Human teeth are general purpose, so we don't eat meat or vegetables as efficiently as other that have specialized teeth. However we can eat more.
Human beings are one of the few animals in the world with digestive systems that are partly located outside their bodies. We call some of them kitchens and abattoirs.
This allows us to eat a wider variety of stuff, without having to carry around as many stomachs, gizzards etc, or directly support those metabolically.
2 years for current nuclear plants? Do you have a citation for that? That seems pretty low. My impression of "current nuclear plants" is they are frigging expensive. You need lots of concrete so that stuff can't crash through, and stuff can't blow out. And for many you need huge expensive high quality steel containers.
Yeah I used to use ESDF in FPS games for similar reasons, but since almost every game defaults to WASD and typically many other keys are allocated with WASD in mind, I've given up on reconfiguring games for ESDF...
While large creatures are probably dangerous to humans, they are unlikely to be a real danger to humanity, unless they are as intelligent as humans AND people decide to give them equality or near equality with humans. Because if bad things happen, they'd just end up near extinction like the other large creatures or large predators. Who believes we can't kill practically every last tiger or elephant in the world if we really wanted to? If dangerous dinos somehow escape the humans will come with guns and hunt them down, heck all the big game hunters will be fighting to get licenses to do it. The only way there'd be millions of them is if they end up being farmed by humans for meat, leather, feathers or other stuff.
The smaller creatures on the other hand could end up as pests like rats. But if they breed via eggs, they better be able to keep their eggs (and young) safe or the rats, cats and dogs will exterminate them too.
The even smaller stuff like old viruses and bacteria? Now that's what scares me. But they are probably being introduced regularly already from all that thawing ice - albeit not at such scale.
Doesn't matter. If they are fast enough and their country is a member, they can go represent their country in the Olympics and be measured the same way the rest of the rich athletes are.
Their handicap is elsewhere - gear, training, nutrition. And too often corruption.
Is there any information on the sort of light stimuli they typically use?
LEDs are quite fast, but If they use incandescent bulbs it might take a significant amount of time for the bulb to light up - possibly even tens of milliseconds (more for some large ones). If they use a shutter, the shutter might take significant time too.
80ms? That seems rather high. If I set my mouse button to 3ms response[1], I get a min of 141 ( typical 156ms) from visual for: http://cognitivefun.net/test/1 (try looking at stimuli from side of eye)
I doubt my audio reaction time would be 70ms. I get about the same (153ms, typical min 156-169) for the audio test: http://cognitivefun.net/test/16
That said the audio tests might be flawed on windows because of the high latency way sound is done. So maybe the audio test adds 80ms to the score.
[1] For some reason the default is 16ms, which is significant for some games. The rest of the system is important too - screen latency. So a lot of the higher scores might be due to people having crappy LCD screens and mice/keyboards.
Interesting note: using the spacebar on my keyboard brings my min score up to about 200ms! Even if I use the same hand and finger as with the mouse. So I guess my PS/2 keyboard sucks and adds about 40-50ms[2], my mouse is a cheap gaming (1000Hz) a4tech usb mouse, so nothing that fancy.
Wise people prefer to win battles without fighting.
Very often that involves: 1) bringing guns or MOABs to knife fights 2) giving the loser hope of survival if they surrender[1], typically with some way of saving face.
[1] If you are known to never take prisoners or known to treat prisoners badly, more of your enemies will fight to the bitter end.
By replying here or anywhere else in this forum you agree to: 1) give me all your money, assets and all future earnings and assets. 2) whenever there is a full moon, stand in a public area on one foot and howl at the moon. 3) Say "boop" every 87.24 minutes.
I imagine you're going to need some fairly fit people to survive a trip to Mars without their bodies failing.
Actually no. That's why this Mars crap is not interesting to me.
If they did it right it would be interesting to me. Example of doing space stuff right: work on building a space station with artificial gravity[1], better radiation shielding.
Once we have that technology working in practical ways it removes the main obstacles to long term human space travel and inhabitation. It would no longer matter so much that it takes months to get to some place in the solar system.
Next step would be tests on space-based mining, factories and farms[2]. These can be done concurrently.
Then space colonies, and self-sustaining space colonies.
