Do you really think the output voltage of a biological neurons has 32 bits of precision and range?
...What? It's analog. It's got precision going down into the quantum scale... You know depending on noise. Range is also a big issue. But it's leveraging real-world physics to compute things. Think about how many discreet binary operations you'd have to perform to calculate the weighted middle point between populated cities. With an analog "computer"(it's a board with holes, a bit of string with some rocks on the end) it's "computation" is done practically instantly when you lift the thing up and gravity pulls all the rocks down and the middle knot jumps to the point you want. When I say a neuron has god's own precision, that's not entirely a hyperbole.
Analog computers are just different. Neural Networks EMULATE the brain, but the differences are important.
But yeah, I'd agree with the "wider deeper better" comment, so it's a bit moot.
the reality is that "we" have delegated the responsibilities that come with ownership to a small group of illuminati that use this leveraged influence to do whatever they want with these companies resources as they have become the owners in reality.
...The board of directors? Mostly they consist of other CEOs from different companies who have this CEO on THEIR board.
Well... Yes. He was around following the period where machines started doing the labor of people. That was the whole gist of industrialization. Where you once needed 100 guilders to weave your textiles you now had 10 operators working the looms. This sort of thing is exactly what prompted Marx to go do his thing.
There were massive gains due to technological improvements. Marx was essentially pissed that these gains seemed to only go to the factory owners who didn't actually perform any labor, they just owned it. And he saw what happened to those metaphorical 100 guilders. The Luddites were shot at, their riots disbanded, and sent to live in the ghettos with soul crushing unemployment for three generations. Marx thought that such increases in productivity would allow everyone to live in a utopia if we just distributed the wealth evenly.
Yeah, I think Carl would think fully automated factories and AI workers are a fantastic thing.
Marx was simply wrong though, on a lot of things:
1) People are greedy and will work their ass off get get more.
2) Give people what they need and they'll be content but won't work all that hard if it doesn't get them more.
3) They WON'T be content with their current state if other people have something better than they do. On a global scale you have to keep up with the Joneses. People are naturally malcontent. They get used to it. (Marx kinda thought about this one, but he was wrong when he though he could get the entire world on board and eliminate competition. Ha, yeah, no way.)
4) The economy is WAY too complicated for any sort of centralized bureau to manage. At least in the 1900's. Probably even with today's computers. We're a looooong way from perfectly modeling psychology of the masses, and the economy is tied to the hip of psychology. Perception is not reality, but it can certainly tank your stocks and make people hoard the food.
Still... Who do the gains from technological innovation go to? The workers? The owners? The inventors? Those with the biggest guns?
If you give it to the workers, there's really no motivation to go purchase those really big industrial tools or pay all those engineers to develop a kick-ass self-driving AI car.
If you give it to the owners you get a brutal robber-baron hellscape.
If you give it to the inventors, you delay progress 30 years until their patents run out like we saw with 3D printing.
If you give it to those with the biggest guns, they're just thugs and eventually everything collapses. We've seen that you can't run a nation at the end of a gun and you can't enforce social order with tanks.
It's going to be some sort of mix of all that. Hopefully.
Sorry to wrap this around to the original topic, but those sucking estates dry are busy dealing with the fact that they're largely irrelevant and have a harder time finding a job.
Regardless of what you think their perceptions of the future holds, as automation continues to remove jobs, a small portion of the next generation will develop new jobs doing niche things that previously didn't exist. A larger portion will simply face downward social mobility and be poorer than their parents. The GINI Coefficient will rise, the middle class will shrink, and If the "Have's" ever stop fooling the "Have Not's" into voting for their candidate, then we'll face a chaotic period of demagogue leaders promising "change". Yay democracy and all that. One end of the political spectrum will try and redistribute the wealth and provide services to the masses while the other end will... do whatever it is that Trump ends up doing.
"Tomorrow is irrelevant"... that sounds a lot like the past congress's throwing us deeper and deeper into debt hoping their children pay it off. But of course, that's just kind of a matter of perception.
Fuck Trump, but his plan is to encourage jobs here so that people in THIS country have money to buy our countries products.
