Just like American democracy in basic principle is the same as the one of classic Athens.
Only that it's scaled to include a whole bloody continent instead of a city state, and involves some 300 million people, a good 1000 times more than the original and requiring a whole deal less input from the actual people that are supposed to decide how things work.
As this is slashdot people should be quite well aware of the fact that some systems scale like complete shit. Unfortunately, somehow political systems are decoupled from the normal process of carefull design, prototyping and improvement and innovation that normally apply when you're doing, well, everything else, no matter how trivial.
In malaria dense regions DDT is actually still in use due to it's high efficiency. People figure that rather that getting their ass handed to them by malaria they'd rather suffer the more subtle effects of DDT exposure.
Oh, so you were talking about reading comic books? I apparently missed that parahraph in your first post. Terribly sorry for that.
And yes, i agree, there's a difference between an action comic and one that involves raping children, just as there's a difference between one where blood thirsty Americans invade europe to chop the head of infants to line them on the spiked fence of their embassies while rerouting the rivers with the bloated corpses of the mothers and a comic where a couple 10 year olds are depicted naked when say, swapping out of their clothes after having fallen into a cold river, or dare i suggest some childhood/adolscent love story that are not too uncommonly encountered in classic literature. I think many people can enjoy some innocent child nudity without thinking about raping children, just as people can enjoy(well...) the most gruesome violence depictions and revolting crimes against humanity without wanting to do it themselves. It all depends on what reasons the events happen for.
As for preaching tolerance: I don't. I preach against ignorance and for the removal of victimless crimes. I don't want everyone to tolerate eachother but your intolerance of me and my actions or viece versa should not allow either of us to fuck eachother over trough the means of draconian thought crime laws or similar.
A drawing also allows people to live out their violent fantasies regarding whatever. Am i a terrorist if a spend 5 minutes drawing stick figures planting explosives in the london commuting system? You'd have to say yes, as you also say that I'm a criminal if i spend 5 minutes drawing small stick figures with their mouths full of the dicks of larger stick figures?
I'm severly offended by the faulty logic of the people that buy into the "lets ban this shit because who can guarantee..."
No one can guarantee anything with hundred percent certainty, the goverment can't guarantee that anyone charged for terrorist crimes won't actually do terrorist crimes if released from custody just to spite the goverment for being in custody even if no whatsoever remote resemblance of evidence was found. Therefore, everyone charged with terrorist crimes always have to be guilty! Same concept, just a different criminal basis.
If you can't see the obviously flawed reasoning and severly fucked up consequences of this form of thinking you're not sentinent, you're a walking vegetable and whatever form of tubefeeding allowing for your sorry state of existance should immideatly be removed for the betterment of mankind before you degenerate drones decide that the conceptual image of child pornography every working brain(that is, everyones but your) can create internally substitutes a possession of child pornography crime.
I hope you're not taking offense at the colorful description but I felt it was neccessary to illustrate that you're a metastasis of the intellectual cancer that will ruin earth if left untreated.
And you could have extremely high levels of PSA in your bloodstream, detectable with a simple test, indicating you'll be dead in prostate cancer in two years if nothing is done.
Most likely you're a bit too young for it as of current, but when you close in to 50 years of age you should definitely not go seven years without visiting a doctor.
As stem cells are highly dynamic cells with no innate limit to how many times they can divide it's not that much of a suprise that they can turn cancerous.
To however claim that bush helped mitigate this problem is unfortunately BS. He limited research for tax money to a few already existing lines of embryonic stem cells. Which means you got zero goverment funding if you applied for anything such as "finding embryonic stem cell lines that are unlikely to turn cancerous".
We know that embryonic(and other) stem cells can differentiate with very low risk of turning cancerous as they do it in the human body. We also know we have a quite sufficient resource of easily availible stem cells, the embryonic ones. But unfortunately you were hardly allowed to touch any of that resoruce for 8 years. Meaning a lot of basic research on the relation between stem cells and cancer was put on ice while they had to develop ways to circumvent the bill, which, while possible is still quite a hassle.
