Spreading radioactive waste over a large area is actually a nice side benefit. And digging a pit hundreds of meter deep in the mud under 5000 meters of mud would be difficult, and probably not worth the effort. If they wanted waste to go there, I imagine it would be on top of the mud, and dumped from the surface of the ocean.
Why was that necessarily a bad thing? Asshole young punk bosses aside, why do you want a boss that's older then you? Is it some old-fashioned respect to elders you demand? Do you feel passed over for that position?
Bossing, and doing are two different things that don't have much overlap. It's good for a boss to be knowledge about what his worker bees do, but it's really not that crucial. And the skill overlap between a boss and a worker is hardly anything. Ok, sure, the skillset of a boss includes babysitting, settling disputes, wagging fingers, and sucking up to higher-ups. All sort of common sense skills that anyone could have, but not a specialty of workers. Seriously, why the hell do people stop doing good work and become bosses. Why isn't there a bachelors degree in management with entry level boss positions. Why are bosses paid more?
Traitors...
Unless you consider being the archetect to be beyond programming. I assumed you meant transforming perfectly good human beings into pointy haired bosses.
Actually, this is the ideal sort of thing for bittorrent. Collect everything, pack it up, and start seeding. Post links. I'll be pitching in at 5:20pm.
I'm also fine with the concept of a 3-strike law...
As long as a strike involves a warrant, charges, a trial, forensic evidence vouched for by experts, and a conviction.
The ISP whining about how it's clients are using what they paid for is just a bunch of foul balls.
Do you know how many kilowatts you can buy with $100?
It's about 1000.
The ROI of paying $100 for a new CPU vs using an essentially free P4 is way out there. It's economical to use the P4. It's also eco-friendly unless you consider factory waste in china to be cleaner then a coal plant in America.
Hydro and nuke plants are not new tech. They're really old. Older then I am. They work, and they're cleaner and better then the alternatives.
Hydro is simply fantastic. Fuck the river fish. We should build it wherever we can. It can turn on and ramp up to full power with a phone call, and with a pump it can STORE energy. We burn nothing for that power, we're harnessing a natural phenomena of the planet's water cycle. Seriously, to hell with the fish and the floodplain real-estate.
Nuke plants, in the USA at least, are finicky bastards that need specialized engineers for each bloody one because they built each plant differently. They hate to be ramped up or down. They have the possibility, however remote, of really fucking up. France has a better nukey power grid since they standardized, but I don't see that happening in the USA. Nuclear power is perfectly safe with all the regulations imposed on it. And it could be fantastically efficient if you got rid of all that regulation. Low-level waste isn't as bad as people fear. High-level waste is a serious problem, but manageable. However, I dunno how economical the fuel would be if our nuclear-weapon program hadn't subsidized it. And neither do you, as that is the black-listed sort of thing that no one knows about.
Coal is fantastic from a political perspective. We have a metric shit-ton of it. So does Russia and China so they've got no need to come take ours. Dirty as hell though. Efforts to make it clean are a good thing, but it's still going to be dirty afterward. It's also the easiest inertia-wise as it's the status-quo for power generation. It takes about half an hour for the boilers to ramp up.
Wind is a surprising change I didn't think had any legs. There's the risk that the wind simply stops, which will require other generators to ramp up, hopefully quickly before sectors start dropping off the grid. And the transmission lines need to be free for the power to get there. Supposedly, they can get a statistical average of enough power to make it worth it, but that sounds worryingly like certain mortgage calculator that got us in trouble. There's definitely some money to be made based on the weather there.
Solar is a lot like hydro in that it has fantastic properties, but its probably only going to see production in Arizona and the like.
Tide, bio, natGas and such also probably have limited local use. Bio in the midwest, natgas by oil rigs, tide on the coast of course. But they deserve a moderate amount of respect and research.
Off the wall ideas like fusion deserve skeptical optimism, and as much venture capital as they can drum up.
Er, but yeah, anyway, you cautioned against hydro. Fuck that. Dam the river.
I don't have to impress you. I don't even have to influence you at all. All I have to do is publicly point out the shenanigans you're up to and the masses will know your plot. If they know that there is an active subversive force trying to undermine education, then they won't listen to you anymore.
