You use light pressure. Not a bad idea. I still stick to my opinion that they should self assemble in space though. If many small solar collectors was a good idea, it would be done on earth as well.
Attitude and trajectory are controlled by opening and closing the shutters. Commands come from the ground by broadcast messages. You could launch thousands of the things on a single vehicle.
It would make a great way of concentrating sunlight for solar power. Remind me again how you can change trajectory with aerodynamics in space? Also, solar power in space requires a concentrated beam so that the energy is not lost as heat to the atmosphere. That and you can get a better surface area from a connected solar panel. Face it, controlling the trajectory of a small object isn't worth the difficulty when bigger would be better anyways. Yea launching smaller is easier, but it makes more sense to have them assemble once they're in orbit.
Over population creates a staggering amount of waste, and a war for resources would most likely be nuclear, so there wouldn't be a win/loose situation.
A satellite isn't a unit a unit of measurement, so you don't really have to worry about that. They'll just say, "nanosats getting smaller" as a headline. Also, very very doubtful that satellites get to be in grams. Getting something that light into stable orbit is like trying to throw a penny through a field goal from 30 yards away. That, and getting 1kg objects into space with existing rail guns might be just as easy as getting lighter objects, so it wouldn't make sense.
Even if you were right about ocean levels not rising, (just Google sea level rise and you'll see the data gathered by satellites on Wikipedia). or the temperature not changing over time (also data for that), your missing two things. One, CO2 is a trace gas, with less than.06% of it in the atmosphere by mass. That means a 30% increase only takes it to less than.08%. Second, were also worried about the "canoe effect" (the boat can rock quite a bit, but it only tips over after a heavy change). The canoe tipping over is the equivalent of mother nature going ape shit. And if there is one thing that natural disasters have taught us, it's don't fuck with mother nature. Though I personally believe we'll still end ourselves before nature does (over population is so much more of a threat).
Once the government's bitch, evermore their bitch Actually there is a way for Google to stop the snowball effect. The company only uses the data for statistical purposes, so the information that can tie an identity to an individual is not commercially valuable to them. What they can do is encrypt all the data so that no one can be associated to a single search. That way, you can only call to memory something like "Latinos who searched for X are most likely to search for:", and the system will respond:"Y". But if you say "what is the name of the person that searched for 'bombs'", the system can only say things like "9% of people who searched for 'death to America' etc..."
One way to bypass it is to highlight the letters you want, then copy and paste them. But this is only for things such as small user names and pass words.
For one, I hope you know that clones can't degrade. Second, for the funds they put into it, a selective breeding program would be more successful. Remember, proficiency in sniffing can be more comparable to hight, rather than skill in basketball. With that respect, the dog would be comparable to nearly all basketball players (that are above 6'4" lets say). With that in mind, you can see how it's easier to find tall people than it is to clone them (especially if you could selectively breed them).
You're actually quite right. I don't know why it's taken this long for people to realize that the news has been spewing forth propaganda. Remember after 9/11, the frequent reports of all the things terrorists could do? I am dead serious when I say my history teacher told the class that she had a nightmare that Kerry was elected president and terrorists blew up the world. Personally, I don't think the hatred for America is as passionate as it's hyped up to be. Any literate douche bag can google up "bomb" and blow shit up within the week. So far, there has only been one attempt. Not so scary in comparison to the mindset that people used to have, that a terrorist attack could occur at ANY point and ANY where.
Right now, we're trying to cut down on oil dependency (the US can already sustain itself so don't even get me started on that), but ethanol still creates greenhouse gases. The best solution would be to eliminate the need to drive by working with major developers in order to have housing and all essential needs within a short distance. That and quit wasting energy. I know so many people that drive a block to take their kids to the park (and they don't carry anything so they can definitely walk).
I know I sound like a communist, but science is one area where capitalism doesn't shine well. The thing is, the communism that people think about is just like any other dictatorship. If we had a democracy where government controls commerce, science projects would be more collaborative money wise (can you imagine all the particle accelerators built suddenly merged into one?) and people wise (that and the money wont go to some rich prick who will spend it on cars he never drives). It's sad that socialism and communism still have the stigma from the cold war, because people can slowly see capitalism start to loose its charm.
Remember if they weren't intended to be eaten they wouldn't have been made out of meat! You're argument is not too bad up to that point. Saying that, is like saying "if a woman wasn't meant to be raped, she wouldn't have a vagina." Animals are eaten against their natural ambitions. However, that's what makes meat so delicious. The point you have to send is quit giving a damn about such inferior quadrupeds (and their delectable offspring). If they weren't s source of food, they wouldn't be cultivated anyways, they would just be wiped out after having their homes destroyed in the name of human expansion (I'm not sharing a room with livestock).
according to their mindset, that is actually a perfects solution. What they don't get is that making something illegal will not stop the problem. It hasn't worked for drugs, guns, prostitution, and it will certainly not stop any terrorist from obtaining a laser pointer. It will just make it hard to get. There is however a solution that's so simple, they might pee their pants because how ignorant they were. Make the pilots navigate based on the video feed of a camera rather than their windows. That way, they wont only be (nearly) impervious to blinding, but they will also have the advantage of the superior sight that the camera can give.