Your argument is that it's our responsibility to give our customers money so that they can buy our goods? That smells like a broken window fallacy at best and a wealth transfer scheme at worst.
Hey man, it's looked good and bad for different people. You'll get knee-jerk responses from both of them.
It's super-bad for the American workers. You know the trend of outsourcing jobs, moving factories, and buying cheap shit from China? The TPP aims for MORE of that, but places other than China because Chinese workers are starting to want to be paid.
It's good for American companies. They've gotten used to slave labor and would be aghast at having to pay healthcare benefits to the interchangeable cogs that puts widgets onto bobbles. To that extent, it's bad for anyone who owns those companies. Like anyone with money in the stock market.
It's probably good for the Vietnamese and such workers. They get jobs. Although they might also get the smog and suicide nets that China has.
It's probably good for the Taiwanese and such governments. More trade. Although the part about companies suing the governments for not protecting their profit might bite them in the ass.
It's probably bad for China. It's competition. The TPP is the NOT-CHINA deal. If China has their way they would buy the cheap goods from elsewhere, assemble them in China, or simply turn around and sell them to the USA for a profit.
I always kind of viewed it the same way I viewed Hilary. Business as usual for the owners and likely screwing over the little guy. But China/chaos will eat our lunch if we don't. I've given, and will likely continue to give, a lot of criticism towards Trump's more idiotic plans, but this at least falls right in line with his general campaign marketing and will help a sector of the USA. Not my sector, but maybe a rising tide will lift all boats....ignoring the part where that's usually an argument for encouraging global trade rather than imposing tariffs.
Yeah, I don't know if the EM Drive works. Last I saw, once they accounted for the lorentz effect, a number of labs drastically cut their reported thrust findings. And the warp effect that Dr. White saw was explained by the fact that EM fields (like the microwaves in the EM Drive) affects the speed of photons.
But it's kinda interesting how you stated this part:
It implies that the equations of physics have some terms in them which work for macroscopic (not astronomical), moderate speed (non relativistic), macroscopic energy (i.e. not high energies) which mysteriously cancel out perfectly in almost all macroscopic circumstances.
Because we DO have special equations for our understanding of astronomical physics. Dark energy is causing galaxies to accelerate away from each other. We think the universe is expanding. We only really observe it at inter-galactic distances.
Because we DO have special equations at relativistic speeds. Time slows down.
Because we DO have special equations at high energies. Crazy stuff I really don't understand where atoms break down and it's all quark-soup or something.
Because we DO have special equations for microscopic (and smaller) things when they get so small that they run into quantum physics.
We also have special equations for how the empty void of space "wobbles" and splits into matter and anti-matter, but recombine and cancel each other out most of the time. Look up the casimir effect.
All of these laws of physics are in full effect and take place inside that chamber of the EM Drive. It's not like quantum physics goes away for macroscopic things. We just expect all the random aspects to balance each other out and give things a mostly definite position and momentum. And for the expansion of space to be ludicrously small. And for it to remain in our time-scale reference frame as we're going the same speed and we're next to similar masses.
If the EM Drive works, and yeah, that's STILL a big "if", then it'll probably generate some more equations like all of the above have done.
Or, it implies that space has absolute position and speed
... Hey lemme run this one by you. I haven't gotten a good answer to this one yet:
Consider 3 bodies in space. Earth, a mothership, and a babyship. Earth isn't at a stand-still, but we can take it a frame of reference. The mother ship launches from Earth at.99c to the right. That's 1:7 time dilation. A day on the mothership is a week on Earth. Now the mothership isn't at rest, but from it's frame of reference it launches a babyship going 0.99c to the right. That stacks with Earth. So a day on the babyship is a week on the mothership is 49 days on Earth.
And yes we can compare all those timepieces. We know the planned course of these things and know where they plan on being. We know the speed of light, their proximity to mass. We have really good telescopes and they have their atomic clocks hanging out a window we can look at. We can't know these values in real-time, but in hindsight with calculation, we can know their exact location and clock reading at any given point.
Alright. All that is simply setup. Here's the meat.