Had this unfortunate politically rooted supression of science not taken place the article discussed might have been about antioncogenic or HIV resistant stem cell lines instead of people claiming that bush did a good job by so generously allowing the scientists to do research on a extensively diverse set of a whole 21 stem cell lines.
Life does not begin at conception, the sperm and egg cells that exists before conception are very much alive themself already. Albeit lacking the ability to divide into anything useful without first combining their genetic materials and finding a generous donor of nutrients and growing space.
As for the eggs, the fertility treatment doesn't work by picking out one egg, fertilizing it, putting it into a female and then seeing if it falls out again or gets stuck. It's more like picking a basket of eggs, fertilizing them all, screening them for defects, picking out the best one(s) and putting them back into the mother. This leaves us with a basket of motherless embryos(or zygotes in the early stages, but still motherless)(which in reality looks something like a basket full of seemingly empty petri dishes, not a pile of screaming dying babies as some would prefer us to belive). Calling them aborted is retarded simply because they aren't.
Oh, and they're only called fetuses after 8 weeks. they're embryos until then. And as they'll be put to the torch either way, why not try to derive something useful from them? If a few human cells lacking a nervous system is of so great importance then the prospect of saving several billions of human cells with a nervous system by providing reconstruction of failed organs and systems should be a national top priority.
Inaccurate = my darts miss the target by up to a meter.
Random = my darts may be assigned any possible movement vector with equal probability.
Please understand that there's a difference between these two. If i'm inaccurate we can compensate by altering the mechanics of our 'game'(make a huge dartboard, triangulate from multiple throws). Whereas if i'm random we can't really do much to help.
Accuracy(or lack of it) is not very challenging to measure either, and once you have it measured it should be trivial to compensate until the rate of significant errors drop lower than the chance of you being hit by lightning or whatever is considered within safe bounds.
You should consider that you could spend 85% of your cpu cycles on error corrections to achive equality with precision circuits while keeping the advantage of having 1/30 power cost. The advantage of 1/30 the powercost doesn't only(or neccesarily) translate to smaller utility bills. It also means less heat, which doesn't only mean less nosiy fans but also bigger, more powerful chips(with noisy fans). Scale your current cpu with 10x the amount of transistors at current tech and your computer will rival your microwave in heating power. At 1/30th the power that would still only be 1/3 of what you're already using.
Saying this technology will have no use at all is a bit unimaginative, unless you perhaps have a lot of stocks in the current industry?
HIV resistant people are carriers of the virus yet it's not a terminal disease for them. As such, it's a win-win situation for both man and virus. If the virus mutates to a more agressive variant that circumvents the resistance and kills the patient then that strain of HIV is dead and gone(maybe stored in a fridge somewhere).
Is it likely such a mutation would happen in all resistant carriers? No way. And considering that todays model of HIV is actually less agressive than the original i'd say that if anything the virus will mutate to a more tame variant. After all from an evolutionary standpoint the fittest virus does no direct noticeable harm to it's host.
"Previously developed quantum dots range in size from two to 10 nanometres -- a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre -- and contain groupings of 1,000 or more atoms."
"The quantum dot developed by Wolkow's team is much smaller; less than a nanometre in diameter and containing only one or two particles."
I guess your guess is wrong, because atoms are clearly not subatomic particles.
You seem to have some misconceptions about what the singularity is, it simply means things are improving a bit faster than before, as in, it's moving so fast we have trouble actually following the development, sortof like today, only that when you you visit slashdot you'll be facing two months content in todays rate in a single day.
We are already extremely dependant on machine and internet connections to keep up the rate today, our dependence and rate of immersion will simply increase along with the rate of progress. I don't really see where the loss of imagination, creativity and individuality comes into play here.
Also, religion usually lacks scientific basis and contains supernatural aspects, it's sortof what makes it a religion, the concept of the singularity may perhaps be a bit naive but it's not a religion. Sure it sounds a bit romantic and head in the clouds to dream of the Time of Change when the world will turn utopian but as a matter of fact we are living in a time of change and extremely rapid progress right at the moment, it's only the utopian part that's missing but the situation is rapidly improving for the average human.