In contrast much of the human space travel stuff NASA is working on appears to be mostly dead end stuff. You are not going to have a viable human colony using that tech (drugs to slow wasting and bone loss etc). It can come in handy for specific cases, but it's pretty stupid to waste time, resources and money on this sort of stuff at our current tech stage. All that NASA talk about going to Mars is stupid at this stage too- Mars is a gravity well. Only do it later when the space colonies are rich and thriving (from mining the asteroids and trade).
[1] Example option for a small station is using tethers and a counterweight. [2] Fish farms could be one of the many good farm options. Sunlight + CO2 + nitrogen+iron for algae.The fish (e.g. tilapia) eat the algae, the humans eat the fish. I suspect fish farms could be fine in low-g regions of a space station/colony (water oxygenation could be a problem in zero-g regions, but maybe the fish and their food might be able do fine in an air-water foam). It'll cost a lot to get that much water up into space, but we should later be able to get lots of water from asteroids and similar. So initial ones would be small scale test farms which should cost less to set up.
Farms on the Moon might be worth considering - but there are many unknowns - lunar soil is very very different from earth soil. Might have to stick to hydroponics till we figure more out.
To expand on that, voting D/R in our current system is truly the optimal game theory strategy for influencing policy as an individual voter.
That's only true if there is only going to be just one election ever. Think about it harder than those voter wannabe game theorists.
If enough people vote for "C" that "A" or "B" start behaving enough like "C", then the voters who voted for "C" have achieved their goals.
It doesn't even matter that "C" never wins, as long as "A" or "B" change enough. And if you look the D/R have changed over the years, along with their voters.
But voting strictly "A/B" is not going to influence "A/B" much, so the voters should up their game.
Most 3.5" 7200 RPM drives have power consumption of < 10W. The smaller or slower ones < 6W. I think most freezers can keep up with that.
Plus if you surround the drive with ice (but drive must be insulated from any water!), it'll take quite before the drive melts all of the ice, even if the freezer can't keep up.
You need the dry ice or similar if you do need the drive to be very cold.
How many held guns to the voters heads and forced them to vote D/R?
If the voters are voting D/R despite not wanting D/R then they're pretty stupid. If they think they can play the game-theory thing better than the D&R, they should ask themselves if that approach has worked so far and will it ever work?
So from what I see the voters are getting what they voted for and what they deserve. The system is working as well as it can given the different things the different voters want. Maybe things might be better with other voting systems, but that's not going to happen as long as the voters keep voting D/R and other things are their main priorities.
From what I see the D&R have a pretty good idea of what the voters priorities are. Yes it's dividing and conquering but if the voter priorities were really different, the D&R will act accordingly and they might actually do something about it too (even if half-baked;) )
And here's something to think about: Votes for Obama= 69,456,897 Votes for McCain= 59,934,814 The voters who didn't vote: approximately 77 million.
So if all those 77 million voters who didn't vote actually went and voted for someone else, that someone else would have won. Think about that.
And even if their votes were spread across different people who thus won't win, believe me the D&R would be a lot more nervous. Because in the next election, those voters might realize their power, get better coordinated and actually kick them out (of course if they still can't agree on who they want, then "the people have spoken", and you get D&R again).
Instead, the D&R can assume that the voters who don't vote, won't vote and literally do not count. Whereas more than 98% of the voters that do vote support D&R. So objectively the D&R are doing about as good a job as anyone can under the circumstances. How many more votes do you want them to get? 100%? They really are reflecting the people's will. Go talk to one of those "D" voters, they'll never vote for "R", and their "D" guy is the best. Same for the "R" voters.
So if you don't like the result, you should take it up with the voters who bothered to vote. The voters have clearly told their parties "keep doing what you're doing".
Talking about other ways of choosing the government means you're going against the 98% who bothered to vote. And that means you're the bad guy.
Sure those politicians might be bad. But they were elected. You weren't, so you ignoring the decision of the voters makes you as bad as a Dictator. Even if their decision is stupid, it does not make it any less democratic.
The only time I'd say other methods are justified is if there are no more elections or if the elections are very rigged (e.g. badly "Diebolded").