Awwww nutbunnies... you're not KeithPreston...
Yeah, ok. Sorry about that. I completely assumed you were the one I was outing as a wedge pusher. So unless you've got some sock puppets, there's nothing tying you to the wedge. Here at least. Why the heck did you respond to me here?
And he specifically wanted to protect Christianity from being an arm of government. And to protect them from the power that it would have in such a position. With that power comes the corrupt and toadies that give the church a bad name.
I consider you a foe for pushing the creationists wedge and trying to subvert the nation to a christian viewpoint by destroying the education of our kids.
You have the right to have your view and even the right to speak about it. And I have the right to say fuck you. You don't have the right to hugs and cuddles.
No, science is not a democracy. Deciding what to teach is bit of a democracy.
That problem with historical events, and all history in general, is not limited to science. You cannot prove that the world was not created last Tuesday.
Science does not prove anything and technically doesn't have facts. All it has is evidence that supports theories. It can only predict with high probability the outcome of future events. For example, it can predict that the majority of the people will vouch for the sun rising yesterday and will say that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
Honest neutral evaluation of differing theories is science.
Your brain-washed extreme isn't science, it's theology. You're working towards furthering the wedge, and that makes you a bad person.
Sure, but solipsism is a useless philosophy. It's one of those childish things that you have to move on from. You're assured you exist in some form, that you exist wherever you're at, and everything else is conjecture. Full stop, that's it, there is no more to that philosophy. Yeah yeah, we can't be philosophically assured that the world is real and this isn't all some sim-sense dream, but so what? It appears that the world is real and reacts in a logical way. Where it doesn't act logically, there's been a high statistical trend that I simply don't know enough about it yet. You will also never be philosophically assured that anything in the past actually happened. Grow up and live in reality. Or at least what appears to be reality, if that floats your boat.
Some book starts with the comment that the first philosophical question is that of suicide. Live in the world, or GTFO. If you choose to live in the world then you can move on from there. Solipsism is the pussies suicide. Rejecting reality without actually leaving it.
Fair enough. There are still many unknowns about the brain and there are differing theories. Just like there are differing theories for the shape of the earth, the underlying reason for gravity, and the existence of black holes. Some theories are stronger and have more weight behind them then others, and some issues still have no clear victor.
The nature of the mind is not yet to the point where everyone will laugh at you for believing in the mind-body dualism. But there does appear to be a trend in that direction. And there is a non-technical reason for existence of the mind-body dualism theory which would explain your bias against this evidence. Now, if you have weightier evidence for your theory that I'm unaware of, then by all means feel free to share. But if you have held a theory merely out of tradition, and evidence comes along that contradicts that tradition, you should re-examine why that tradition is there in the first place. Most traditions serve some sort of real-world purpose, but most have very poor accuracy.
So in short; Why do you think spirituality is anything more then physiological?
Yeah, you probably also prefer the more balanced approach of Fox News.
But you're right, in part, in that this does not invalidate spirituality. But it does explain spirituality. It's an attempt to accurately define what spirituality is. And it appears that it's chemicals in your head. It does not invalidate it any more then lightning is invalidated by knowing that it's a transfer of electrons.
Not that any of the grandparents implied that spirituality isn't real. Just your personal view of spirituality as some sort of mystic out-of-body experience.
But you know, I'm with you, fuck blind faith. In any form.
Agreed.
Simply because we've found the switch to turn it on doesn't lessen it's meaning. It puts a damper on the whole mind-body-soul trifecta, but that's been a wash for a while now. People are a sub-set of animals, your mind exists as a configuration of your brain, and those warm fuzzies you get from spiritual enlightenment will one day be regulated with a drug. The original purpose and meaning of spiritual enlightenment remains, just without the mysticism. Kind of like sex after it was discovered that it makes babies.
Of course, I'm a little worried about the day that religious nuts can literally over dose on god.
Well that dualism comes with playing around with mercury and working on the heretical art of alchemy.
(You probably could have chosen a better example of "highly religious" scientists)
Well since human carnal pleasure originates with the evolutionary forces encouraging them to propagate the species, I imagine they'll get a kick out of making new hardware and copying themselves. Of course, since we control the "evolutionary forces" behind AI advancement, we can shape it to whatever we want. So if their cultural subsection of their creators is any indication, they'll get off on applying for grants, enjoy ordering post-docs around, and will post lol-cats everywhere.