The number of possible solutions to the fermi paradox are far more than two. But at our current level of technology we can't do much more than do some uneducated guesses as to what they may be.
Any such guess would of course be extremely biased, because we're fundamentally animals that are locked in a competetive enviroment with clearly defined transient individuals, this have some very notable shaping effects on the thought process and intelligence we posess.
However as technology marches forward we will eventually find ourself with a fundamental theory of intelligence and the tools neccesary to utilize it to radically alter what it means to be sentinent. Would we still at this point as optimally intelligent beings have the desire to convert everything we encounter into computiational matter or some other form of megaconstruct? Would we still have the desire to always be differentiated as individuals? Will things such as a big warm house mean anything if you can acess a virtual but indistinguishable one at any time? The passing of time is no longer constant for you either, how do you react? You can share a pair of eyes/sensors on a sattelite with a million other beings, your memory and defining traits are redundantly stored, making you essentially immortal, you can share these with other people, making even your existence hard to define and somewhat redundant.
Now of course you could decide to go to earth with great gifts of technology that brings happiness and extremely powerful and destructive weapons to the people there. But of course, they could not even begin to understand the principles of your existance. And what exactly would you gain from it a feeling of well being for helping the weak perhaps? But now, is well being a feeling you'd find in a optimal intelligence or is it only something we'd encounter in social animals to keep them alive?
Is it not better to just keep watch of these animals instead of giving them a possible external threat to unite against? Or act from the shadows to lead them to optimal intelligence too, at which point they would be able to communicate efficiently with you?
Perhaps a bit of incoherent ranting, but really, are we perhaps not a bit arrogant to postulate a paradox about superadvanced civilisations when we can't really know anything at all about their modus operandi.
Humans are also the only species around that could prevent massive extinction events caused by natural events.
Consider the human caused extinction events a protection fee or perhaps more an unfortunate administrative fee that we're trying to get rid off.
For those who missed it; the overall utility of something is seldomly measured only in the FPS it achives in crysis.
The utility of phononic circuits stretches into areas where most electric circuits would not thrive. being able to process information with the only requirement being a temperture gradient would be quite handy for many occasions, considering you usually have the body-surroundings temperature gradient availible.
Even ignoring any direct applications we're likely to see within a few decades we should not laugh and dismiss exotic means of computation as they are a step on the way towards computers that not only do information processing but also mass processing.
And don't tell me you wouldn't just love torrenting brand new cars when they pop up on your favourite outlet, despite threats from the future CIAA.
You'll get al gore on your ass for this one. By routing extraterrestial solar energy back to earth you're definitely contributing to global warming.
Of course, the same applies to nuclear energy too and no one seems to care. And lets not forget that once solar panels absorb more light than the surrounding terrain they also contribute.
As with any new innovations you can't expect to see the full extent of what it offers immideatly.
The first electric generator gave few clues to the enormous ones powered by exotic fuels we have nowdays that supply entire nations with electricity around the clock. The electric generator however was a very simple construct that you could improve on your own provided a small capital.
Space programs on the other hand are enormous projects requiring equally enormous capital investments with a very long period before you see any real money from it. Right now it's mainly sattelites that make up commercial money in space, but there is a definite interest in space. The price tag is a bit prohibitive but as long as spacetravel is in demand for someone we'll keep up improving it.
In the end however it may be too early to pump in wast amounts of money in the program as the general technology level can't really supply what would be needed for a properly extensive space program.
The sledgehammers would be the same size, the contributing acceleration and force from gravity is of lesser significance than what your muscles provide.
The actual swing part of swinging a sledgehammer would be just as taxing on the moon or in zero G as on earth, carrying it around would be a bit easier however.
The study is quite flawed, she might as well feed them a diet "rich in rat poison" and conclude that it's quite fatal for the critters.