You're really stupid and/or ignorant if you think the State doesn't have enough firepower to take your stuff even if you don't register. Do you really believe that just because you don't register your child/car/etc, your child/car/etc ends up out of reach from the State?
Yes registering could make their job easier. But in some cases it also makes it easier for you to aim some of that firepower against people who are trying to take your stuff.
If you're unhappy with the way the state is doing things, vote accordingly and convince other people to do so.
In somewhat democratic countries, the State does (imperfectly) represent the will of the people. This usually sucks since most people are stupid and ignorant, however it is better than the other likely alternative scenarios. When leaders are selected by firepower instead of votes, it's much harder to overthrow them if you don't like them.
Until someone invents faster-than-light communications.
If it takes 100 milliseconds before you get a response from "out there", it could take a full second to do 10 actions/items (unless you can pipelined them).
Yeah it's harder than solving the halting problem. In theory the halting problem is impossible, but at least with the halting problem you are provided with the full accurate description of the program (the program and complete inputs).
Whereas with the "is this malware" problem you're not.
One workaround is sandboxing. From the "halting problem" perspective, sandboxing would be the like setting a time limit so that all programs will halt by a certain time.
Is perl/python signed too? So what if the pwned browser runs perl -e "something nasty"?
I've written perl stuff for OS X that can send info to "home base" and also get new instructions. For legit reasons- software/hardware asset management.
It'll be interesting to see if the AV bunch can keep up with polymorphic malware scripts. TIMTOWTDI and so on.
Not much except potential backlash from human customers. Amazon still depends on very many human customers. So they have to boil the frog slowly and carefully.
Slashdot Mirror
Human teeth are general purpose, so we don't eat meat or vegetables as efficiently as other that have specialized teeth. However we can eat more.
Human beings are one of the few animals in the world with digestive systems that are partly located outside their bodies. We call some of them kitchens and abattoirs.
This allows us to eat a wider variety of stuff, without having to carry around as many stomachs, gizzards etc, or directly support those metabolically.
2 years for current nuclear plants? Do you have a citation for that? That seems pretty low. My impression of "current nuclear plants" is they are frigging expensive. You need lots of concrete so that stuff can't crash through, and stuff can't blow out. And for many you need huge expensive high quality steel containers.
Don't many cheap UPSes give out modified square wave outputs?
Yeah I used to use ESDF in FPS games for similar reasons, but since almost every game defaults to WASD and typically many other keys are allocated with WASD in mind, I've given up on reconfiguring games for ESDF...
The latency better be low otherwise a lot of people are going to get motion sickness, headaches etc...
Easy, you send it off to create another universe.
While large creatures are probably dangerous to humans, they are unlikely to be a real danger to humanity, unless they are as intelligent as humans AND people decide to give them equality or near equality with humans. Because if bad things happen, they'd just end up near extinction like the other large creatures or large predators. Who believes we can't kill practically every last tiger or elephant in the world if we really wanted to? If dangerous dinos somehow escape the humans will come with guns and hunt them down, heck all the big game hunters will be fighting to get licenses to do it. The only way there'd be millions of them is if they end up being farmed by humans for meat, leather, feathers or other stuff.
The smaller creatures on the other hand could end up as pests like rats. But if they breed via eggs, they better be able to keep their eggs (and young) safe or the rats, cats and dogs will exterminate them too.
The even smaller stuff like old viruses and bacteria? Now that's what scares me. But they are probably being introduced regularly already from all that thawing ice - albeit not at such scale.
And what if the sites scrape the listings and modify them slightly? Thesaurus, add typos.
At what point would it be considered a new work and not a derivative work?
Doesn't matter. If they are fast enough and their country is a member, they can go represent their country in the Olympics and be measured the same way the rest of the rich athletes are.
Their handicap is elsewhere - gear, training, nutrition. And too often corruption.
Is there any information on the sort of light stimuli they typically use?
LEDs are quite fast, but If they use incandescent bulbs it might take a significant amount of time for the bulb to light up - possibly even tens of milliseconds (more for some large ones). If they use a shutter, the shutter might take significant time too.