You have X billion people, but only Y pieces/grams/barrels of bread/copper/gold/oil.
Bread is a renewable resource. Even if we eat all the bread we can make more. People make it in fields and kitches. If we need more bread, then we get more people (or other resources) to make more. Ultimately, the bread resource is powered by the sun, and that's not going anywhere for a while. There is a limit to how much farmland we can use, but we are nowhere near that limit. Indeed, the worst threat to our farmers is that they produce too much, the price bottoms out, they all go broke, don't produce anything, prices skyrocket, we starve, and we have a horrible cycle of boom or bust. The real problem with starving people is that they don't live where the food is made, or other conditions keep them from making the food.
Copper and gold are metals. There is a finite amount in planet earth. There is 10^14 tons of copper in the earth's crust, more then we could ever use in the lifetime of our species. Getting it may be an issue. But regardless, metals are not consumed. They don't simply go away when put into a computer or a cable. You can rip it out and use it again. All it takes is energy and manpower. In short: recycle.
Oil! Ding ding ding! We have a winner! There is a finite amount of oil in the world, when it's burned for energy it's no longer an energy source, and it WILL eventually become scare. BUT, the primary use of oil is transportation, so if we get some sort of alternative energy source that can be harnessed to move our shit around, the oil scarcity won't matter all that much. Or we could just liquify coal and use that. It's dirty, but that'll work too.
Relax dude, it's not the end of the world. Sure, the system now isn't the best, but it's the best so far.
Yes, you've done some work with neural networks. I've done some work with neural networks. We all have. It's a fun class. Very hip.
But when you simulate 33 billion neurons with 10,000 links you inevitably need to fall back to the very slow process of a memory read/write. This would help with that.
And having a enough neurons work together discerning things about observations, making a guess as to future observations, and adjusting the work of themselves to account for discrepancies IS intelligence. Because that's the point when the thing starts learning.
The coward was trying to say that fusion research should be treated like the Manhattan project was. In that it was well funded and had top priority by the government.
I pointed out that the the Manhattan project was also highly secretive and the bomb was used for questionable means afterwards. Ya get it?
I'd agree that we should and would share the tech. Duh.
The only thing I remember from the movie is a lathe, Reeves failing to act, a stupid plot line, and explosions. Oddly enough, I was just talking to a co-worker about it and how I knew this big oil guy who argued that the whole world economy would collapse if the world had free energy tomorrow. I chalked it up to an inflated ego and hanging around refineries too much.
Yeah, that was my take on his post. It looks like specifically crushed her dreams and directed the blame at Obama. At the very least he failed to comfort her and explain that the Ares is not the end-all to space, choosing rather to let her blame Obama. And this points out two sad but important lessons:
1. The future republicans will be raised up being indoctrinated to hate Obama. They will associate everything negative that has happened in the previous, current, and next decade to him. They're parents would have imparted this "wisdom" to them at a young age. They couldn't have ice-creme because Obama supported the cow union. They had to wait in line because Obama didn't give tax cuts to disneyland. He will be the scapegoat of the new young republicans. When dealing with the next generation of republicans, Obama will be the root of all evil, like Satan to Christians. Merely being associated with, they will see us as agents of evil. So get ready for some good times with fundies.
2. This really hammers home the need for socializing kids. Putting them in a diverse group, while it has the potential to spread crazy ideas, also has the potential to, well, cure them of the stupid. I'm talking about schooling, son. Call it indoctrination if you want, but at least it's counter-acting the crazy they get at home. And the school doesn't have to push any message at all, simply giving the children peers to talk to will socialize them (and give them a bloody nose now and then). Even placing two bat-shit crazy liberal or conservative kids together will iron out their individual craziness.
Admit it, you're just trying to setup the plot from "the moon is a hard mistress" aren't you?
A massive AI built up by the first colonists.
Gender imbalance.
How about we starts farms there as well? Ship it back with a massive rail fun?
Slashdot Mirror
Massive storage facility?
Like a hydro dam?
