemed most likely to screw your heirs over.
-- Would you lick Stallman's neck and armpit if it meant GNU/Hurd became a complete, usable, modern kernel?
Would get Stallman to finally shut up? If so, I'd definitely consider it.
Welcome to New Math! Where any answer is the right one!
Way to go Jimmy!
Now consider the deserts of our planet. Lots of sun, but no water. And the underwater 'dead zones' devoid of sunlight, oxygen, or nutrients. These are all places where there is very little moving and mixing.
There is quite a lot of life in the desert, though they do require water to live they can go without it for quite a long time. The only underwater dead zones are those that have been stripped of oxygen by things like fertilizer runoff. Even the oil spill in the gulf - scientists are worried because microbes are too prolific consuming the oil, creating temporary sections of ocean that are devoid of oxygen and could kill passing fish and other sea life.
In the deep ocean life thrives where atmospheric oxygen does not permeate, and UV light from the sun cannot penetrate. The only raw nutrients are intensely hot water and sulfur, yet massive ecosystems thrive. Anaerobic microbes consume sulfur and produce oxygen, and animals which have never seen the light of day consume the microbes and breathe the oxygen they produce. Yet more animals consume those animals and breathe the oxygen generated by the microbes.
All this in a place that is literally cut off from the life giving energy source of the Sun, and must create its own oxygen and other nutrients to survive. And survive they do, at temperatures that would melt the flesh from your bones. if you subjected to water at such temperatures.
So if it is an environment where we can actually hope to OBSERVE liquid water
That's the real problem here - with current technology we can't even tell whether or not there is liquid water on other planets in our own solar system which is capable of sustaining life, even when we send out probes to within a few thousand miles or rovers onto the surface.
We've mapped Mars reasonably well, with direct observation - even landing on the planet, yet we cannot rule out the possibility of life yet. How could we do so for say, Venus, who's surface we can't even observe, yet has tons and tons of energy (granted, maybe too much energy) that would be great for life? Or Europa, which has an ice crust, yet may be generating enough energy via tidal forces with Jupiter to allow for life?
The problem isn't that looking for water is a bad guide, the problem is we need to find liquid water, which is friggin hard.
You missed the recent article where the headlines any more are only to get attention, they almost shouldn't have anything to do with the story.
How else will you get people to read them? :P
I feel your pain.
Seeing a documentary about that lake a few years ago. At the time they were waiting to actually break through the ice because they wanted to be sure they had a method of studying the lake without contaminating it with surface air and microbes, because they were hoping to find life in the like and wanted to see what would develop in such a completely isolated and unique environment.
It's really cool that when they finally did look, they found a lot more than they expected to!
And in such a high energy environment none of the complex molecules characteristic of life would survive.
You're ignoring pressure. At pressures where water is not a gas at a given temperature, the complex molecule's characteristics are exactly the same as those at surface temperatures. Changing the pressure changes everything.
If life can exist at 90 degrees on the surface, then life can exist where the pressure is great enough that water is still a liquid even at 1200 degrees.
This has been demonstrated several times by absolutely shocking scientists at the conditions where life is found, and there is yet to be discovered a place on earth where liquid water exists and life does not.
You do realize that if water is liquid at 1200C then the pressures are so great that the chemical properties of most substances are very similar in those conditions as they would be on the surface, right?
Microbes have been found in temperatures hot enough to melt lead on the surface. These feed animals that live in water that would boil on the surface.
"Volcanoes of the Deep" - watch it, and expand your horizons man. It's all submersible footage.
"Volcanoes of the Deep"
Watch it.
It's amazing what they've found inside those volcanic vents (by that I mean microbes, and thriving communities all around them). And the water around the vents is more like a couple hundred degrees, heat radiates you know.
Those volcanic vents are the only place on earth where they have found life that is based entirely on something other than the Sun's energy. Zero light gets down that far, they all live off these vents, some of them in temperatures hot enough to melt lead on the surface.
News to me.
You should watch "Volcanoes of the Deep". Go rent it, seriously.
They've found microbes living inside the vents of those smokers, in water hot enough to melt lead on the surface, and thriving communities of animals living on the outside of the vents. Absolutely amazing stuff.
And what is the deal with people moderating me over rated lately?
