In an experimental model of pain (Amanzio and Benedetti, 1999), the placebo response could be blocked by naloxone if it was induced by strong expectation cues, whereas if the expectation cues were reduced, it was insensitive to naloxone. In the same study, if the placebo response was obtained after exposure to opioid drugs, it was naloxone reversible, whereas if it was obtained after exposure to non-opioid drugs, it was naloxone insensitive.
You get a LOT of CO2 for your buck. CO2 is a liquid in the state it is sold. By my calculations, I bought enough CO2 to carbonate a swimming pool full of water.
How much does it cost to carbonate a swimming pool and what is a good way to do it?
I bought an overpowered green laser "pointer" because it seemed neat-o. I keep it in a safe with my firearms, primarily because I have young children. The laser has zero practical value, although it is fun to pop dark-colored balloons with.
I'm not a big fan of guns being easily available to all, but in my opinion guns have more practical/reasonable uses than high powered handheld lasers.
Yes you can use those lasers to point at stuff in the sky. And get yourself in big trouble if an aircraft happens to be in the area. I say use a lighted extendable stick instead.
With guns, you can't shoot continuously for minutes. With lasers you can. If you pick the right scenario (everyone looking at the same area) you can blind a lot of people.
It could be layered - for instance the entire drive can be optionally encrypted. But the container file is always created and encrypted by default (unless you specifically deselect it).
Hong Kong is nearly a different country in practice. Compare Life expectancy in Hong Kong with the rest of China (or the cities). Even the politics and law enforcement is significantly different.
Similar here I was wondering how long it would take for dogs, cats, etc to evolve to wait for traffic to pass before crossing.
I see hawks or eagles circling some highways nowadays - I wonder if roadkill makes up a significant part of their diet. But they'd better learn to avoid becoming roadkill too;).
On a related note, I wonder if we are doing the wrong thing by eating/killing the larger members of various fish species while leaving the smaller ones alive. Seems to me for millions of years its been the smaller members of a fish species that have a higher death rate. Perhaps we should be eating the small ones and leaving the big ones alone. The big ones can usually produce more small ones.
Try that with a bird feeder or similar sometime especially in winter. It's not always as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
More so if you present your service as something that people can depend on. Not saying Google does that, but they really seem to have grown a reputation for building and killing projects on a whim. Given that they are trying to charge for some of their services I think they should rethink their approach a bit.
Does Google really want us to treat their services as if they can't be depended on for the longterm? I'm fine with that since I don't depend that much on any of them, it'll be annoying if Google Search went belly-up but nowadays it's not working so well anyway (they seem to allow many sites to present info to Google search that's different to what users can actually access- that used to be a no-no - BMW Germany got smacked down for doing that).
I won't be surprised if that's one of the reasons why Google App Engine has far fewer users than it would have. With Google's reputation how many will invest many man-months or years to build something that's so locked in to a Google service?
Google Compute Engine might be more successful - since if you do things not too badly you can probably migrate to EC2 or similar with just a bit of pain.
You can make money selling trinkets. So if it can create something in the centimeter scale with nanometer details in a short space of time (hours or even minutes) then it might be interesting for making custom jewellery. That's assuming you can do iridescent colours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration
But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.
Why is it dubious ethically? I think most gamblers know that. The stupid ones just think those odds somehow aren't going to apply to them.
Most arcade centers and amusement parks have even worse payout ratios;). If you're losing money in a casino and not having lots of fun doing so you should be doing something else that you find fun.
If you're there to make money and aren't making money, you're crap and should find a better job. Or practice with fake money till you're good enough.
If you're there to launder money then you're a small timer. The big timers use big banks;).
If you are growing GDP just by importing workers you're often not growing GDP per capita. Which means you're not actually making the country's people richer on average.
It is of course usually harder to grow GDP by increasing productivity per person.
The problem is ksplice hasn't been around for more than 3737 days;).
If you run everything on a "cluster" layer (your apps are not dependent or maybe not even aware of the noncluster layer) then you won't have such problems - you can reboot a node with minimal impact. In the old days the ones famous for uptimes were Tandem and VMS.