How much could they possibly sue a bum for? I don't think he declares the change he gets in his taxes. Of course someone will come and correct me, saying it prevents him from ever achieving any future success and moving back to an apartment. I don't think he really has that ambition. Either way, so long as he works for cash and pays in cash for the rest of his life, can't he live just fine?
Education is only one of the suggestions to replace this fascist program, but yes you're right. Still, one of the major gaps between the impoverished and dis-impoverished is the quality of education. Ghettos have very low graduation rates for students, and even if they did well, they don't have the money to go to college. On the other hand you can have dumb rich people going to ivy league schools with no trouble (yes I mean Bush).
Are you proposing anarchy over education? Yes there should be a reward system that you fail to receive if you don't follow you civil duties rather than a punishment system if you violate them, but I think that would cost way more. As for the laws that step out of bounds (like those that have prosecuted a 17 year old for sleeping with a 15 year old), I couldn't agree with you more. However, I would rather avoid doing the crime than have to go way out of my way to abolish the law. Also, people commonly refer to generally immoral acts such as killing a crime. There are genes that can make yo more aggressive, but once more, you can be taught to not act violently against others.
Funny because that very article has the neutrality that I was looking for. The first thing it starts out with is "controversial theory". Then it continues by saying "Persecution led Jews to embrace education as a transportable asset, to better adapt to novel surroundings." And finally it says "Many genetically isolated human groups have faced multifarious adaptive pressures one could cherry pick to justify currently exhibited group traits." Yes you can have "smart societies", but "smart race" is not supported strongly enough (and for good reason). Now as for "smartness" being defined, there are many people who are brilliant writers that suck at math, and vice-versa. Not only that, but there are many traits that can be taught. There are techniques that can be learned to better your memory, and the society you are raised in can predispose you to learn that method of memorization. The same goes with the method for solving problems. Just the "top-down" and "bottom-up" approach alone can determine how a person does in a field, as he could go on his whole life not using both proficiently.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no "insert specific adjective here" gene. If the "smart gene" really was there, any descendants of Albert Einstein would go on to win a Nobel prize. Probably the only case where you could possibly argue the inheritance of the Nobel-prize-winning-smart gene would be with the Curies. Yes genetics can heavily influence behavior, but it takes a very specific configuration of alleles in order to achieve anything that merits prejudice (hence dolts can give birth to geniouses). Hell, it's even possible for a white child to be born of black parents, so long as you have the VERY rare occasion that they have all the recessive traits can lead to it if they are all transfered. You can't just inherit a lumped allele that will determine something as specific as predisposition to commit a crime. You can maybe inherit something to make you more aggressive, but success depends more on your initial situation more than anything (those small societies you mention probably share more standards on the education their children traditionally receive than smart genes). Even having the "dumb gene" doesn't mean that there isn't a subject you can excel in. People haven't accurately stated what "smart" is, and now they go off on a limb and say there's a "smart gene." Prosecuting people over a certain trait may diminish the genetic diversity that leads to the better traits.
It is beyond reason to even think that genetics can predispose someone to crime. Anyone that thinks so has the ignorance of those who think other races are inferior. It may be a small factor, but it is nowhere near as important as their development and current situation. And then I hear dolts that say, "well statistics say that blacks are more likely to commit a crime", but statistics also say that blacks live more impoverished conditions, and I bet you'll find an indisputable correlation between the two. This will be terrible news for anyone who may have the "criminal gene" (the idea is so stupid it's on par with the "likes to watch baseball gene"). He could be a innocent person that is more likely to be accused simply because of his genetic inheritance. Or worse he could be framed. How easy would it be for lazy policemen to "find" the hair of a local "predisposed criminal" to "solve" a murder case (which has been done, minus the predisposed part). Rather than even bother with these expensive programs, we should focus on the other factors that cause crime, such as lack of education.
That is an interesting idea, to see the genetic divergence that radiation may have caused. Radiation doesn't really cause genetic diversity any more than natural carcinogens and time. While this idea is not as preposterous as the many superheros that got their power from radiation (rather than a tumor as god intended [jk]), it's still silly to think that a radioactive contamination lasting less than a century would do anything. Even if it spanned much longer, you have to realize that most evolution occurs from natural selection, that is, the species that has the advantageous mutation must already be present, and that process alone can take decades in cases with animals (such as the peppered moth in its famous case study) that go through a generation rather quickly. If we wanted to see the difference that the radiation could make, it would probably take something along the span of human existence to get significant data to achieve a statistically viable result that says radioactive contamination even causes more diversity (which it should over that amount of time).
