One of the problems of this world is that half of all produce spoils before it's eaten. So in the cities of the future, why not have centralized, automated mega-kitchens which receive trucks of fresh raw ingredients and transform them into healthy, delicious and customized meals? Sure, they only make fast food now, but there is no reason why robots can't execute the instructions of Michelin-star chefs, and no reason why such excellent meals should cost more than fast food costs now. Together with some sort of automated delivery service, this is simply a much better way of feeding people than what we do now.
Just think of all the time we waste stocking shelves in stores, driving to them, parking, filling our carts... stocking our fridges, heating up an entire oven for the sake of a single meal, cooking, cleaning up, etc. etc. All that requires a great deal of total cognitive load for many humans, and much wasting of resources. The alternative is that a massive restaurant kitchen cooks up exactly the meal you want, with the freshest ingredients and flavoring details that you would simply not be able to accomplish in a home kitchen. Then the meal arrives through an automated delivery car network, which also picks up the dishes from the previous meal. The city could also have dining rooms with a direct pipeline to each of the city's various mega-kitchens, and these can host social or family groups who want to eat out.
A world like that is actually quite achievable with tech that's already in the prototype stage, and it's a much better world than the wasteful one we live in now.
You're absolutely right, but the two systems could work together to increase transcription accuracy. I can hear perfectly well, but it still helps me to watch a speaker's mouth when I'm trying to understand them in a noisy environment. And yes, this would be awesome as a tool for the deaf and for live language translation, but it would also be useful in auto closed-captioning of video.
Yes, exactly. It won't be long before we have cheap robots that can work 24/7 and recharge themselves like Roombas. They can be constantly measuring soil properties, pulling weeds, killing individual pests and constantly update a map of the individual state of ripeness of everything on the farm. This will allow some very intensive use of the land, including no-till agriculture, interspersing complementary crops to minimize soil damage, etc. Basically the robots will have the luxury of babying every square meter of land so that it is maximally productive. I can even imagine that with enough crop species growing together, farms of the future could start looking more like wilderness and might actually be nice to hike through.
I would love not having them around, however be aware that mosquitos are a staple for bats.
Oh yeah? What bats? What percentage of their calorie intake consists mosquitoes? I know you didn't actually look this up before you posted, because then you never would have said what you said. Just because you don't know the research doesn't mean you get to just make up facts. Get used to the fact that lots of science happens without your awareness. Maybe you should pay attention to more of it.
Alright Dr. Smartypants, I think it's time you drop some of that "knowledge about nature" you claim the previous poster doesn't have. Just what did your condescending insightfulness discover will happen if we kill the disease-transmitting mosquito species? Are you also opposed to killing off the Guinea Worm for the same stupid reason? Polio? Just what animal relies on mosquitoes as its food supply? (I actually know the answer, which is why I know you're talking out of your ass, and you had better look it up before you make another moronic post.)
I think once the source is dead, the duty to protect the source becomes a lot less important. But it seems Assange now holds key evidence to what must be an on-going murder trial. He really should turn that over to the police and make an appropriately scrubbed version available to the public. If he cares about justice for this sources, this is what he will do. If his source really was murdered for leaking, and the perpetrators get away with it because Assange withheld key evidence, that adds to the danger of all the future whistleblowers. But if Assange contributes to catching the murderers, that should deter would-be murderers of future whistleblowerrs.
Absolutely right. In Carter's position I would have made the same call, because I'm sure somebody at NASA would have convinced me that reusable must be inherently cheaper eventually, and that we need to go through these growing pains to debug the technology. But in hindsight it was the wrong call, and it set space exploration into a malaise from which is has not yet emerged.
It seems that Verizon only talks about international standards when it's trying to impose its will on others. To actually follow global standards is another thing entirely. In the heady cash-by-forklift times of the early Iraq occupation, Verizon was almost given the contract to do Iraq's cellular network... in CDMA, of course. Nevermind that every other country in the region was GSM. I think this says a lot about how Verizon thinks about standards.
If the "upscaled" project sequesters 10,000 tons of CO2 every 2 years, that offsets the emissions of about 300 Americans. But there are lots more of us, and we're not even the biggest polluters. This will only start making a noticeable difference if it could be scaled up further, by a factor of one million.
Of course one computer science class is not sufficient to turn students into programmers. Their history class is also not going to make them into historians. After all, there is nobody forcing kids to search archives for original documents! By professional standards, everything taught in school is fluffy and watered down. Harel noticed that only now, and she's outraged?