What if we launch the babyship to the left? Towards Earth. 0.99c - 0.99c = 0 and it's going the same velocity as Earth. So what do the clocks all show on these three bodies? The mothership is not standing still, but we can use it as a frame of reference. If she launches the baby one way, does she see it's clock speed up but if she launches it the other way she sees it's clock slow down? That means there's absolute velocity. If it doesn't matter which direction she chooses, then how the hell do her observations of earth and the baby jive?
How about we slap an atomic clock on a resurrected SR-71 and have it fly along the 3 axis somewhere on Earth with some really good ground-based position tracking to see if we can see a difference in the time dilation depending on the direction it's heading?
If we didn't believe Musk knew what he was doing, we'd simply sell.
A no vote would equate to a vote of no-confidence for stock which is largely driven by speculation. As of this exact moment, neither Tesla nor SolarCity are super-profitable or dominant in their industries. But we're hoping it gets big. Why would we tank stock we own?
The recommended action (which was right above the ballot) was to vote yes. Duh, it's their idea in the first place. And most people won't rock the boat.
And business-wise, it DOES kinda make sense. The two are related. Kinda. There's not a great reason why they couldn't be two different companies though.
The downside is that this might be an example of Musk having one of his companies eat and absorb the losses of one of his failures which he doesn't REALLY want to admit is a failure. I dunno, I'm too busy to really dig into it. I know I probably couldn't find anything meaningful if I did go digging. And I don't have all that much money in there.
"Hope and Change" and "Make America Great Again" are both slogans. They're supposed to be vague.
And lack of detail was a legitimate complaint about Obama's candidacy early on, but he eventually fleshed out his platform prior to November. We also got a taste of his stance on warrant-less wiretaps as that came to a head in congress, but I voted for him anyway.
Trump on the other hand is still a little light on the details and admitted parts of what he said were sarcasm. No mention of what parts were sarcasm. While typically a president is rated on how well he follows through on his campaign promises, we're at a phase where it's more like asking "Were you really serious about that? Please tell me you wanted a Muslim Band and a Mexican Mall."
Ah, the Republican war-mongers come out to play again.
Remember how well this went under Bush? Trillions down the drain, thousands of dead troops, a destabilized region, a host nation we helped establish that kicked us out ASAP, a vacuum that was all set up for the rise of ISIS, oh, and hundreds of thousands of dead civvies.
Upvoted to +5 insightful, with not a word nor a whisper against. So let's assume this is the common stance. If it's not, then someone should really say something.
Remember when people were lambasting Hilary for "talking tough to Russia"? That her firm stance was going to start WWIII and that the peace-loving Trump would smooth things out? (And hey, that last part is great as long as Putin doesn't steam-roll another country again).
2000. The year. Manufacturing productivity went up while manufacturing jobs went down. That's when automation kicked blue-collar manufacturing jobs to the curb.
We're way past that and they're not coming back. Even if you abolish minimum wage and pay a pittance to labor, automation will still compete.
You know, this is a detail I hadn't thought of before.
There will still be trucks making deliveries during the day, but the bulk would be fine going at off-peak hours. For safety or fuel-efficiency or whatever. They still need someone to load and unload still, so it's not like all the logistics are freed up.
But you know what this means? The poor people that still drive their own cars are going to see bumper-to-bumper semi-trucks all the damn time at 2am when the bars get out.
Remember that the bulk of humanity resides in China and India. "The west" is a minority on planet Earth. And iPhone apps are a low cost thing. The smartphone itself is kinda expensive, but they're so useful that they're pretty ubiquitous, even in poorer locale. China's been "waking up", modernizing, constructing, and growing at breakneck rates for a couple decades now.
Also remember that if China and India start consuming at the rate that the median American does, global warming and climate change will go through the roof.
Yes. And that's a very good thing to do. A useful act of conservation.
But it helps to actually see some of it in action to know what you're looking for in the barely legible terabytes of genetic code. It only takes a couple of mantis shrimp to punch a hole in a few aquarium tanks to let scientists know that hey, maybe we should take a look at how they can get their pincers to accelerate at 10,400 g's.
While the mantis shrimp is fairly well known with it's 8 families all with their own genus's and species, the reefs are just chock-full of these sort of things.