There are more studies needed, focusing on the separate compounds; is a diet rich in sugar bad? Is the sugar rich diet bad if the net caloric intake is low? Is the sugar rich diets bad when combined with nutritional supplements that cover the nutritional needs that sugar doesn't provide? Is a combination diet of sugar and fat worse or better than the single sugar or single fat ones? Is HDL cholesterol a equal factor as LDL cholesterol? In what manners do the mice metabolism change in the diets? Could these changes perhaps be blocked by medication, and if yes, will it prevent alzheimers?
The study tells us what we already know, a diet of junk food is bad for you. However, most likely a diet of junk food will kill you trough some other pathway before you develop alzheimers.
You best hope that your sinking boat is full of professional cyclists if you're to stand any chance of reliably pedal powering a 100+W device for any sustained periods.
No, actually, it's the electrical impulses travelling the hardware that do the actual thinking, just like in your computer. The neurotransmitters are more like simple functions/methods and can be bypassed trough other methods, such as electrical stimulation.
We've been using radio transmissions for less than one hundred years. How long until we find some more efficient way of communication? If any given civilisation only broadcast radio in all directions for 200 years, how likely are we to snoop up that particlar expanding shell?
How long will we still care about the rest of the universe? By the time world of warcraft 10 is realeased we'll all be hopelessly addicted and all live in a virtual world with better graphics than reality. Eventually we'll know all about reality too as it's a system of finite complexity.
Such an obvious connection, high value gadgets likely(such as cameras, and to certain extent office capable computing/laptops) to be stolen are being integrated in single, small and slim smartphone devices so people with small rectal cavities can fit their neccesities up their ass when they go flying.
Just don't forget to swtich it to silent/vibration next time you go flying. You wouldn't want your plesant flight disturbed by silly ringtones.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like American democracy in basic principle is the same as the one of classic Athens.
Only that it's scaled to include a whole bloody continent instead of a city state, and involves some 300 million people, a good 1000 times more than the original and requiring a whole deal less input from the actual people that are supposed to decide how things work.
As this is slashdot people should be quite well aware of the fact that some systems scale like complete shit. Unfortunately, somehow political systems are decoupled from the normal process of carefull design, prototyping and improvement and innovation that normally apply when you're doing, well, everything else, no matter how trivial.
In malaria dense regions DDT is actually still in use due to it's high efficiency. People figure that rather that getting their ass handed to them by malaria they'd rather suffer the more subtle effects of DDT exposure.
Oh, so you were talking about reading comic books? I apparently missed that parahraph in your first post. Terribly sorry for that.
And yes, i agree, there's a difference between an action comic and one that involves raping children, just as there's a difference between one where blood thirsty Americans invade europe to chop the head of infants to line them on the spiked fence of their embassies while rerouting the rivers with the bloated corpses of the mothers and a comic where a couple 10 year olds are depicted naked when say, swapping out of their clothes after having fallen into a cold river, or dare i suggest some childhood/adolscent love story that are not too uncommonly encountered in classic literature. I think many people can enjoy some innocent child nudity without thinking about raping children, just as people can enjoy(well...) the most gruesome violence depictions and revolting crimes against humanity without wanting to do it themselves. It all depends on what reasons the events happen for.
As for preaching tolerance: I don't. I preach against ignorance and for the removal of victimless crimes. I don't want everyone to tolerate eachother but your intolerance of me and my actions or viece versa should not allow either of us to fuck eachother over trough the means of draconian thought crime laws or similar.
A drawing also allows people to live out their violent fantasies regarding whatever. Am i a terrorist if a spend 5 minutes drawing stick figures planting explosives in the london commuting system? You'd have to say yes, as you also say that I'm a criminal if i spend 5 minutes drawing small stick figures with their mouths full of the dicks of larger stick figures?
I'm severly offended by the faulty logic of the people that buy into the "lets ban this shit because who can guarantee..."
No one can guarantee anything with hundred percent certainty, the goverment can't guarantee that anyone charged for terrorist crimes won't actually do terrorist crimes if released from custody just to spite the goverment for being in custody even if no whatsoever remote resemblance of evidence was found. Therefore, everyone charged with terrorist crimes always have to be guilty! Same concept, just a different criminal basis.