You seem to have difficulty reading properly and understanding before replying.
For example: you missed my statement "NASA's plans for Mars involve aeroponics anyway" and that post you are replying to was just because you had difficulty understanding my previous post.
So I'm not going to waste anymore time replying to you.
My point was unlike on Earth whether on mars or in space you still need to build structures to enclose your farm. You can't get away with a cheap fence. You may even need to process the Martian soil first before you can use it. Whereas in space you just do hydroponics/aeroponics or whatever and it works (NASA's plans for Mars involve aeroponics anyway - so they're not even going to use the martian soil for growing food).
There's no proof that 0.38g is good enough for humans long term. Nobody has done any experiments on that. Best way to do test is to put a centrifuge in space. But if you can put a centrifuge in space or spin the space station (or swing it with tethers and counterweights), then you no longer have that weightlessness problem.
As for the radiation problem you need to solve that before sending people to Mars anyway. Otherwise they'd just get fried on the trip there.
Therefore as I've said in other posts - it makes more sense to build that 1g radiation shielded space station _first_ then you can test out a lot of things (develop space colony tech or even growing stuff in mars-like soil and 0.38g). Not do stupid crazy Mars projects where there are so many things you don't know will work yet but have to get solved or it becomes a very expensive very short nasty one way trip to Mars.
They may not be showstoppers, but my question was why would a colony on Mars be better than a colony in space (near suitable asteroid(s)). So far I have seen no good reasons given.
But this will likely change in the next few years as research is done with mice and later humans in centrifugal apparatus.
Are there even any such projects being done right now? The only one I see didn't even get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Gravity_Biosatellite And it wasn't even initiated or supported by NASA. Which just reinforces my low opinion of NASA - they've declined a lot since the 1970s.
We are stuck in a somewhat hospitable gravity well. I don't consider being stuck in an inhospitable gravity well an advantage. So what is the advantage of colonizing Mars over space colonies amongst the asteroids?
Is there evidence that 38% gravity is enough for humans to do fine in? If it isn't well you're stuck with it. Whereas on a space station you can set it to a wide range including 38% (and thus do better "long term living on Mars" experiments). You could even have different areas with different "g". Then you can strap on wings and fly;).
you don't have to go out and lasso another asteroid every time you need more resources. Just dig the hole a little deeper or wider...
On Earth mines do run out useful raw material. I doubt it will be any different on Mars.
You don't need to lasso the asteroid if you just move to the new one (once you've confirmed it's suitable with probes). All depends on which costs more - moving the asteroid, starting a new mining outpost or moving the whole colony.
The mining module stuck to the asteroid does not have to spin. The space station 1g part does not have to be a wheel shape nor does it have to be attached to the asteroid. It can be a "bucket" + tethers + docking hub + counter weights (supplies etc).
Why would Mars have greater potential to grow into a true (and thriving) colony or nation, than a collection of space stations? On Mars the atmosphere will remain 1/100th that of Earth, the "gravity" will remain 38% that of Earth. That isn't going to change for a long time. So all your living areas are still going to be like space stations. So where's that greater potential going to come from?
Then there's transportation. Are your mines and living areas all going to conveniently be in the same spot? If they aren't how are you going to transport stuff/people from one place to another? Flying is difficult in 1/100th air. Building roads in Mars isn't going to be that cheap. Shoot stuff from a gun?
Doubt the transport costs are going to be much cheaper than sending stuff from one asteroid colony to another. Probably even more expensive.
A colony near/attached to a suitable asteroid would have access to plenty of water and other raw materials. With the benefit of not being stuck in a gravity well. And in the main stations you could have the benefit of a proven 1G environment for actual living (rather than mere survival). You won't get that 1G on Mars as easily and cheaply as you can in space.
How much extra safety and time do you think Mars atmosphere will give you to respond to an emergency? Mars' atmospheric pressure is typically less than 1/100th the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere. How's that going to help much?
And unless you have reasonable evidence that people can live well in 0.3G, I don't see how it would be better for long term high population colonization: 1) The G is wrong. 2) The atmosphere is wrong - so you'd still need "space station" like infrastructure for every part that humans have to live in. Thus you need about the same amount of raw materials to provide the same amount of liveable space, if not more.