Oh, and the raw base pair in DNA isn't the grand sum of genetic information. There's also how it coils around and how the grooves form. There's a concern that we'd lose something without knowing what it is we're supposed to be recording. So physical samples are better. And that takes size, space, tracking, which all sums up into a lot of cost.
Because this reef is not bleaching due to cold water, excess sunlight, or disease. It's bleaching due to warm water and the article points that out.
It's like a news story about a man getting stabbed (which can be fatal), and someone pointing out that parenthesized information and stressing that diabetes can also kill people. That's true, but it makes them a troll.
...But the great barrier reef isn't a geological feature. Reefs aren't formed by geological processes.
You could likewise say that as a astronomical feature, the GBR is relatively new only being 20,000 years old while it's closest star is formed 4.6 billion years ago.
It's ecological. The coral is living stuff. The fish and plants which make up the ecosystem are all alive. They are not rocks waiting for the tectonic plates to move them around. It's like a forest or a rain jungle. They certainly operate on larger timescales than people are used to thinking about, but they are not geological or astronomical.
Reefs are most certainly tied to geological features. They need shallow water at the right temperature. And change that and they'll die off. Just as much as if you somehow stop all the rain, the forests in California will all burn down.
On an evolutionary timescale, the GBR has been around a long time and it's fostered some amazing specialists which have unique and possibly useful genetic traits. As we're right on the cusp of understanding the genetic code and reaping that useful insight and millennia of real-world testing and application, it'd be a shame to lose it.
Of course it's not permanent and eternal. Nothing is. The sun will burn out and blow up eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
My apologies. I assumed biological neurons ran in meatspace.
Do you really think the output voltage of a biological neurons has 32 bits of precision and range?
...What? It's analog. It's got precision going down into the quantum scale... You know depending on noise. Range is also a big issue. But it's leveraging real-world physics to compute things. Think about how many discreet binary operations you'd have to perform to calculate the weighted middle point between populated cities. With an analog "computer"(it's a board with holes, a bit of string with some rocks on the end) it's "computation" is done practically instantly when you lift the thing up and gravity pulls all the rocks down and the middle knot jumps to the point you want. When I say a neuron has god's own precision, that's not entirely a hyperbole.
Analog computers are just different. Neural Networks EMULATE the brain, but the differences are important.
But yeah, I'd agree with the "wider deeper better" comment, so it's a bit moot.
the reality is that "we" have delegated the responsibilities that come with ownership to a small group of illuminati that use this leveraged influence to do whatever they want with these companies resources as they have become the owners in reality.
...The board of directors? Mostly they consist of other CEOs from different companies who have this CEO on THEIR board.
Well... Yes. He was around following the period where machines started doing the labor of people. That was the whole gist of industrialization. Where you once needed 100 guilders to weave your textiles you now had 10 operators working the looms. This sort of thing is exactly what prompted Marx to go do his thing.
There were massive gains due to technological improvements. Marx was essentially pissed that these gains seemed to only go to the factory owners who didn't actually perform any labor, they just owned it. And he saw what happened to those metaphorical 100 guilders. The Luddites were shot at, their riots disbanded, and sent to live in the ghettos with soul crushing unemployment for three generations. Marx thought that such increases in productivity would allow everyone to live in a utopia if we just distributed the wealth evenly.
Yeah, I think Carl would think fully automated factories and AI workers are a fantastic thing.
Marx was simply wrong though, on a lot of things:
1) People are greedy and will work their ass off get get more.
2) Give people what they need and they'll be content but won't work all that hard if it doesn't get them more.
3) They WON'T be content with their current state if other people have something better than they do. On a global scale you have to keep up with the Joneses. People are naturally malcontent. They get used to it. (Marx kinda thought about this one, but he was wrong when he though he could get the entire world on board and eliminate competition. Ha, yeah, no way.)
4) The economy is WAY too complicated for any sort of centralized bureau to manage. At least in the 1900's. Probably even with today's computers. We're a looooong way from perfectly modeling psychology of the masses, and the economy is tied to the hip of psychology. Perception is not reality, but it can certainly tank your stocks and make people hoard the food.
Still... Who do the gains from technological innovation go to? The workers? The owners? The inventors? Those with the biggest guns?