Could it be because all of your posts are over rated? ;)
the 400 degree volcanic vents
That was the most amazing part of the ocean that I've seen recently - microbes flourishing in temperatures hot enough to melt lead on the surface, which create food for creatures sitting on the outside of these vents which just absolutely thrive in waters over 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Some of the tube worms were ancient, too. I may be miss-speaking but I believe some were said to be around 100 years old or older.
The next most amazing thing to me was the underwater brine lake they found, which another little ecosystem had developed around. Pretty creepy watching a little lobster swim by above a lake with lapping waves hitting a shore of mussels.
should have been corrected by the time you got out of a public high school level
Pfft, not if he came from most high schools.
And how do you suggest we find trees?
but any planet in an appropriate place makes at least a bit of sense to check.
And what exactly are you checking for? We can't exactly get surface resolution on the majority of the Earth-sized satellites in our own solar system, and we've yet to come up with any other set of substances that are conducive to life other than water and carbon. Most planets outside our solar system we can't even detect directly. You have to have something broad to look for, otherwise what you see in a planet will tell you absolutely nothing about whether or not there is life there, yet you want us to look for something other than water? What exactly?
Finding anything other than water and carbon tell us zilch about the possibility of life. Water and carbon tell us the main ingredients in the only recipe for life we know of are there, and so it's worth looking closer at such a body. Nothing else gives us that much to go on. Nothing else gives us anything to go on at all, unless our understanding of how life can form fundamentally changes.
Hehe, the "ugly bags of water" episode was one of my favorites, and very fitting for the discussion.
'Some" biologists? Like pretty much all of them.
Name one, and you better have a quote where he says it's completely random like that.
But no, you must generalize - "Not water, but any liquid solvent ... blah blah ..". Unfortunately, this "any liquid solvent" does not have a particular spectral pattern from which it is simple to figure out if the planet consists of this "any liquid solvent".
Any liquid solvent does not work. Water is unique in the universe, it has hundreds of properties that, as far as we can tell, are absolutely essential.
For just one example, think about ice. Water is one of only five substances known to be less dense as a solid than a liquid. The others are gallium, bismuth, germanium, and silicon. Now imagine what would happen if ice didn't float in water, but instead sank, like most solids do when placed in their liquid counterpart. First a crust will form, held up by the moderate surface tension of water (another unique and important property). This will probably look pretty similar to a thin layer of normal ice. However, as the crust grows it will eventually become too heavy and sink, crushing much life in the lake. Worse, the layer of ice that normally forms over water acts as insulation, allowing only a few feet of water to freeze. Without that insulating layer, a new crust forms, then sinks, then forms, then sinks, until the entire lake is frozen, destroying any life in the lake.
It's not just that we only know water, so that's what we look for, it's that we haven't been able to come up with a scenario where anything other than water can be used. So far as we can tell, no other solvent even has the potential of replacing water. The only forms of life that are non-water and carbon based that we can imagine are also forms of life that we would be impossible to recognize.
For example, a nebula could be an exotic form of life that we aren't even capable of recognizing as life, or our solar system could be alive but operates on such time scales that render us completely incapable of detecting them.
As far as life on planets though, the only sort of life that we can come up with that could exist uses at the very least water, for all its unique properties that are so ideal for the formation of life. A process that would allow life on a gas giant, for example, we are not yet capable of recognizing as a process needed for life. So we stick with what we do know. How are you supposed to look for something you don't know? If I say "Go find me some diddlyhoogits", you're going to say "What the hell is a diddlyhoogit, at what does it look like?" You can't look for something unless you know what to look for, otherwise it's just blind stinking luck, and we're just as likely to find life that way while looking at other stuff.
We know for sure that water fits the bill for life, and we've already found life in extreme conditions here on earth - basically anything with an energy source and you'll find life here, so when we go looking we look for the conditions we know produce life. We don't go looking for conditions that we have no idea if they produce life or not.
Looking for planets with silicon gets us no-where closer to our goal, looking for planets with water does.
But since it's the only one we've ever found, I suppose your point more readily supports the view that we are alone in the universe.
Personally, thanks to Hawking's reasoning that's what I'm hoping for (paraphrased): There is probably life out there, but if they know where we are we're fucked.