If you can manage with low g, you could stick your settlement in an asteroid for radiation shielding.
Travel amongst suitable asteroids might not be as expensive as travel amongst suitable mining spots on Mars. There are no roads, you have to contend with terrain. The very thin atmosphere prevents easy flying (thin air + same inertia = hard to turn), the presence of 0.3 gravity does not help much
The first step though would be to build a space station with 1G and radiation shielding. The first test station doesn't necessary have to be near an asteroid. It does not have to be a ring or tube style space station - it could be just a "bucket" (living area) + tethers+docking hub+ tethers+counterweight.
The first real step for a colony outside earth is not Mars. Settling on Mars is like trying to jump before being able to crawl. Settling on the Moon would make more sense than Mars (due to proximity to Earth). But settling in space near decent asteroids would make even more sense.
Still seems stupid to me. Why would having a colony in Mars actually be better than having a colony in space instead? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3537441&cid=43146845 What's so great about Mars for colonies? It's not like you can have plants and livestock on Martian soil without in effect building a "spaceship" over them to protect them from Mars's hostile environment.
What they should do is investigate how to build space stations with artificial gravity and radiation shielding. Then you can have your 1G or even a range of Gs depending on which part of the space station you're in.
Once you have that tech you can also take your time when going to Mars - you won't rot away so fast.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by no pharmacological effect though?
See: "Neurobiological Mechanisms of the Placebo Effect"
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/45/10390.full
In an experimental model of pain (Amanzio and Benedetti, 1999), the placebo response could be blocked by naloxone if it was induced by strong expectation cues, whereas if the expectation cues were reduced, it was insensitive to naloxone. In the same study, if the placebo response was obtained after exposure to opioid drugs, it was naloxone reversible, whereas if it was obtained after exposure to non-opioid drugs, it was naloxone insensitive.
You get a LOT of CO2 for your buck. CO2 is a liquid in the state it is sold. By my calculations, I bought enough CO2 to carbonate a swimming pool full of water.
How much does it cost to carbonate a swimming pool and what is a good way to do it?
Can't you do that with a long lighted extendable stick? What other good use does it have?
Even guns have a better benefit/usefulness to harm ratio.
I bought an overpowered green laser "pointer" because it seemed neat-o. I keep it in a safe with my firearms, primarily because I have young children. The laser has zero practical value, although it is fun to pop dark-colored balloons with.
I'm not a big fan of guns being easily available to all, but in my opinion guns have more practical/reasonable uses than high powered handheld lasers.
Yes you can use those lasers to point at stuff in the sky. And get yourself in big trouble if an aircraft happens to be in the area. I say use a lighted extendable stick instead.
With guns, you can't shoot continuously for minutes. With lasers you can. If you pick the right scenario (everyone looking at the same area) you can blind a lot of people.
If a popular OS/distro encrypts a container file by default, that interrogation method becomes less effective.
Hence the bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148440
It could be layered - for instance the entire drive can be optionally encrypted. But the container file is always created and encrypted by default (unless you specifically deselect it).
You can notice this behaviour in a few dogs in places that have large numbers of strays.
The males seem to lose their traffic sense once a female in heat is in sight.
But that happens to humans too ;).
Hong Kong is nearly a different country in practice. Compare Life expectancy in Hong Kong with the rest of China (or the cities). Even the politics and law enforcement is significantly different.
Similar here I was wondering how long it would take for dogs, cats, etc to evolve to wait for traffic to pass before crossing.
;).
I see hawks or eagles circling some highways nowadays - I wonder if roadkill makes up a significant part of their diet. But they'd better learn to avoid becoming roadkill too
On a related note, I wonder if we are doing the wrong thing by eating/killing the larger members of various fish species while leaving the smaller ones alive. Seems to me for millions of years its been the smaller members of a fish species that have a higher death rate. Perhaps we should be eating the small ones and leaving the big ones alone. The big ones can usually produce more small ones.