If you give it to the workers, there's really no motivation to go purchase those really big industrial tools or pay all those engineers to develop a kick-ass self-driving AI car.
If you give it to the owners you get a brutal robber-baron hellscape.
If you give it to the inventors, you delay progress 30 years until their patents run out like we saw with 3D printing.
If you give it to those with the biggest guns, they're just thugs and eventually everything collapses. We've seen that you can't run a nation at the end of a gun and you can't enforce social order with tanks.
It's going to be some sort of mix of all that. Hopefully.
Sorry to wrap this around to the original topic, but those sucking estates dry are busy dealing with the fact that they're largely irrelevant and have a harder time finding a job.
Regardless of what you think their perceptions of the future holds, as automation continues to remove jobs, a small portion of the next generation will develop new jobs doing niche things that previously didn't exist. A larger portion will simply face downward social mobility and be poorer than their parents. The GINI Coefficient will rise, the middle class will shrink, and If the "Have's" ever stop fooling the "Have Not's" into voting for their candidate, then we'll face a chaotic period of demagogue leaders promising "change". Yay democracy and all that. One end of the political spectrum will try and redistribute the wealth and provide services to the masses while the other end will... do whatever it is that Trump ends up doing.
"Tomorrow is irrelevant"... that sounds a lot like the past congress's throwing us deeper and deeper into debt hoping their children pay it off. But of course, that's just kind of a matter of perception.
Fuck Trump, but his plan is to encourage jobs here so that people in THIS country have money to buy our countries products.
Your argument is that it's our responsibility to give our customers money so that they can buy our goods? That smells like a broken window fallacy at best and a wealth transfer scheme at worst.
Hey man, it's looked good and bad for different people. You'll get knee-jerk responses from both of them.
It's super-bad for the American workers. You know the trend of outsourcing jobs, moving factories, and buying cheap shit from China? The TPP aims for MORE of that, but places other than China because Chinese workers are starting to want to be paid.
It's good for American companies. They've gotten used to slave labor and would be aghast at having to pay healthcare benefits to the interchangeable cogs that puts widgets onto bobbles. To that extent, it's bad for anyone who owns those companies. Like anyone with money in the stock market.
It's probably good for the Vietnamese and such workers. They get jobs. Although they might also get the smog and suicide nets that China has.
It's probably good for the Taiwanese and such governments. More trade. Although the part about companies suing the governments for not protecting their profit might bite them in the ass.
It's probably bad for China. It's competition. The TPP is the NOT-CHINA deal. If China has their way they would buy the cheap goods from elsewhere, assemble them in China, or simply turn around and sell them to the USA for a profit.
I always kind of viewed it the same way I viewed Hilary. Business as usual for the owners and likely screwing over the little guy. But China/chaos will eat our lunch if we don't. I've given, and will likely continue to give, a lot of criticism towards Trump's more idiotic plans, but this at least falls right in line with his general campaign marketing and will help a sector of the USA. Not my sector, but maybe a rising tide will lift all boats. ...ignoring the part where that's usually an argument for encouraging global trade rather than imposing tariffs.
Yeah, I don't know if the EM Drive works. Last I saw, once they accounted for the lorentz effect, a number of labs drastically cut their reported thrust findings. And the warp effect that Dr. White saw was explained by the fact that EM fields (like the microwaves in the EM Drive) affects the speed of photons.
But it's kinda interesting how you stated this part:
It implies that the equations of physics have some terms in them which work for macroscopic (not astronomical), moderate speed (non relativistic), macroscopic energy (i.e. not high energies) which mysteriously cancel out perfectly in almost all macroscopic circumstances.
Because we DO have special equations for our understanding of astronomical physics. Dark energy is causing galaxies to accelerate away from each other. We think the universe is expanding. We only really observe it at inter-galactic distances.
Because we DO have special equations at relativistic speeds. Time slows down.
Because we DO have special equations at high energies. Crazy stuff I really don't understand where atoms break down and it's all quark-soup or something.
Because we DO have special equations for microscopic (and smaller) things when they get so small that they run into quantum physics.