Spreading radioactive waste over a large area is actually a nice side benefit. And digging a pit hundreds of meter deep in the mud under 5000 meters of mud would be difficult, and probably not worth the effort. If they wanted waste to go there, I imagine it would be on top of the mud, and dumped from the surface of the ocean.
Why was that necessarily a bad thing? Asshole young punk bosses aside, why do you want a boss that's older then you? Is it some old-fashioned respect to elders you demand? Do you feel passed over for that position?
Bossing, and doing are two different things that don't have much overlap. It's good for a boss to be knowledge about what his worker bees do, but it's really not that crucial. And the skill overlap between a boss and a worker is hardly anything. Ok, sure, the skillset of a boss includes babysitting, settling disputes, wagging fingers, and sucking up to higher-ups. All sort of common sense skills that anyone could have, but not a specialty of workers. Seriously, why the hell do people stop doing good work and become bosses. Why isn't there a bachelors degree in management with entry level boss positions. Why are bosses paid more?
Inertia isn't reason enough.
Traitors...
Unless you consider being the archetect to be beyond programming. I assumed you meant transforming perfectly good human beings into pointy haired bosses.
Actually, this is the ideal sort of thing for bittorrent. Collect everything, pack it up, and start seeding. Post links. I'll be pitching in at 5:20pm.
I'm also fine with the concept of a 3-strike law...
As long as a strike involves a warrant, charges, a trial, forensic evidence vouched for by experts, and a conviction.
The ISP whining about how it's clients are using what they paid for is just a bunch of foul balls.
Do you know how many kilowatts you can buy with $100?
It's about 1000.
The ROI of paying $100 for a new CPU vs using an essentially free P4 is way out there. It's economical to use the P4. It's also eco-friendly unless you consider factory waste in china to be cleaner then a coal plant in America.
Hydro and nuke plants are not new tech. They're really old. Older then I am. They work, and they're cleaner and better then the alternatives.
Hydro is simply fantastic. Fuck the river fish. We should build it wherever we can. It can turn on and ramp up to full power with a phone call, and with a pump it can STORE energy. We burn nothing for that power, we're harnessing a natural phenomena of the planet's water cycle. Seriously, to hell with the fish and the floodplain real-estate.
Nuke plants, in the USA at least, are finicky bastards that need specialized engineers for each bloody one because they built each plant differently. They hate to be ramped up or down. They have the possibility, however remote, of really fucking up. France has a better nukey power grid since they standardized, but I don't see that happening in the USA. Nuclear power is perfectly safe with all the regulations imposed on it. And it could be fantastically efficient if you got rid of all that regulation. Low-level waste isn't as bad as people fear. High-level waste is a serious problem, but manageable. However, I dunno how economical the fuel would be if our nuclear-weapon program hadn't subsidized it. And neither do you, as that is the black-listed sort of thing that no one knows about.
Coal is fantastic from a political perspective. We have a metric shit-ton of it. So does Russia and China so they've got no need to come take ours. Dirty as hell though. Efforts to make it clean are a good thing, but it's still going to be dirty afterward. It's also the easiest inertia-wise as it's the status-quo for power generation. It takes about half an hour for the boilers to ramp up.
Wind is a surprising change I didn't think had any legs. There's the risk that the wind simply stops, which will require other generators to ramp up, hopefully quickly before sectors start dropping off the grid. And the transmission lines need to be free for the power to get there. Supposedly, they can get a statistical average of enough power to make it worth it, but that sounds worryingly like certain mortgage calculator that got us in trouble. There's definitely some money to be made based on the weather there.
Solar is a lot like hydro in that it has fantastic properties, but its probably only going to see production in Arizona and the like. Tide, bio, natGas and such also probably have limited local use. Bio in the midwest, natgas by oil rigs, tide on the coast of course. But they deserve a moderate amount of respect and research.
Off the wall ideas like fusion deserve skeptical optimism, and as much venture capital as they can drum up.
Er, but yeah, anyway, you cautioned against hydro. Fuck that. Dam the river.
Yes, yes it is.
So get the fuck out there and make something!
brb, tubing carbons to the moon...
I don't have to impress you. I don't even have to influence you at all. All I have to do is publicly point out the shenanigans you're up to and the masses will know your plot. If they know that there is an active subversive force trying to undermine education, then they won't listen to you anymore.