Try that with a bird feeder or similar sometime especially in winter. It's not always as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
More so if you present your service as something that people can depend on. Not saying Google does that, but they really seem to have grown a reputation for building and killing projects on a whim. Given that they are trying to charge for some of their services I think they should rethink their approach a bit.
Does Google really want us to treat their services as if they can't be depended on for the longterm? I'm fine with that since I don't depend that much on any of them, it'll be annoying if Google Search went belly-up but nowadays it's not working so well anyway (they seem to allow many sites to present info to Google search that's different to what users can actually access- that used to be a no-no - BMW Germany got smacked down for doing that).
I won't be surprised if that's one of the reasons why Google App Engine has far fewer users than it would have. With Google's reputation how many will invest many man-months or years to build something that's so locked in to a Google service?
Google Compute Engine might be more successful - since if you do things not too badly you can probably migrate to EC2 or similar with just a bit of pain.
Nano Trinkets
You can make money selling trinkets. So if it can create something in the centimeter scale with nanometer details in a short space of time (hours or even minutes) then it might be interesting for making custom jewellery. That's assuming you can do iridescent colours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration
But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.
Why is it dubious ethically? I think most gamblers know that. The stupid ones just think those odds somehow aren't going to apply to them.
Most arcade centers and amusement parks have even worse payout ratios ;). If you're losing money in a casino and not having lots of fun doing so you should be doing something else that you find fun.
If you're there to make money and aren't making money, you're crap and should find a better job. Or practice with fake money till you're good enough.
If you're there to launder money then you're a small timer. The big timers use big banks ;).
Fruit flies too. See also: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-fruit-flies-medicate-larvae-alcohol.html
It's nothing to sneeze at.
Sometimes it's much harder to start a company, build your own products (e.g. xerox machines), establish a well known brand, then do the spy stuff:
http://www.editinternational.com/read.php?id=47ddf19823b89
http://tinyurl.com/a7b9jql
I doubt the CIA call up random companies. But as you can see they definitely do use existing established companies.
If you are growing GDP just by importing workers you're often not growing GDP per capita. Which means you're not actually making the country's people richer on average.
It is of course usually harder to grow GDP by increasing productivity per person.
The problem is ksplice hasn't been around for more than 3737 days ;).
If you run everything on a "cluster" layer (your apps are not dependent or maybe not even aware of the noncluster layer) then you won't have such problems - you can reboot a node with minimal impact. In the old days the ones famous for uptimes were Tandem and VMS.
You seem to have difficulty reading properly and understanding before replying.
For example: you missed my statement "NASA's plans for Mars involve aeroponics anyway" and that post you are replying to was just because you had difficulty understanding my previous post.
So I'm not going to waste anymore time replying to you.
The hacker rocy bird left the military in 2008. So maybe it's the same guy.
You mean all we have to do is invent a brand new branch of science to produce gravity? Well that sounds much easier
You seem to be way behind the times. Have you even heard of Newtonian physics yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Methods_for_generating_artificial_gravity
My point was unlike on Earth whether on mars or in space you still need to build structures to enclose your farm. You can't get away with a cheap fence. You may even need to process the Martian soil first before you can use it. Whereas in space you just do hydroponics/aeroponics or whatever and it works (NASA's plans for Mars involve aeroponics anyway - so they're not even going to use the martian soil for growing food).
There's no proof that 0.38g is good enough for humans long term. Nobody has done any experiments on that. Best way to do test is to put a centrifuge in space. But if you can put a centrifuge in space or spin the space station (or swing it with tethers and counterweights), then you no longer have that weightlessness problem.
As for the radiation problem you need to solve that before sending people to Mars anyway. Otherwise they'd just get fried on the trip there.
Therefore as I've said in other posts - it makes more sense to build that 1g radiation shielded space station _first_ then you can test out a lot of things (develop space colony tech or even growing stuff in mars-like soil and 0.38g). Not do stupid crazy Mars projects where there are so many things you don't know will work yet but have to get solved or it becomes a very expensive very short nasty one way trip to Mars.
They may not be showstoppers, but my question was why would a colony on Mars be better than a colony in space (near suitable asteroid(s)). So far I have seen no good reasons given.