We also have special equations for how the empty void of space "wobbles" and splits into matter and anti-matter, but recombine and cancel each other out most of the time. Look up the casimir effect.
All of these laws of physics are in full effect and take place inside that chamber of the EM Drive. It's not like quantum physics goes away for macroscopic things. We just expect all the random aspects to balance each other out and give things a mostly definite position and momentum. And for the expansion of space to be ludicrously small. And for it to remain in our time-scale reference frame as we're going the same speed and we're next to similar masses.
If the EM Drive works, and yeah, that's STILL a big "if", then it'll probably generate some more equations like all of the above have done.
Or, it implies that space has absolute position and speed
... Hey lemme run this one by you. I haven't gotten a good answer to this one yet:
Consider 3 bodies in space. Earth, a mothership, and a babyship. Earth isn't at a stand-still, but we can take it a frame of reference. The mother ship launches from Earth at .99c to the right. That's 1:7 time dilation. A day on the mothership is a week on Earth. Now the mothership isn't at rest, but from it's frame of reference it launches a babyship going 0.99c to the right. That stacks with Earth. So a day on the babyship is a week on the mothership is 49 days on Earth.
And yes we can compare all those timepieces. We know the planned course of these things and know where they plan on being. We know the speed of light, their proximity to mass. We have really good telescopes and they have their atomic clocks hanging out a window we can look at. We can't know these values in real-time, but in hindsight with calculation, we can know their exact location and clock reading at any given point.
Alright. All that is simply setup. Here's the meat.
What if we launch the babyship to the left? Towards Earth. 0.99c - 0.99c = 0 and it's going the same velocity as Earth. So what do the clocks all show on these three bodies? The mothership is not standing still, but we can use it as a frame of reference. If she launches the baby one way, does she see it's clock speed up but if she launches it the other way she sees it's clock slow down? That means there's absolute velocity.
If it doesn't matter which direction she chooses, then how the hell do her observations of earth and the baby jive?
How about we slap an atomic clock on a resurrected SR-71 and have it fly along the 3 axis somewhere on Earth with some really good ground-based position tracking to see if we can see a difference in the time dilation depending on the direction it's heading?
If we didn't believe Musk knew what he was doing, we'd simply sell.
A no vote would equate to a vote of no-confidence for stock which is largely driven by speculation. As of this exact moment, neither Tesla nor SolarCity are super-profitable or dominant in their industries. But we're hoping it gets big. Why would we tank stock we own?
The recommended action (which was right above the ballot) was to vote yes. Duh, it's their idea in the first place. And most people won't rock the boat.
And business-wise, it DOES kinda make sense. The two are related. Kinda. There's not a great reason why they couldn't be two different companies though.
The downside is that this might be an example of Musk having one of his companies eat and absorb the losses of one of his failures which he doesn't REALLY want to admit is a failure. I dunno, I'm too busy to really dig into it. I know I probably couldn't find anything meaningful if I did go digging. And I don't have all that much money in there.
And to the mod that shadowbanned the PRO-PEACE voice of reason, fuck you buddy.
Well, no. He has a point.
"Hope and Change" and "Make America Great Again" are both slogans. They're supposed to be vague.
And lack of detail was a legitimate complaint about Obama's candidacy early on, but he eventually fleshed out his platform prior to November. We also got a taste of his stance on warrant-less wiretaps as that came to a head in congress, but I voted for him anyway.
Trump on the other hand is still a little light on the details and admitted parts of what he said were sarcasm. No mention of what parts were sarcasm. While typically a president is rated on how well he follows through on his campaign promises, we're at a phase where it's more like asking "Were you really serious about that? Please tell me you wanted a Muslim Band and a Mexican Mall."
Ah, the Republican war-mongers come out to play again.
Remember how well this went under Bush? Trillions down the drain, thousands of dead troops, a destabilized region, a host nation we helped establish that kicked us out ASAP, a vacuum that was all set up for the rise of ISIS, oh, and hundreds of thousands of dead civvies.
Upvoted to +5 insightful, with not a word nor a whisper against. So let's assume this is the common stance. If it's not, then someone should really say something.