80ms? That seems rather high. If I set my mouse button to 3ms response[1], I get a min of 141 ( typical 156ms) from visual for: http://cognitivefun.net/test/1
(try looking at stimuli from side of eye)
I doubt my audio reaction time would be 70ms. I get about the same (153ms, typical min 156-169) for the audio test: http://cognitivefun.net/test/16
That said the audio tests might be flawed on windows because of the high latency way sound is done. So maybe the audio test adds 80ms to the score.
[1] For some reason the default is 16ms, which is significant for some games. The rest of the system is important too - screen latency. So a lot of the higher scores might be due to people having crappy LCD screens and mice/keyboards.
Interesting note: using the spacebar on my keyboard brings my min score up to about 200ms! Even if I use the same hand and finger as with the mouse. So I guess my PS/2 keyboard sucks and adds about 40-50ms[2], my mouse is a cheap gaming (1000Hz) a4tech usb mouse, so nothing that fancy.
[2] Could be because of bounce delay:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mechanical-switch-keyboard,2955-5.html
Wise people prefer to win battles without fighting.
Very often that involves:
1) bringing guns or MOABs to knife fights
2) giving the loser hope of survival if they surrender[1], typically with some way of saving face.
[1] If you are known to never take prisoners or known to treat prisoners badly, more of your enemies will fight to the bitter end.
By replying here or anywhere else in this forum you agree to:
1) give me all your money, assets and all future earnings and assets.
2) whenever there is a full moon, stand in a public area on one foot and howl at the moon.
3) Say "boop" every 87.24 minutes.
BUT why should it even happen if the people don't vote for such a change?
They do vote for some change, but seems they don't want too much change. And I'm not surprised, given the other party positions.
Just because you want more change doesn't mean the rest want it.
I imagine you're going to need some fairly fit people to survive a trip to Mars without their bodies failing.
Actually no. That's why this Mars crap is not interesting to me.
If they did it right it would be interesting to me. Example of doing space stuff right: work on building a space station with artificial gravity[1], better radiation shielding.
Once we have that technology working in practical ways it removes the main obstacles to long term human space travel and inhabitation. It would no longer matter so much that it takes months to get to some place in the solar system.
Next step would be tests on space-based mining, factories and farms[2]. These can be done concurrently.
Then space colonies, and self-sustaining space colonies.
In contrast much of the human space travel stuff NASA is working on appears to be mostly dead end stuff. You are not going to have a viable human colony using that tech (drugs to slow wasting and bone loss etc). It can come in handy for specific cases, but it's pretty stupid to waste time, resources and money on this sort of stuff at our current tech stage. All that NASA talk about going to Mars is stupid at this stage too- Mars is a gravity well. Only do it later when the space colonies are rich and thriving (from mining the asteroids and trade).
[1] Example option for a small station is using tethers and a counterweight.
[2] Fish farms could be one of the many good farm options. Sunlight + CO2 + nitrogen+iron for algae.The fish (e.g. tilapia) eat the algae, the humans eat the fish. I suspect fish farms could be fine in low-g regions of a space station/colony (water oxygenation could be a problem in zero-g regions, but maybe the fish and their food might be able do fine in an air-water foam). It'll cost a lot to get that much water up into space, but we should later be able to get lots of water from asteroids and similar. So initial ones would be small scale test farms which should cost less to set up.
Farms on the Moon might be worth considering - but there are many unknowns - lunar soil is very very different from earth soil. Might have to stick to hydroponics till we figure more out.
To expand on that, voting D/R in our current system is truly the optimal game theory strategy for influencing policy as an individual voter.
That's only true if there is only going to be just one election ever. Think about it harder than those voter wannabe game theorists.
If enough people vote for "C" that "A" or "B" start behaving enough like "C", then the voters who voted for "C" have achieved their goals.
It doesn't even matter that "C" never wins, as long as "A" or "B" change enough. And if you look the D/R have changed over the years, along with their voters.
But voting strictly "A/B" is not going to influence "A/B" much, so the voters should up their game.
Most 3.5" 7200 RPM drives have power consumption of < 10W. The smaller or slower ones < 6W. I think most freezers can keep up with that.
Plus if you surround the drive with ice (but drive must be insulated from any water!), it'll take quite before the drive melts all of the ice, even if the freezer can't keep up.
You need the dry ice or similar if you do need the drive to be very cold.