The big selling point for Atom is that it's almost as efficient as ARM but it runs REAL WINDOWS with all those x86 programs we love. What killed the market for Atom is that people aren't that eager to have Windows on portable devices. Intel went through contortions to implement all the x86 instructions on low-power chip, to support all the legacy software that's written for x86. But with iOS and Android, ARM seems to have all the apps that people want, and they just don't pine for the legacy stuff.
My usage is very similar (streaming, youtube, twitch), and in April I'm well past 600GB - actually, that's for two people in my apartment. To be fair, I do feel like I've been hogging bandwidth this month, and making it past 1TB seems unlikely with anything I do now, but if Twitch or Netflix started streaming in 4K, I'd be over that cap every month.
Except this is even sillier, because this guy is counting on the decency of the internet users themselves to produce the "safe" content. I picture him building a beautiful, elaborate sandcastle on a public beach full of 9-year-old boys who love to sew chaos.
Congratulations, you've caught Sarah Palin saying something false and dumb. With that kinds of investigative gumption, you may also get the scoop on developing stories like "Local Bear Shits in Woods". Keep the "news" coming!
Do you think that our parents were like: "Ooooh, what I just printed is sort of like a newspaper, but it's the only one like this in the whole world!" Now I wonder what is the average lifespan of a printed page, from printer to bin. My guess is that 3D printed crap will converge to that same average lifespan, and we will treat it with the same (lack of) reverence.
It's not like it's a secret who won the competition, and you know the winners are about to seriously upgrade their jobs. There's also prize money, but arguably, the fact that you can get a job pretty much anywhere with this on your resume is the bigger reward. There are lots of incredibly competent people in the world whose competence is underutilized by their employers. If contests like this bring out their A game, everybody comes away better off.
I don't understand why a superjet for rich people is something that should eat a single cent of NASA's budget. If it makes sense, let the private sector build it. There is science that needs doing. Lay off with this vanity shit.
Unless you're really close to a gamma ray burst, your planet will not be radiation-sterilized. And since most life is in the oceans and underground, it will not notice when the ozone layer is burned off. Anyway, the effect would be temporary. I have a feeling that this is a case of physicists who don't understand the difference between the resilience of familiar lifeforms and the resilience of life.
Now that I look back at the total pointlessness of elementary school, I'm surprised there aren't more parents who take their kids out for vacations during the school year. If I told my 4th grade classmates that my parents are taking me to Disney World in February, so that we could have the park to ourselves, they wouldn't look at me askance and suspect my parents of being irresponsible.
Hey, dummies, this will most definitely not be "the longest, most hazardous voyage in history". Three years is a long time, but explorers have often set out on voyages that take longer. Have you maybe heard of Charles Darwin and The Beagle? That voyage took almost five years, and it still isn't a record. And it's straight up laughable to say that it's the most hazardous voyage in history. NASA will never run it if the chance of death is over 10%. By historical standards, I'd call that a voyage of moderate hazard.
And then there's this:
...[T]he first people to go to Mars will be isolated as no human beings have been before. For a long period, 20 minutes must pass for messages to go to and from Earth.
Let's grant that the crew will set the record for being really far from other people, but as the article observed, that's not sufficient for them to be "isolated". Can they then seriously suggest that a 20 minute video communication delay is some unprecedented record of human isolation? Do they not realize that humans didn't always have smartphones?
They don't need to add all this hyperbolic shit to their article. Then again, maybe they do, because it doesn't really say anything specific and non-obvious except that Johns Hopkins got money to study this, and that their test group will consist of surgeons.
If you said: "I know that clerics heal people through channeling divine power" you'd be a freak. If you said: "I know that in the D&D fiction, clerics heal people through channeling divine power" that's not freaky, but it's also a very different proposition. One difference is that you believe the latter, and not the former.
Would you ever say that you know God created the Earth in six days if you didn't believe it? No, knowledge of a proposition entails belief of the proposition.
Still, I think you're on the right track. Maybe we should be thinking of science literacy instead of scientific knowledge. Like an atheist can have Bible literacy, a science denier can nonetheless be scientifically literate, which means something like "aware of the latest results of science". But being aware that scientists think the universe is 13.8 billion years old is not the same as knowing that the universe is that old. To have the latter, you have to also agree with the scientists.
The blurb - actually a paragraph plagiarized verbatim from Science magazine, tsk - suggests that disbelief does not entail lack of knowledge. Can that be? Among epistemologists the near-consensus is that belief is one of the necessary ingredients of knowledge. I'd be curious how we are supposed to understand knowledge coupled with disbelief of the thing that's allegedly known.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems of this world is that half of all produce spoils before it's eaten. So in the cities of the future, why not have centralized, automated mega-kitchens which receive trucks of fresh raw ingredients and transform them into healthy, delicious and customized meals? Sure, they only make fast food now, but there is no reason why robots can't execute the instructions of Michelin-star chefs, and no reason why such excellent meals should cost more than fast food costs now. Together with some sort of automated delivery service, this is simply a much better way of feeding people than what we do now.