Awwww nutbunnies... you're not KeithPreston...
Yeah, ok. Sorry about that. I completely assumed you were the one I was outing as a wedge pusher. So unless you've got some sock puppets, there's nothing tying you to the wedge. Here at least. Why the heck did you respond to me here?
But no, I foe'ed you for something else entirely.
And he specifically wanted to protect Christianity from being an arm of government. And to protect them from the power that it would have in such a position. With that power comes the corrupt and toadies that give the church a bad name.
I consider you a foe for pushing the creationists wedge and trying to subvert the nation to a christian viewpoint by destroying the education of our kids.
You have the right to have your view and even the right to speak about it. And I have the right to say fuck you. You don't have the right to hugs and cuddles.
No, science is not a democracy. Deciding what to teach is bit of a democracy.
That problem with historical events, and all history in general, is not limited to science. You cannot prove that the world was not created last Tuesday.
Science does not prove anything and technically doesn't have facts. All it has is evidence that supports theories. It can only predict with high probability the outcome of future events. For example, it can predict that the majority of the people will vouch for the sun rising yesterday and will say that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
Honest neutral evaluation of differing theories is science.
Your brain-washed extreme isn't science, it's theology. You're working towards furthering the wedge, and that makes you a bad person.
Sure, but solipsism is a useless philosophy. It's one of those childish things that you have to move on from. You're assured you exist in some form, that you exist wherever you're at, and everything else is conjecture. Full stop, that's it, there is no more to that philosophy. Yeah yeah, we can't be philosophically assured that the world is real and this isn't all some sim-sense dream, but so what? It appears that the world is real and reacts in a logical way. Where it doesn't act logically, there's been a high statistical trend that I simply don't know enough about it yet. You will also never be philosophically assured that anything in the past actually happened. Grow up and live in reality. Or at least what appears to be reality, if that floats your boat.
Some book starts with the comment that the first philosophical question is that of suicide. Live in the world, or GTFO. If you choose to live in the world then you can move on from there. Solipsism is the pussies suicide. Rejecting reality without actually leaving it.
Fair enough. There are still many unknowns about the brain and there are differing theories. Just like there are differing theories for the shape of the earth, the underlying reason for gravity, and the existence of black holes. Some theories are stronger and have more weight behind them then others, and some issues still have no clear victor.
The nature of the mind is not yet to the point where everyone will laugh at you for believing in the mind-body dualism. But there does appear to be a trend in that direction. And there is a non-technical reason for existence of the mind-body dualism theory which would explain your bias against this evidence. Now, if you have weightier evidence for your theory that I'm unaware of, then by all means feel free to share. But if you have held a theory merely out of tradition, and evidence comes along that contradicts that tradition, you should re-examine why that tradition is there in the first place. Most traditions serve some sort of real-world purpose, but most have very poor accuracy.
So in short; Why do you think spirituality is anything more then physiological?
Yeah, you probably also prefer the more balanced approach of Fox News.
But you're right, in part, in that this does not invalidate spirituality. But it does explain spirituality. It's an attempt to accurately define what spirituality is. And it appears that it's chemicals in your head. It does not invalidate it any more then lightning is invalidated by knowing that it's a transfer of electrons.
Not that any of the grandparents implied that spirituality isn't real. Just your personal view of spirituality as some sort of mystic out-of-body experience.
But you know, I'm with you, fuck blind faith. In any form.
Agreed.
Simply because we've found the switch to turn it on doesn't lessen it's meaning. It puts a damper on the whole mind-body-soul trifecta, but that's been a wash for a while now. People are a sub-set of animals, your mind exists as a configuration of your brain, and those warm fuzzies you get from spiritual enlightenment will one day be regulated with a drug. The original purpose and meaning of spiritual enlightenment remains, just without the mysticism. Kind of like sex after it was discovered that it makes babies.
Of course, I'm a little worried about the day that religious nuts can literally over dose on god.
Well that dualism comes with playing around with mercury and working on the heretical art of alchemy.
(You probably could have chosen a better example of "highly religious" scientists)
So when my wife gets pregu, is the soul in there too?
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm confused. Could I have a car analogy?
