It would seem that those in the fledgling field of genetic engineering are making the same mistakes that those in the then fledgling AI field made in the 60s, to wit:
1. Problems that seemed to be difficult are spectacularly solved.
2. Extravagant forecasts are made on the basis of those successes.
3. The next batch of problems are tackled, and they prove to be much more difficult than the previous batch.
4. The discipline becomes a scientific laughing stock.
AI has yet to leave stage 4 completely behind. We'll see if genetic engineering learns from that experience.
The billion plus would certainly help, but would not guarantee anything. If will take far more than a few billion to develop a technology that will supersede the current one to lift stuff to LEO and beyond, while doing it at a cost affordable to the masses.
The very rich can currently buy themselves a ticket, as it has already happened. But, that's it. As long as it all hinges on chemical rockets, only the very, very few with very, very deep pockets will be able to do this. The economics is not there, because neither the technology nor the science know how to pull it off affordably.
How many tourists have already made it to low-earth orbit? And some were already talking about orbiting hotels. The technology is there - the economics is not.
Google lost its credibility and luster a while ago. These days, it seems to be keen to become the new Microsoft. At least they got rid of the "Don't be evil" motto.
As a commercial helicopter pilot, I think it's pretty funny that so many people think flying cars don't exist...
The helicopter I fly is an AS350-B3 Eurocopter:
There, you said it yourself: it's a helicopter, not a flying car. You are of course free to call it a flying car, but that will not change what it really is.
Having reading difficulties there? The nonsense is continuing to hang the flying car tag on contraptions that are essentially helicopters or little airplanes with folding wings. Flying cars like in, say, Blade Runner, Back to the Future or The Fifth Element? Forget it. Like many have already explained, we do not have the technology, and we are not going to have it any time soon. Chances are that, in 50 years time, such flying cars will still be in the realm of science-fiction. And people will still be coming up with rather ridiculous vehicles, that will mostly get nowhere, and attempt to push them as flying cars. By all means, we should attempt to solve the associated problems. What we shouldn't do is pretend that we have already solved them.
Such things do not exist. We have had helicopters for a few decades now, some ridiculous contraptions with folding wings, and jetpacks. But, not flying cars. We do not have the technology for that, and we are not likely to have it any time soon. So please stop pushing this flying cars nonsense.
The reasons that he puts forth are hardly convincing - the first one being downright laughable: if the commands are poorly written, rewrite them. This aside, the truth is that Linux is distancing itself more and more from its Unix roots. Many obviously like this. Others, like me, don't. We still have the BSDs, so there is a fallback. However, the scenario is already looming in the horizon in which if the choice comes down to Linux or Mac, the latter will be preferable even if one has to pay.
This is a very secondary character in the saga. Do so many really care so much about him that he's deserving of a movie of his own? As a Star Wars fan, I know I do not, and I am not going to pay to watch a movie about him.
Although not a universally true, it is a very common occurrence that people will stop smoking when properly motivated to do so: the promise of payments for doing so fits the bill, and so does (for the most part) a hefty heart attack at an early age. While the physiological (and psychological) addiction is a fact, most smokers do not stop smoking simply because they do not want to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, presumably the Slashdot governing powers are getting nice kickbacks to publish all this MS propaganda. This is a free-market society.
It would seem that those in the fledgling field of genetic engineering are making the same mistakes that those in the then fledgling AI field made in the 60s, to wit: 1. Problems that seemed to be difficult are spectacularly solved. 2. Extravagant forecasts are made on the basis of those successes. 3. The next batch of problems are tackled, and they prove to be much more difficult than the previous batch. 4. The discipline becomes a scientific laughing stock. AI has yet to leave stage 4 completely behind. We'll see if genetic engineering learns from that experience.
Like the many languages that have unsuccessfully tried to do that over the decades. Jack of all trades, master of none.
I mean, that Szabo fellow, what is he - like a twelve-year old? For his maturity does not seem to go beyond that. Bragging rights. Really?
Let's move on to the next fad.
How come this scammer is yet to be prosecuted?
Until it is not convenient any longer - after all, the "Don't Be Evil" motto is gone.
No wonder you are posting as an Anonymous Coward.
The Power6+ also got there before 2010.
The billion plus would certainly help, but would not guarantee anything. If will take far more than a few billion to develop a technology that will supersede the current one to lift stuff to LEO and beyond, while doing it at a cost affordable to the masses. The very rich can currently buy themselves a ticket, as it has already happened. But, that's it. As long as it all hinges on chemical rockets, only the very, very few with very, very deep pockets will be able to do this. The economics is not there, because neither the technology nor the science know how to pull it off affordably.
Yesterday, Monsanto was the source of hatred. Tomorrow, it will be Bayer. It's already getting there, in fact.
How many tourists have already made it to low-earth orbit? And some were already talking about orbiting hotels. The technology is there - the economics is not.
Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. Trust MS at your own peril.
So, instead of giving Google access to your business data, you want to give it to Proton. Suit yourself.
Google lost its credibility and luster a while ago. These days, it seems to be keen to become the new Microsoft. At least they got rid of the "Don't be evil" motto.
Another body that is going to learn, the hard way, about the Streisand Effect. Bunch of morons.
As a commercial helicopter pilot, I think it's pretty funny that so many people think flying cars don't exist... The helicopter I fly is an AS350-B3 Eurocopter:
There, you said it yourself: it's a helicopter, not a flying car. You are of course free to call it a flying car, but that will not change what it really is.
Having reading difficulties there? The nonsense is continuing to hang the flying car tag on contraptions that are essentially helicopters or little airplanes with folding wings. Flying cars like in, say, Blade Runner, Back to the Future or The Fifth Element? Forget it. Like many have already explained, we do not have the technology, and we are not going to have it any time soon. Chances are that, in 50 years time, such flying cars will still be in the realm of science-fiction. And people will still be coming up with rather ridiculous vehicles, that will mostly get nowhere, and attempt to push them as flying cars. By all means, we should attempt to solve the associated problems. What we shouldn't do is pretend that we have already solved them.
Oh, man, you are going to get so much in the way of poetic justice. Unless you do not make it that far, that is.
Such things do not exist. We have had helicopters for a few decades now, some ridiculous contraptions with folding wings, and jetpacks. But, not flying cars. We do not have the technology for that, and we are not likely to have it any time soon. So please stop pushing this flying cars nonsense.
The reasons that he puts forth are hardly convincing - the first one being downright laughable: if the commands are poorly written, rewrite them. This aside, the truth is that Linux is distancing itself more and more from its Unix roots. Many obviously like this. Others, like me, don't. We still have the BSDs, so there is a fallback. However, the scenario is already looming in the horizon in which if the choice comes down to Linux or Mac, the latter will be preferable even if one has to pay.
After all, the Microsoft's cloud infrastructure runs on Linux.
A company that has been found guilty in a court of law of criminal behavior. What credibility do they have?
This is a very secondary character in the saga. Do so many really care so much about him that he's deserving of a movie of his own? As a Star Wars fan, I know I do not, and I am not going to pay to watch a movie about him.
Although not a universally true, it is a very common occurrence that people will stop smoking when properly motivated to do so: the promise of payments for doing so fits the bill, and so does (for the most part) a hefty heart attack at an early age. While the physiological (and psychological) addiction is a fact, most smokers do not stop smoking simply because they do not want to do so.