I must admit, it is quite rare to find a slashdot-poster less informed than a musician:.
Are you serious? What part of any curriculum is that information in? Sounds like some fun fact that only a well-versed professor would mention during a lecture. Who would go out of their way to learn anything like that? It's pretty elitist to be condescending anyone that doesn't know something like the origin of the bikini's name.
yea you're right, I thought it was the apache but I'm not sure which one now. I do remember that it was that twin rotor helicopter transport helicopter, because it was a really strong engine. In fact the reason it was the motor of choice was because the torque it supplied for the boat would hardly strain the engine.
Actually that's exactly right. For far too long, people have been equating entropy as free will, when in fact "free will" can only be defined by the biological mechanisms that occur to make the decision (that's what the whole concept of "choosing" is based on). It's probably because people equate anything they don't understand as "magic" rather than mystery.
Slashdot Mirror
Over population creates a staggering amount of waste, and a war for resources would most likely be nuclear, so there wouldn't be a win/loose situation.
A satellite isn't a unit a unit of measurement, so you don't really have to worry about that. They'll just say, "nanosats getting smaller" as a headline. Also, very very doubtful that satellites get to be in grams. Getting something that light into stable orbit is like trying to throw a penny through a field goal from 30 yards away. That, and getting 1kg objects into space with existing rail guns might be just as easy as getting lighter objects, so it wouldn't make sense.
Even if you were right about ocean levels not rising, (just Google sea level rise and you'll see the data gathered by satellites on Wikipedia). or the temperature not changing over time (also data for that), your missing two things. One, CO2 is a trace gas, with less than .06% of it in the atmosphere by mass. That means a 30% increase only takes it to less than .08%. Second, were also worried about the "canoe effect" (the boat can rock quite a bit, but it only tips over after a heavy change). The canoe tipping over is the equivalent of mother nature going ape shit. And if there is one thing that natural disasters have taught us, it's don't fuck with mother nature. Though I personally believe we'll still end ourselves before nature does (over population is so much more of a threat).
One way to bypass it is to highlight the letters you want, then copy and paste them. But this is only for things such as small user names and pass words.
For one, I hope you know that clones can't degrade. Second, for the funds they put into it, a selective breeding program would be more successful. Remember, proficiency in sniffing can be more comparable to hight, rather than skill in basketball. With that respect, the dog would be comparable to nearly all basketball players (that are above 6'4" lets say). With that in mind, you can see how it's easier to find tall people than it is to clone them (especially if you could selectively breed them).
You're actually quite right. I don't know why it's taken this long for people to realize that the news has been spewing forth propaganda. Remember after 9/11, the frequent reports of all the things terrorists could do? I am dead serious when I say my history teacher told the class that she had a nightmare that Kerry was elected president and terrorists blew up the world. Personally, I don't think the hatred for America is as passionate as it's hyped up to be. Any literate douche bag can google up "bomb" and blow shit up within the week. So far, there has only been one attempt. Not so scary in comparison to the mindset that people used to have, that a terrorist attack could occur at ANY point and ANY where.
Right now, we're trying to cut down on oil dependency (the US can already sustain itself so don't even get me started on that), but ethanol still creates greenhouse gases. The best solution would be to eliminate the need to drive by working with major developers in order to have housing and all essential needs within a short distance. That and quit wasting energy. I know so many people that drive a block to take their kids to the park (and they don't carry anything so they can definitely walk).
I know I sound like a communist, but science is one area where capitalism doesn't shine well. The thing is, the communism that people think about is just like any other dictatorship. If we had a democracy where government controls commerce, science projects would be more collaborative money wise (can you imagine all the particle accelerators built suddenly merged into one?) and people wise (that and the money wont go to some rich prick who will spend it on cars he never drives). It's sad that socialism and communism still have the stigma from the cold war, because people can slowly see capitalism start to loose its charm.
according to their mindset, that is actually a perfects solution. What they don't get is that making something illegal will not stop the problem. It hasn't worked for drugs, guns, prostitution, and it will certainly not stop any terrorist from obtaining a laser pointer. It will just make it hard to get. There is however a solution that's so simple, they might pee their pants because how ignorant they were. Make the pilots navigate based on the video feed of a camera rather than their windows. That way, they wont only be (nearly) impervious to blinding, but they will also have the advantage of the superior sight that the camera can give.