If you can't see the obviously flawed reasoning and severly fucked up consequences of this form of thinking you're not sentinent, you're a walking vegetable and whatever form of tubefeeding allowing for your sorry state of existance should immideatly be removed for the betterment of mankind before you degenerate drones decide that the conceptual image of child pornography every working brain(that is, everyones but your) can create internally substitutes a possession of child pornography crime.
I hope you're not taking offense at the colorful description but I felt it was neccessary to illustrate that you're a metastasis of the intellectual cancer that will ruin earth if left untreated.
And you could have extremely high levels of PSA in your bloodstream, detectable with a simple test, indicating you'll be dead in prostate cancer in two years if nothing is done.
Most likely you're a bit too young for it as of current, but when you close in to 50 years of age you should definitely not go seven years without visiting a doctor.
Monitoring health at subatomic levels?
Have your ever heard of a doctor talking about anything even remotely resembling neutron deficiency or any other indicators of subatomic medicine?
Well, electrons, if counted as subatomic, are somewhat involved, but that's because their involvement in chemistry.
As stem cells are highly dynamic cells with no innate limit to how many times they can divide it's not that much of a suprise that they can turn cancerous.
To however claim that bush helped mitigate this problem is unfortunately BS. He limited research for tax money to a few already existing lines of embryonic stem cells. Which means you got zero goverment funding if you applied for anything such as "finding embryonic stem cell lines that are unlikely to turn cancerous".
We know that embryonic(and other) stem cells can differentiate with very low risk of turning cancerous as they do it in the human body. We also know we have a quite sufficient resource of easily availible stem cells, the embryonic ones. But unfortunately you were hardly allowed to touch any of that resoruce for 8 years. Meaning a lot of basic research on the relation between stem cells and cancer was put on ice while they had to develop ways to circumvent the bill, which, while possible is still quite a hassle.
Had this unfortunate politically rooted supression of science not taken place the article discussed might have been about antioncogenic or HIV resistant stem cell lines instead of people claiming that bush did a good job by so generously allowing the scientists to do research on a extensively diverse set of a whole 21 stem cell lines.
Life does not begin at conception, the sperm and egg cells that exists before conception are very much alive themself already. Albeit lacking the ability to divide into anything useful without first combining their genetic materials and finding a generous donor of nutrients and growing space.
As for the eggs, the fertility treatment doesn't work by picking out one egg, fertilizing it, putting it into a female and then seeing if it falls out again or gets stuck. It's more like picking a basket of eggs, fertilizing them all, screening them for defects, picking out the best one(s) and putting them back into the mother. This leaves us with a basket of motherless embryos(or zygotes in the early stages, but still motherless)(which in reality looks something like a basket full of seemingly empty petri dishes, not a pile of screaming dying babies as some would prefer us to belive). Calling them aborted is retarded simply because they aren't.
Oh, and they're only called fetuses after 8 weeks. they're embryos until then. And as they'll be put to the torch either way, why not try to derive something useful from them? If a few human cells lacking a nervous system is of so great importance then the prospect of saving several billions of human cells with a nervous system by providing reconstruction of failed organs and systems should be a national top priority.
Inaccurate = my darts miss the target by up to a meter.
Random = my darts may be assigned any possible movement vector with equal probability.
Please understand that there's a difference between these two. If i'm inaccurate we can compensate by altering the mechanics of our 'game'(make a huge dartboard, triangulate from multiple throws). Whereas if i'm random we can't really do much to help.
Accuracy(or lack of it) is not very challenging to measure either, and once you have it measured it should be trivial to compensate until the rate of significant errors drop lower than the chance of you being hit by lightning or whatever is considered within safe bounds.
You should consider that you could spend 85% of your cpu cycles on error corrections to achive equality with precision circuits while keeping the advantage of having 1/30 power cost. The advantage of 1/30 the powercost doesn't only(or neccesarily) translate to smaller utility bills. It also means less heat, which doesn't only mean less nosiy fans but also bigger, more powerful chips(with noisy fans). Scale your current cpu with 10x the amount of transistors at current tech and your computer will rival your microwave in heating power. At 1/30th the power that would still only be 1/3 of what you're already using.