Remember when people were lambasting Hilary for "talking tough to Russia"? That her firm stance was going to start WWIII and that the peace-loving Trump would smooth things out? (And hey, that last part is great as long as Putin doesn't steam-roll another country again).
at least until automation kicks you to the curb.
2000. The year. Manufacturing productivity went up while manufacturing jobs went down. That's when automation kicked blue-collar manufacturing jobs to the curb.
We're way past that and they're not coming back. Even if you abolish minimum wage and pay a pittance to labor, automation will still compete.
Care to try and define knowledge then?
Or describe how you think neurons and the brain work?
It's been done. That would be the Mechanical Turk.
I want RIAA to eat a bag full of dicks as much as anyone else.
But if a burglar robs my house and they catch him and his fence in the act of selling my stuff, I want both of them to go to jail.
Is this a thing with civil suits? There's like a zero-sum for damages incurred or something?
Stuff a postal worker in there and I believe they can ram a firetruck and still have right-of-way.
You know, this is a detail I hadn't thought of before.
There will still be trucks making deliveries during the day, but the bulk would be fine going at off-peak hours. For safety or fuel-efficiency or whatever. They still need someone to load and unload still, so it's not like all the logistics are freed up.
But you know what this means? The poor people that still drive their own cars are going to see bumper-to-bumper semi-trucks all the damn time at 2am when the bars get out.
Remember that the bulk of humanity resides in China and India. "The west" is a minority on planet Earth. And iPhone apps are a low cost thing. The smartphone itself is kinda expensive, but they're so useful that they're pretty ubiquitous, even in poorer locale. China's been "waking up", modernizing, constructing, and growing at breakneck rates for a couple decades now.
Also remember that if China and India start consuming at the rate that the median American does, global warming and climate change will go through the roof.
Yes. And that's a very good thing to do. A useful act of conservation.
But it helps to actually see some of it in action to know what you're looking for in the barely legible terabytes of genetic code. It only takes a couple of mantis shrimp to punch a hole in a few aquarium tanks to let scientists know that hey, maybe we should take a look at how they can get their pincers to accelerate at 10,400 g's.
While the mantis shrimp is fairly well known with it's 8 families all with their own genus's and species, the reefs are just chock-full of these sort of things.
Oh, and the raw base pair in DNA isn't the grand sum of genetic information. There's also how it coils around and how the grooves form. There's a concern that we'd lose something without knowing what it is we're supposed to be recording. So physical samples are better. And that takes size, space, tracking, which all sums up into a lot of cost.
Because this reef is not bleaching due to cold water, excess sunlight, or disease. It's bleaching due to warm water and the article points that out.
It's like a news story about a man getting stabbed (which can be fatal), and someone pointing out that parenthesized information and stressing that diabetes can also kill people. That's true, but it makes them a troll.
...But the great barrier reef isn't a geological feature. Reefs aren't formed by geological processes.
You could likewise say that as a astronomical feature, the GBR is relatively new only being 20,000 years old while it's closest star is formed 4.6 billion years ago.
It's ecological. The coral is living stuff. The fish and plants which make up the ecosystem are all alive. They are not rocks waiting for the tectonic plates to move them around. It's like a forest or a rain jungle. They certainly operate on larger timescales than people are used to thinking about, but they are not geological or astronomical.
Reefs are most certainly tied to geological features. They need shallow water at the right temperature. And change that and they'll die off. Just as much as if you somehow stop all the rain, the forests in California will all burn down.
On an evolutionary timescale, the GBR has been around a long time and it's fostered some amazing specialists which have unique and possibly useful genetic traits. As we're right on the cusp of understanding the genetic code and reaping that useful insight and millennia of real-world testing and application, it'd be a shame to lose it.
Of course it's not permanent and eternal. Nothing is. The sun will burn out and blow up eventually.
Western Association of Russian Speaking A/V Weirdos?
Widely Acknowledged Russian Audiovisual Weapons?
Westernly Averting Russia Advocating War-movies?
We Already Read/Saw it All on the Web?
20 DAYS? And then some probation.
Huh. Ok. Sometimes the punishment really does fit the crime. Bravo court system.
But don't call the ones on HD164595, they take FOREVER to pickup and then just put you on hold.