The reasoning being that any form of life sufficiently advanced to detect us here on Earth has probably already consumed, or is close to consuming, the resources on their own home planet. Given that we will be little more than cave-men to such creatures, a mutually beneficial relationship would be impossible because we would have nothing to offer but our raw resources, which they could take quite easily. If they are extremely advanced, then they've probably been wiping out planets and consuming all the resources for millennia. It's just the natural course of evolution. See Battlefield Earth, Independence Day, and War of the Worlds for relevant fiction.
The best case scenario is if we are the most advanced civilization in the universe. It's not likely, but we can hope. Just to be safe though, we should shut down SETI immediately - those damn hippies are going to get us all killed!
I don't want to rain on anybody's parade but every time when some new technological development frees us time, it is immediately filled with more work, not more recreation or hobbies or family life.
I see this argument a lot on articles like these, and it's incredibly short sighted. You're completely ignoring the benefits being able to do more work with the same effort brings. It's true it doesn't give us any more free time immediately, however it greatly increases our options for leisure time and greatly increases our standard of living. And as the effects of increased technological advancement accumulate, leisure time does increase.
Take automobiles: In the 1890's only the obscenely rich could afford an automobile. By 1900 there were only a few hundred automobiles on the road in America. Today, anybody with $500 to spare can buy a used car that is a thousand times more powerful, fuel efficient, and reliable than the expensive rich toy in 1900. Would you seriously argue that this is not a case of getting more and higher quality goods per person than we had in 1900? If you would, I'd call you an utter fool.
What you argue this is costing us is actually exactly what this is giving us. By dropping the fuel price and increasing the ability to fly, people are able to go more places, see more things, and overall have a higher quality of life than they had previously. Again, I point back to travel 100 years ago - only the obscenely rich could afford to go on long leisure trips, yet today anybody with a couple thousand dollars in their pocket can take a week long cruise that puts the high-class tickets on the Titanic to shame. Flying to a country halfway around the world was not even possible, let alone available for $1000 or less at times, like it is today.
Vacations didn't even exist except for the rich (lords and kings prior to the industrial revolution, then broadened to tycoons after) until around 100 years ago. Most people were farmers, something like 80% of people in fact at the late 1800's. Farms don't take days off, and travel was long and slow. Taking a week long break was simply impossible for most people, and even if you did, where would you go? All travel was extremely slow, so you'd probably just end up staying on your farm. If you were staying on your farm, it would be foolish not to work, because there was always work to be done. Yet today, almost everybody takes a couple weeks off during the year, it's an expectation. Our work days are usually limited to 8 hours, and our work week is only 5 days long. It's even less than that in Europe. We go fishing or hunting or do other recreational activities on a regular basis, not just when we have large blocks of time to commit. Compare that to the life of a farmer (again, 70-80% of people 100 years ago), who works 10+ hour days as a matter of course, with 12-16 hour or longer days during harvest season. They could get away with taking most of Sundays off, but that also meant a little more work the rest of the week. Vacations were unheard of.
The idea that technology has not generated significant amounts of leisure time is not just false, it's absurd, and can only be taken seriously with an incredibly myopic view of history. The idea that we should slow progress because of this is simply nonsensical. It's plain idiotic.
I hate to rain on your parade, but you are completely and demonstrably wrong. Progress does absolutely increase leisure time and quality of life. We live today better than kings of old could ever have hoped to have lived. We live longer than at any time in human history. Most people today expect to quit working altogether at some time in their lives, and do nothing but pursue leisure. This is an absolutely new concept in the last 100 years or so, even the extreme rich a few hundred years ago couldn't reliably expect to do this, yet the average person in the Western world is completely capable of achieving this, and a large percentage of people do.
The idea that technology gives a net zero, or even a net loss in quality of life is just plain ignorant.
We have these cool, newfangled things called computers and for the last twenty years have been using them to model real-world physics to test the aerodynamics for things like cars and airplanes.
See, the idea is they can design a plane in CAD (that's Computer Aided Drafting, for the ignorant), and then plug it in to a simulator and get a really good idea of what it's going to do when they put it through a wind tunnel or actually build the thing. See, once they do that, they can decide whether it's worth building a prototype, and then a production model. Building a prototype is more a proof that the concept can be built reasonably than anything else. They are pretty certain a concept is going to work well before they decide to drop $150 million to build and test it in the real world. It's more of a verification that they can put all the pieces together in a reasonable way than anything related to whether or not the design will do what it claims to do. You can be certain that these MIT designs have been well tested in simulations, and possibly already run through a wind tunnel with a scale model. It's not like a computer game where they just turn the dial for "fuel consumption" down and say "hey, check it out! I've got 70% less fuel consumption!".