Saying this technology will have no use at all is a bit unimaginative, unless you perhaps have a lot of stocks in the current industry?
I wouldn't put any money on that scenario.
HIV resistant people are carriers of the virus yet it's not a terminal disease for them. As such, it's a win-win situation for both man and virus. If the virus mutates to a more agressive variant that circumvents the resistance and kills the patient then that strain of HIV is dead and gone(maybe stored in a fridge somewhere).
Is it likely such a mutation would happen in all resistant carriers? No way. And considering that todays model of HIV is actually less agressive than the original i'd say that if anything the virus will mutate to a more tame variant. After all from an evolutionary standpoint the fittest virus does no direct noticeable harm to it's host.
"Previously developed quantum dots range in size from two to 10 nanometres -- a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre -- and contain groupings of 1,000 or more atoms."
"The quantum dot developed by Wolkow's team is much smaller; less than a nanometre in diameter and containing only one or two particles."
I guess your guess is wrong, because atoms are clearly not subatomic particles.
You seem to have some misconceptions about what the singularity is, it simply means things are improving a bit faster than before, as in, it's moving so fast we have trouble actually following the development, sortof like today, only that when you you visit slashdot you'll be facing two months content in todays rate in a single day.
We are already extremely dependant on machine and internet connections to keep up the rate today, our dependence and rate of immersion will simply increase along with the rate of progress. I don't really see where the loss of imagination, creativity and individuality comes into play here.
Also, religion usually lacks scientific basis and contains supernatural aspects, it's sortof what makes it a religion, the concept of the singularity may perhaps be a bit naive but it's not a religion. Sure it sounds a bit romantic and head in the clouds to dream of the Time of Change when the world will turn utopian but as a matter of fact we are living in a time of change and extremely rapid progress right at the moment, it's only the utopian part that's missing but the situation is rapidly improving for the average human.
The number of possible solutions to the fermi paradox are far more than two. But at our current level of technology we can't do much more than do some uneducated guesses as to what they may be.
Any such guess would of course be extremely biased, because we're fundamentally animals that are locked in a competetive enviroment with clearly defined transient individuals, this have some very notable shaping effects on the thought process and intelligence we posess.
However as technology marches forward we will eventually find ourself with a fundamental theory of intelligence and the tools neccesary to utilize it to radically alter what it means to be sentinent. Would we still at this point as optimally intelligent beings have the desire to convert everything we encounter into computiational matter or some other form of megaconstruct? Would we still have the desire to always be differentiated as individuals? Will things such as a big warm house mean anything if you can acess a virtual but indistinguishable one at any time? The passing of time is no longer constant for you either, how do you react? You can share a pair of eyes/sensors on a sattelite with a million other beings, your memory and defining traits are redundantly stored, making you essentially immortal, you can share these with other people, making even your existence hard to define and somewhat redundant.
Now of course you could decide to go to earth with great gifts of technology that brings happiness and extremely powerful and destructive weapons to the people there. But of course, they could not even begin to understand the principles of your existance. And what exactly would you gain from it a feeling of well being for helping the weak perhaps? But now, is well being a feeling you'd find in a optimal intelligence or is it only something we'd encounter in social animals to keep them alive?
Is it not better to just keep watch of these animals instead of giving them a possible external threat to unite against? Or act from the shadows to lead them to optimal intelligence too, at which point they would be able to communicate efficiently with you?
Perhaps a bit of incoherent ranting, but really, are we perhaps not a bit arrogant to postulate a paradox about superadvanced civilisations when we can't really know anything at all about their modus operandi.
Humans are also the only species around that could prevent massive extinction events caused by natural events. Consider the human caused extinction events a protection fee or perhaps more an unfortunate administrative fee that we're trying to get rid off.
For those who missed it; the overall utility of something is seldomly measured only in the FPS it achives in crysis.