Just think of all the time we waste stocking shelves in stores, driving to them, parking, filling our carts... stocking our fridges, heating up an entire oven for the sake of a single meal, cooking, cleaning up, etc. etc. All that requires a great deal of total cognitive load for many humans, and much wasting of resources. The alternative is that a massive restaurant kitchen cooks up exactly the meal you want, with the freshest ingredients and flavoring details that you would simply not be able to accomplish in a home kitchen. Then the meal arrives through an automated delivery car network, which also picks up the dishes from the previous meal. The city could also have dining rooms with a direct pipeline to each of the city's various mega-kitchens, and these can host social or family groups who want to eat out.
A world like that is actually quite achievable with tech that's already in the prototype stage, and it's a much better world than the wasteful one we live in now.
You're absolutely right, but the two systems could work together to increase transcription accuracy. I can hear perfectly well, but it still helps me to watch a speaker's mouth when I'm trying to understand them in a noisy environment. And yes, this would be awesome as a tool for the deaf and for live language translation, but it would also be useful in auto closed-captioning of video.
Yes, exactly. It won't be long before we have cheap robots that can work 24/7 and recharge themselves like Roombas. They can be constantly measuring soil properties, pulling weeds, killing individual pests and constantly update a map of the individual state of ripeness of everything on the farm. This will allow some very intensive use of the land, including no-till agriculture, interspersing complementary crops to minimize soil damage, etc. Basically the robots will have the luxury of babying every square meter of land so that it is maximally productive. I can even imagine that with enough crop species growing together, farms of the future could start looking more like wilderness and might actually be nice to hike through.
I would love not having them around, however be aware that mosquitos are a staple for bats.
Oh yeah? What bats? What percentage of their calorie intake consists mosquitoes? I know you didn't actually look this up before you posted, because then you never would have said what you said. Just because you don't know the research doesn't mean you get to just make up facts. Get used to the fact that lots of science happens without your awareness. Maybe you should pay attention to more of it.
Alright Dr. Smartypants, I think it's time you drop some of that "knowledge about nature" you claim the previous poster doesn't have. Just what did your condescending insightfulness discover will happen if we kill the disease-transmitting mosquito species? Are you also opposed to killing off the Guinea Worm for the same stupid reason? Polio? Just what animal relies on mosquitoes as its food supply? (I actually know the answer, which is why I know you're talking out of your ass, and you had better look it up before you make another moronic post.)
...the circular adaptor measures around 42 inches (one meter) tall and about 63 inches wide
Wow, circular things didn't used to be like this.
I think once the source is dead, the duty to protect the source becomes a lot less important. But it seems Assange now holds key evidence to what must be an on-going murder trial. He really should turn that over to the police and make an appropriately scrubbed version available to the public. If he cares about justice for this sources, this is what he will do. If his source really was murdered for leaking, and the perpetrators get away with it because Assange withheld key evidence, that adds to the danger of all the future whistleblowers. But if Assange contributes to catching the murderers, that should deter would-be murderers of future whistleblowerrs.
Absolutely right. In Carter's position I would have made the same call, because I'm sure somebody at NASA would have convinced me that reusable must be inherently cheaper eventually, and that we need to go through these growing pains to debug the technology. But in hindsight it was the wrong call, and it set space exploration into a malaise from which is has not yet emerged.
It seems that Verizon only talks about international standards when it's trying to impose its will on others. To actually follow global standards is another thing entirely. In the heady cash-by-forklift times of the early Iraq occupation, Verizon was almost given the contract to do Iraq's cellular network... in CDMA, of course. Nevermind that every other country in the region was GSM. I think this says a lot about how Verizon thinks about standards.
If the "upscaled" project sequesters 10,000 tons of CO2 every 2 years, that offsets the emissions of about 300 Americans. But there are lots more of us, and we're not even the biggest polluters. This will only start making a noticeable difference if it could be scaled up further, by a factor of one million.
Of course one computer science class is not sufficient to turn students into programmers. Their history class is also not going to make them into historians. After all, there is nobody forcing kids to search archives for original documents! By professional standards, everything taught in school is fluffy and watered down. Harel noticed that only now, and she's outraged?