How many held guns to the voters heads and forced them to vote D/R?
;) )
If the voters are voting D/R despite not wanting D/R then they're pretty stupid. If they think they can play the game-theory thing better than the D&R, they should ask themselves if that approach has worked so far and will it ever work?
So from what I see the voters are getting what they voted for and what they deserve. The system is working as well as it can given the different things the different voters want. Maybe things might be better with other voting systems, but that's not going to happen as long as the voters keep voting D/R and other things are their main priorities.
From what I see the D&R have a pretty good idea of what the voters priorities are. Yes it's dividing and conquering but if the voter priorities were really different, the D&R will act accordingly and they might actually do something about it too (even if half-baked
You are one of the problems. There are more parties than just D&R.
In the last presidential election, more than 98% of the voters who bothered to vote, voted for D&R:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Result
And here's something to think about:
Votes for Obama= 69,456,897
Votes for McCain= 59,934,814
The voters who didn't vote: approximately 77 million.
So if all those 77 million voters who didn't vote actually went and voted for someone else, that someone else would have won. Think about that.
And even if their votes were spread across different people who thus won't win, believe me the D&R would be a lot more nervous. Because in the next election, those voters might realize their power, get better coordinated and actually kick them out (of course if they still can't agree on who they want, then "the people have spoken", and you get D&R again).
Instead, the D&R can assume that the voters who don't vote, won't vote and literally do not count. Whereas more than 98% of the voters that do vote support D&R. So objectively the D&R are doing about as good a job as anyone can under the circumstances. How many more votes do you want them to get? 100%? They really are reflecting the people's will. Go talk to one of those "D" voters, they'll never vote for "R", and their "D" guy is the best. Same for the "R" voters.
So if you don't like the result, you should take it up with the voters who bothered to vote. The voters have clearly told their parties "keep doing what you're doing".
Talking about other ways of choosing the government means you're going against the 98% who bothered to vote. And that means you're the bad guy.
Sure those politicians might be bad. But they were elected. You weren't, so you ignoring the decision of the voters makes you as bad as a Dictator. Even if their decision is stupid, it does not make it any less democratic.
The only time I'd say other methods are justified is if there are no more elections or if the elections are very rigged (e.g. badly "Diebolded").
You're really stupid and/or ignorant if you think the State doesn't have enough firepower to take your stuff even if you don't register. Do you really believe that just because you don't register your child/car/etc, your child/car/etc ends up out of reach from the State?
Yes registering could make their job easier. But in some cases it also makes it easier for you to aim some of that firepower against people who are trying to take your stuff.
If you're unhappy with the way the state is doing things, vote accordingly and convince other people to do so.
In somewhat democratic countries, the State does (imperfectly) represent the will of the people. This usually sucks since most people are stupid and ignorant, however it is better than the other likely alternative scenarios. When leaders are selected by firepower instead of votes, it's much harder to overthrow them if you don't like them.
Latency.
Until someone invents faster-than-light communications.
If it takes 100 milliseconds before you get a response from "out there", it could take a full second to do 10 actions/items (unless you can pipelined them).
Yeah it's harder than solving the halting problem. In theory the halting problem is impossible, but at least with the halting problem you are provided with the full accurate description of the program (the program and complete inputs).
Whereas with the "is this malware" problem you're not.
One workaround is sandboxing. From the "halting problem" perspective, sandboxing would be the like setting a time limit so that all programs will halt by a certain time.
Is perl/python signed too? So what if the pwned browser runs perl -e "something nasty"?
I've written perl stuff for OS X that can send info to "home base" and also get new instructions. For legit reasons- software/hardware asset management.
It'll be interesting to see if the AV bunch can keep up with polymorphic malware scripts. TIMTOWTDI and so on.
Not that different from the rider... Most parts of a human are replaced over time.
Not much except potential backlash from human customers. Amazon still depends on very many human customers. So they have to boil the frog slowly and carefully.
They're not far from being able to get rid of most human workers in their warehouses:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/123765-automation-warehouse-robots-come-of-age-as-amazon-buys-kiva/3
You don't need that much brains to do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWNuaPE4DTc
So a more fancy pick-n-place robot could replace the human in that job.