The utility of phononic circuits stretches into areas where most electric circuits would not thrive. being able to process information with the only requirement being a temperture gradient would be quite handy for many occasions, considering you usually have the body-surroundings temperature gradient availible.
Even ignoring any direct applications we're likely to see within a few decades we should not laugh and dismiss exotic means of computation as they are a step on the way towards computers that not only do information processing but also mass processing.
And don't tell me you wouldn't just love torrenting brand new cars when they pop up on your favourite outlet, despite threats from the future CIAA.
Ditching passenger aircrafts are not all too hard according to the statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing#Survival_rates_of_passenger_plane_water_ditchings
I'm quite sure that a real autopilot would have enough emergency landing routines to pull it off quite good too.
You'll get al gore on your ass for this one. By routing extraterrestial solar energy back to earth you're definitely contributing to global warming.
Of course, the same applies to nuclear energy too and no one seems to care. And lets not forget that once solar panels absorb more light than the surrounding terrain they also contribute.
As with any new innovations you can't expect to see the full extent of what it offers immideatly.
The first electric generator gave few clues to the enormous ones powered by exotic fuels we have nowdays that supply entire nations with electricity around the clock. The electric generator however was a very simple construct that you could improve on your own provided a small capital.
Space programs on the other hand are enormous projects requiring equally enormous capital investments with a very long period before you see any real money from it. Right now it's mainly sattelites that make up commercial money in space, but there is a definite interest in space. The price tag is a bit prohibitive but as long as spacetravel is in demand for someone we'll keep up improving it.
In the end however it may be too early to pump in wast amounts of money in the program as the general technology level can't really supply what would be needed for a properly extensive space program.
The sledgehammers would be the same size, the contributing acceleration and force from gravity is of lesser significance than what your muscles provide.
The actual swing part of swinging a sledgehammer would be just as taxing on the moon or in zero G as on earth, carrying it around would be a bit easier however.
The study is quite flawed, she might as well feed them a diet "rich in rat poison" and conclude that it's quite fatal for the critters.
There are more studies needed, focusing on the separate compounds; is a diet rich in sugar bad? Is the sugar rich diet bad if the net caloric intake is low? Is the sugar rich diets bad when combined with nutritional supplements that cover the nutritional needs that sugar doesn't provide? Is a combination diet of sugar and fat worse or better than the single sugar or single fat ones? Is HDL cholesterol a equal factor as LDL cholesterol? In what manners do the mice metabolism change in the diets? Could these changes perhaps be blocked by medication, and if yes, will it prevent alzheimers?
The study tells us what we already know, a diet of junk food is bad for you. However, most likely a diet of junk food will kill you trough some other pathway before you develop alzheimers.
You best hope that your sinking boat is full of professional cyclists if you're to stand any chance of reliably pedal powering a 100+W device for any sustained periods.
No, actually, it's the electrical impulses travelling the hardware that do the actual thinking, just like in your computer. The neurotransmitters are more like simple functions/methods and can be bypassed trough other methods, such as electrical stimulation.
And EAL11+ Means it autonomously do pre-emptive strikes against all potential attackers.
Followed by sending robots back in time to pre-preemtptively attack whoever turns out to not succumb in the first(?) attack.
We've been using radio transmissions for less than one hundred years. How long until we find some more efficient way of communication? If any given civilisation only broadcast radio in all directions for 200 years, how likely are we to snoop up that particlar expanding shell?
How long will we still care about the rest of the universe? By the time world of warcraft 10 is realeased we'll all be hopelessly addicted and all live in a virtual world with better graphics than reality. Eventually we'll know all about reality too as it's a system of finite complexity.
Such an obvious connection, high value gadgets likely(such as cameras, and to certain extent office capable computing/laptops) to be stolen are being integrated in single, small and slim smartphone devices so people with small rectal cavities can fit their neccesities up their ass when they go flying.
Just don't forget to swtich it to silent/vibration next time you go flying. You wouldn't want your plesant flight disturbed by silly ringtones.