The big selling point for Atom is that it's almost as efficient as ARM but it runs REAL WINDOWS with all those x86 programs we love. What killed the market for Atom is that people aren't that eager to have Windows on portable devices. Intel went through contortions to implement all the x86 instructions on low-power chip, to support all the legacy software that's written for x86. But with iOS and Android, ARM seems to have all the apps that people want, and they just don't pine for the legacy stuff.
Makes sense. I think the cleverer people will foresee exactly this outcome, and steer clear of appliances that need to be online.
My usage is very similar (streaming, youtube, twitch), and in April I'm well past 600GB - actually, that's for two people in my apartment. To be fair, I do feel like I've been hogging bandwidth this month, and making it past 1TB seems unlikely with anything I do now, but if Twitch or Netflix started streaming in 4K, I'd be over that cap every month.
Except this is even sillier, because this guy is counting on the decency of the internet users themselves to produce the "safe" content. I picture him building a beautiful, elaborate sandcastle on a public beach full of 9-year-old boys who love to sew chaos.
Congratulations, you've caught Sarah Palin saying something false and dumb. With that kinds of investigative gumption, you may also get the scoop on developing stories like "Local Bear Shits in Woods". Keep the "news" coming!
Do you think that our parents were like: "Ooooh, what I just printed is sort of like a newspaper, but it's the only one like this in the whole world!" Now I wonder what is the average lifespan of a printed page, from printer to bin. My guess is that 3D printed crap will converge to that same average lifespan, and we will treat it with the same (lack of) reverence.
It's not like it's a secret who won the competition, and you know the winners are about to seriously upgrade their jobs. There's also prize money, but arguably, the fact that you can get a job pretty much anywhere with this on your resume is the bigger reward. There are lots of incredibly competent people in the world whose competence is underutilized by their employers. If contests like this bring out their A game, everybody comes away better off.
I don't understand why a superjet for rich people is something that should eat a single cent of NASA's budget. If it makes sense, let the private sector build it. There is science that needs doing. Lay off with this vanity shit.
Unless you're really close to a gamma ray burst, your planet will not be radiation-sterilized. And since most life is in the oceans and underground, it will not notice when the ozone layer is burned off. Anyway, the effect would be temporary. I have a feeling that this is a case of physicists who don't understand the difference between the resilience of familiar lifeforms and the resilience of life.
Now that I look back at the total pointlessness of elementary school, I'm surprised there aren't more parents who take their kids out for vacations during the school year. If I told my 4th grade classmates that my parents are taking me to Disney World in February, so that we could have the park to ourselves, they wouldn't look at me askance and suspect my parents of being irresponsible.
Hey, dummies, this will most definitely not be "the longest, most hazardous voyage in history". Three years is a long time, but explorers have often set out on voyages that take longer. Have you maybe heard of Charles Darwin and The Beagle? That voyage took almost five years, and it still isn't a record. And it's straight up laughable to say that it's the most hazardous voyage in history. NASA will never run it if the chance of death is over 10%. By historical standards, I'd call that a voyage of moderate hazard.
And then there's this:
...[T]he first people to go to Mars will be isolated as no human beings have been before. For a long period, 20 minutes must pass for messages to go to and from Earth.
Let's grant that the crew will set the record for being really far from other people, but as the article observed, that's not sufficient for them to be "isolated". Can they then seriously suggest that a 20 minute video communication delay is some unprecedented record of human isolation? Do they not realize that humans didn't always have smartphones?
They don't need to add all this hyperbolic shit to their article. Then again, maybe they do, because it doesn't really say anything specific and non-obvious except that Johns Hopkins got money to study this, and that their test group will consist of surgeons.
If you said: "I know that clerics heal people through channeling divine power" you'd be a freak. If you said: "I know that in the D&D fiction, clerics heal people through channeling divine power" that's not freaky, but it's also a very different proposition. One difference is that you believe the latter, and not the former.
Would you ever say that you know God created the Earth in six days if you didn't believe it? No, knowledge of a proposition entails belief of the proposition.
Still, I think you're on the right track. Maybe we should be thinking of science literacy instead of scientific knowledge. Like an atheist can have Bible literacy, a science denier can nonetheless be scientifically literate, which means something like "aware of the latest results of science". But being aware that scientists think the universe is 13.8 billion years old is not the same as knowing that the universe is that old. To have the latter, you have to also agree with the scientists.
The blurb - actually a paragraph plagiarized verbatim from Science magazine, tsk - suggests that disbelief does not entail lack of knowledge. Can that be? Among epistemologists the near-consensus is that belief is one of the necessary ingredients of knowledge. I'd be curious how we are supposed to understand knowledge coupled with disbelief of the thing that's allegedly known.