But this will likely change in the next few years as research is done with mice and later humans in centrifugal apparatus.
Are there even any such projects being done right now? The only one I see didn't even get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Gravity_Biosatellite
And it wasn't even initiated or supported by NASA. Which just reinforces my low opinion of NASA - they've declined a lot since the 1970s.
We are stuck in a somewhat hospitable gravity well. I don't consider being stuck in an inhospitable gravity well an advantage. So what is the advantage of colonizing Mars over space colonies amongst the asteroids?
Is there evidence that 38% gravity is enough for humans to do fine in? If it isn't well you're stuck with it. Whereas on a space station you can set it to a wide range including 38% (and thus do better "long term living on Mars" experiments). You could even have different areas with different "g". Then you can strap on wings and fly ;).
you don't have to go out and lasso another asteroid every time you need more resources. Just dig the hole a little deeper or wider...
On Earth mines do run out useful raw material. I doubt it will be any different on Mars.
You don't need to lasso the asteroid if you just move to the new one (once you've confirmed it's suitable with probes). All depends on which costs more - moving the asteroid, starting a new mining outpost or moving the whole colony.
The mining module stuck to the asteroid does not have to spin. The space station 1g part does not have to be a wheel shape nor does it have to be attached to the asteroid. It can be a "bucket" + tethers + docking hub + counter weights (supplies etc).
Why would Mars have greater potential to grow into a true (and thriving) colony or nation, than a collection of space stations? On Mars the atmosphere will remain 1/100th that of Earth, the "gravity" will remain 38% that of Earth. That isn't going to change for a long time. So all your living areas are still going to be like space stations. So where's that greater potential going to come from?
Then there's transportation. Are your mines and living areas all going to conveniently be in the same spot? If they aren't how are you going to transport stuff/people from one place to another? Flying is difficult in 1/100th air. Building roads in Mars isn't going to be that cheap. Shoot stuff from a gun?
Doubt the transport costs are going to be much cheaper than sending stuff from one asteroid colony to another. Probably even more expensive.
A colony near/attached to a suitable asteroid would have access to plenty of water and other raw materials. With the benefit of not being stuck in a gravity well. And in the main stations you could have the benefit of a proven 1G environment for actual living (rather than mere survival). You won't get that 1G on Mars as easily and cheaply as you can in space.
How much extra safety and time do you think Mars atmosphere will give you to respond to an emergency? Mars' atmospheric pressure is typically less than 1/100th the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere. How's that going to help much?
And unless you have reasonable evidence that people can live well in 0.3G, I don't see how it would be better for long term high population colonization:
1) The G is wrong.
2) The atmosphere is wrong - so you'd still need "space station" like infrastructure for every part that humans have to live in. Thus you need about the same amount of raw materials to provide the same amount of liveable space, if not more.
If you can manage with low g, you could stick your settlement in an asteroid for radiation shielding.
Travel amongst suitable asteroids might not be as expensive as travel amongst suitable mining spots on Mars. There are no roads, you have to contend with terrain. The very thin atmosphere prevents easy flying (thin air + same inertia = hard to turn), the presence of 0.3 gravity does not help much
The first step though would be to build a space station with 1G and radiation shielding. The first test station doesn't necessary have to be near an asteroid. It does not have to be a ring or tube style space station - it could be just a "bucket" (living area) + tethers+docking hub+ tethers+counterweight.
The first real step for a colony outside earth is not Mars. Settling on Mars is like trying to jump before being able to crawl. Settling on the Moon would make more sense than Mars (due to proximity to Earth). But settling in space near decent asteroids would make even more sense.
Still seems stupid to me. Why would having a colony in Mars actually be better than having a colony in space instead? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3537441&cid=43146845
What's so great about Mars for colonies? It's not like you can have plants and livestock on Martian soil without in effect building a "spaceship" over them to protect them from Mars's hostile environment.
What they should do is investigate how to build space stations with artificial gravity and radiation shielding. Then you can have your 1G or even a range of Gs depending on which part of the space station you're in.
Once you have that tech you can also take your time when going to Mars - you won't rot away so fast.