Well since human carnal pleasure originates with the evolutionary forces encouraging them to propagate the species, I imagine they'll get a kick out of making new hardware and copying themselves. Of course, since we control the "evolutionary forces" behind AI advancement, we can shape it to whatever we want. So if their cultural subsection of their creators is any indication, they'll get off on applying for grants, enjoy ordering post-docs around, and will post lol-cats everywhere.
You have X billion people, but only Y pieces/grams/barrels of bread/copper/gold/oil.
Bread is a renewable resource. Even if we eat all the bread we can make more. People make it in fields and kitches. If we need more bread, then we get more people (or other resources) to make more. Ultimately, the bread resource is powered by the sun, and that's not going anywhere for a while. There is a limit to how much farmland we can use, but we are nowhere near that limit. Indeed, the worst threat to our farmers is that they produce too much, the price bottoms out, they all go broke, don't produce anything, prices skyrocket, we starve, and we have a horrible cycle of boom or bust. The real problem with starving people is that they don't live where the food is made, or other conditions keep them from making the food.
Copper and gold are metals. There is a finite amount in planet earth. There is 10^14 tons of copper in the earth's crust, more then we could ever use in the lifetime of our species. Getting it may be an issue. But regardless, metals are not consumed. They don't simply go away when put into a computer or a cable. You can rip it out and use it again. All it takes is energy and manpower. In short: recycle.
Oil! Ding ding ding! We have a winner! There is a finite amount of oil in the world, when it's burned for energy it's no longer an energy source, and it WILL eventually become scare. BUT, the primary use of oil is transportation, so if we get some sort of alternative energy source that can be harnessed to move our shit around, the oil scarcity won't matter all that much. Or we could just liquify coal and use that. It's dirty, but that'll work too.
Relax dude, it's not the end of the world. Sure, the system now isn't the best, but it's the best so far.
Yes, you've done some work with neural networks. I've done some work with neural networks. We all have. It's a fun class. Very hip.
But when you simulate 33 billion neurons with 10,000 links you inevitably need to fall back to the very slow process of a memory read/write. This would help with that.
And having a enough neurons work together discerning things about observations, making a guess as to future observations, and adjusting the work of themselves to account for discrepancies IS intelligence. Because that's the point when the thing starts learning.
uuuuuhhhhhhh.....
The coward was trying to say that fusion research should be treated like the Manhattan project was. In that it was well funded and had top priority by the government.
I pointed out that the the Manhattan project was also highly secretive and the bomb was used for questionable means afterwards. Ya get it?
I'd agree that we should and would share the tech. Duh.
The only thing I remember from the movie is a lathe, Reeves failing to act, a stupid plot line, and explosions. Oddly enough, I was just talking to a co-worker about it and how I knew this big oil guy who argued that the whole world economy would collapse if the world had free energy tomorrow. I chalked it up to an inflated ego and hanging around refineries too much.
Yeah, that was my take on his post. It looks like specifically crushed her dreams and directed the blame at Obama. At the very least he failed to comfort her and explain that the Ares is not the end-all to space, choosing rather to let her blame Obama. And this points out two sad but important lessons:
1. The future republicans will be raised up being indoctrinated to hate Obama. They will associate everything negative that has happened in the previous, current, and next decade to him. They're parents would have imparted this "wisdom" to them at a young age. They couldn't have ice-creme because Obama supported the cow union. They had to wait in line because Obama didn't give tax cuts to disneyland. He will be the scapegoat of the new young republicans. When dealing with the next generation of republicans, Obama will be the root of all evil, like Satan to Christians. Merely being associated with, they will see us as agents of evil. So get ready for some good times with fundies.
2. This really hammers home the need for socializing kids. Putting them in a diverse group, while it has the potential to spread crazy ideas, also has the potential to, well, cure them of the stupid. I'm talking about schooling, son. Call it indoctrination if you want, but at least it's counter-acting the crazy they get at home. And the school doesn't have to push any message at all, simply giving the children peers to talk to will socialize them (and give them a bloody nose now and then). Even placing two bat-shit crazy liberal or conservative kids together will iron out their individual craziness.
Admit it, you're just trying to setup the plot from "the moon is a hard mistress" aren't you?
A massive AI built up by the first colonists.
Gender imbalance.
How about we starts farms there as well? Ship it back with a massive rail fun?