How much could they possibly sue a bum for? I don't think he declares the change he gets in his taxes. Of course someone will come and correct me, saying it prevents him from ever achieving any future success and moving back to an apartment. I don't think he really has that ambition. Either way, so long as he works for cash and pays in cash for the rest of his life, can't he live just fine?
Education is only one of the suggestions to replace this fascist program, but yes you're right. Still, one of the major gaps between the impoverished and dis-impoverished is the quality of education. Ghettos have very low graduation rates for students, and even if they did well, they don't have the money to go to college. On the other hand you can have dumb rich people going to ivy league schools with no trouble (yes I mean Bush).
Are you proposing anarchy over education? Yes there should be a reward system that you fail to receive if you don't follow you civil duties rather than a punishment system if you violate them, but I think that would cost way more. As for the laws that step out of bounds (like those that have prosecuted a 17 year old for sleeping with a 15 year old), I couldn't agree with you more. However, I would rather avoid doing the crime than have to go way out of my way to abolish the law. Also, people commonly refer to generally immoral acts such as killing a crime. There are genes that can make yo more aggressive, but once more, you can be taught to not act violently against others.
Funny because that very article has the neutrality that I was looking for. The first thing it starts out with is "controversial theory". Then it continues by saying "Persecution led Jews to embrace education as a transportable asset, to better adapt to novel surroundings." And finally it says "Many genetically isolated human groups have faced multifarious adaptive pressures one could cherry pick to justify currently exhibited group traits." Yes you can have "smart societies", but "smart race" is not supported strongly enough (and for good reason). Now as for "smartness" being defined, there are many people who are brilliant writers that suck at math, and vice-versa. Not only that, but there are many traits that can be taught. There are techniques that can be learned to better your memory, and the society you are raised in can predispose you to learn that method of memorization. The same goes with the method for solving problems. Just the "top-down" and "bottom-up" approach alone can determine how a person does in a field, as he could go on his whole life not using both proficiently.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no "insert specific adjective here" gene. If the "smart gene" really was there, any descendants of Albert Einstein would go on to win a Nobel prize. Probably the only case where you could possibly argue the inheritance of the Nobel-prize-winning-smart gene would be with the Curies. Yes genetics can heavily influence behavior, but it takes a very specific configuration of alleles in order to achieve anything that merits prejudice (hence dolts can give birth to geniouses). Hell, it's even possible for a white child to be born of black parents, so long as you have the VERY rare occasion that they have all the recessive traits can lead to it if they are all transfered. You can't just inherit a lumped allele that will determine something as specific as predisposition to commit a crime. You can maybe inherit something to make you more aggressive, but success depends more on your initial situation more than anything (those small societies you mention probably share more standards on the education their children traditionally receive than smart genes). Even having the "dumb gene" doesn't mean that there isn't a subject you can excel in. People haven't accurately stated what "smart" is, and now they go off on a limb and say there's a "smart gene." Prosecuting people over a certain trait may diminish the genetic diversity that leads to the better traits.
It is beyond reason to even think that genetics can predispose someone to crime. Anyone that thinks so has the ignorance of those who think other races are inferior. It may be a small factor, but it is nowhere near as important as their development and current situation. And then I hear dolts that say, "well statistics say that blacks are more likely to commit a crime", but statistics also say that blacks live more impoverished conditions, and I bet you'll find an indisputable correlation between the two. This will be terrible news for anyone who may have the "criminal gene" (the idea is so stupid it's on par with the "likes to watch baseball gene"). He could be a innocent person that is more likely to be accused simply because of his genetic inheritance. Or worse he could be framed. How easy would it be for lazy policemen to "find" the hair of a local "predisposed criminal" to "solve" a murder case (which has been done, minus the predisposed part). Rather than even bother with these expensive programs, we should focus on the other factors that cause crime, such as lack of education.
I must admit, it is quite rare to find a slashdot-poster less informed than a musician:.
Are you serious? What part of any curriculum is that information in? Sounds like some fun fact that only a well-versed professor would mention during a lecture. Who would go out of their way to learn anything like that? It's pretty elitist to be condescending anyone that doesn't know something like the origin of the bikini's name.yea you're right, I thought it was the apache but I'm not sure which one now. I do remember that it was that twin rotor helicopter transport helicopter, because it was a really strong engine. In fact the reason it was the motor of choice was because the torque it supplied for the boat would hardly strain the engine.
Actually that's exactly right. For far too long, people have been equating entropy as free will, when in fact "free will" can only be defined by the biological mechanisms that occur to make the decision (that's what the whole concept of "choosing" is based on). It's probably because people equate anything they don't understand as "magic" rather than mystery.
Well I don't know about you, but I for one welcome our money-laundering fascist overlords.