You don't actually think they build every pie in the sky idea designers come up with just to see if it's a viable concept do you? What world have you been living in? The fact that they already know the plane will have to fly 10% slower than current planes because of placing the engines at the rear of the plane should tell you that the concept has already been thoroughly tested by now.
Given the present state of known oil reserves (and the difficulties in accessing those reserves), the current depletion rate, and the expanding rate of oil usage in the developing world, NO ONE seriously expects air traffic to double by 2035.
And we can see evidence of this, because the oil prices have been skyrocketing since the 50's, which directly corresponds to a drop in the amount of air traffic since that time.
Right? No?
It's reality we operate in, not fantasy land. The fact is, despite absurd cuts that dramatically decrease people's desire to fly (like smaller seats and more expensive tickets), air traffic has been steadily increasing. There is a very minor dip when the economy was at its worse, but it is already back close to peak levels and will continue to climb.
There will still be a lot of oil in 2035, I don't think you understand the way oil works, or how "tapped" the oil wells actually are. 20 years ago we were going to run out in 30 years, and today we are going to run out in 20-25. I expect in 2035 we'll be another 15-20 years away from oil exhaustion, and the target will continue to move slowly closer to the final day when oil is no longer a viable energy source. This is for a number of reasons: One, we find new oil. We find it in places we weren't expecting to find it, and if it is somewhere we can get at it it means we adjust our reserve figures. Two, technology improves. With current technology, we can reliably extract about 20-30% of the oil from an oil well, period. Beyond that we cannot get it to the surface. As technology improves, that number goes up. Also, previously inaccessible wells, like wells a mile below sea-level, are possible as technology improves. 50 years ago they may have only gotten 10% of the total oil in a reservoir. This causes us to shift our total numbers for peak oil, proved reserves, probable reserves, and possible reserves. Three, oil consuming processes are continually becoming more efficient. This means the demand for oil-consuming products may rise by 20% but our consumption will only rise by 10%. (those aren't actual figures, just examples to make the point)
So yes, it will continue to dwindle, but our projection constantly increases, offsetting that. Using just today's figures, we have oil to last about 20-30 years. If we can pull another 5% of oil out of every well in the world, that shoots up to 40-50 years. It's a moving target, and it always has been. Take a look at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, for an example. Five years ago we eclipsed the amount of oil that was expected to exist in the field when it was first discovered and surveyed by 10% (1 billion barrels - 11 billion total), which far, far exceeds what was possible to recover at the time, yet it is still producing a lot of oil - at a rate of almost 1 million barrels per day, half the field's peak of 2 million per day 12 years ago. Obviously the proved, probable, and possible reserve figures were way off, and have been adjusted significantly over the years. There isn't some magical technology up here that allows us to pull 110% of the oil out of the ground, it means the figures were wrong by about a factor of three (the new official number for barrels in Prudhoe Bay is 25 billion).
Proved and probable reserve estimates are actually pretty conservative. Proved reserves means they have a 90+% confidence that they can extract that much oil with today's technology. Probable reserves have a 50+% confidence in recovery. Possible reserves have a 10+% confidence. What's really interesting is when the price of oil goes up, these numbers all go up. That's because economic viability is a primary factor in determining how much can be spent to extract the oil, which heavily influences the amount of oil that can be extracted. Possible reserves shift into probable reserves, and probable reserves shift into proved reserves, all because the price of oil keeps going up.
The net effect of all this is that we probab
I don't recall the article ever saying they invented anything new, they just put all the pieces together (i.e. designed it) such that they expect a 50-70% drop in fuel consumption.
Since the designs and their problems are well known, they have quite a lot to work with to figure out how to make it all work.
It's like the B-1 Bomber - such wing designs had been around for years, and the potential gains were well known. The trouble was, until the B-1 was developed some people thought the inherent instability in such a design was insurmountable, and such a plane would never fly (because all other attempts always crashed).
But then, someone figured out how to compensate, and now it works great.
MIT is well known for their engineering and technology programs, they are about as prestigious as a tech school gets. Given the number of technological innovations that come out of MIT, it's quite likely this is yet another MIT breakthrough. They can be pretty sure by running it through their simulations, but won't know for certain until a prototype is actually built some years down the road.