For England, most of the heat input is via the ocean currents. The oceans are extremely large and it takes a lot of heat to make any significant difference in temperature. England will notice changes in rainfall - as indeed it has - long before any other effect becomes noticeable. The delay resulting from the ocean will mask temperature changes in Britain up until the Atlantic Conveyer fails entirely. THEN, temperatures will drop somewhere between 20'F and 40'F.yes, drop. Global temperature refers to the mean temperature of the entire planet, deserts and all. It is NOT an addition you can just make to everything. It is an average. If Billy as a car and Mandy has a car, then Grim gives Mandy Billy's car pus one more, the average number of cars has gone up even though Billy is now sulking in a corner.
A destroyed climate is as bad for a hundred people as it is for 7 billion, so it would matter exactly as much.
Limit you all? LIMIT? Necessity is the mother of invention. If you feel limited by a need to invent, you're on the wrong site. Besides, what are these "limits" of which you speak? You can reduce pollution by increasing efficiency. Increased efficiency means you get more out for the same amount in (since you can't violate the law of conservation of matter and energy and therefore what would be pollutants are now something useful instead). That sounds like a recipe for profits, not limits.
Moving off coal and adopting nuclear fission (for now, fusion later) doesn't LIMIT you. You get much more power on the grid for less fuel and much less pollution. The miners won't be getting lung cancer or blown up in methane explosions, so saving lives and cutting medical (and rescue) expenses, all at the same time. Those freed-up people, if educated and retrained, could be a marvelous resource to tap into. The mistake made by many shifts in industry is to neglect the fact that humans are a powerful and valuable resource. Ignoring them limits your scope for imagination, exploration and development.
And let's examine that for a moment. Here's thousands, if not tens of thousands, of opportunities to try new things, explore new ideas and grow. Who but a fool would call that a limit?
Use the potential that change brings! Ignoring it and wasting it won't stop it, but it will limit what good can come from it.
The planet warming WILL result in regions cooling because it disrupts the heat transfer mechanisms. Central Europe cooling would likely be disruption to the trade winds and the Atlantic Conveyer. It is extremely naive to assume that global warming equates to local warming and the fact that your environment is the coldest in 50 years really should have tipped you off.
If quantum states that are unconnected across space and time are able to communicate with each other, then:
a) Single photons can interfere with themselves (has been done) b) Interference patterns will work across time just as well as they can across space (has been done)
So unless I'm missing something, their claim that it is unlikely would appear flawed.
The latest experiments match the original observations. In the past day or so, they tweaked a number of parameters - such as the length of pulse - to see if more precise timing and more precise correlation would have any impact. The numbers didn't change. So, Scotty was wrong - we CAN break the laws of physics! (But the fine is 2795 Ningis if we're caught.)
I have a copy of the research paper that claims each brain cell modifies its own genetic code independently of any other cell up to 3000 times in a lifetime. This is now established science. Each cell in your brain has a unique genome.
The brain is a machine, so reductionism works just fine. What I did not say, and needs to be taken into account, is that you cannot parallelize a process further than it can be reduced into wholly independent steps. (Interdependent steps should be split into the dependent and independent components, with suitable barrier operations to synchronize them.) Further, any parallel architecture, brain included, is subject to Amdahl's Law.
Computer hardware is capable of matching the human brain today, at least at the level of computation power. You can build a cluster of the required number of nodes, linked together via a hypercube network topology. You'd be bankrupt if you did, but you can do it. Nobody would have the faintest idea of how to program a supercomputer on that scale - you might not have noticed, but parallel programming is a highly arcane art. SIMD is about the only design anyone knows how to program on these proto-Deep Thoughts, but the brain isn't SIMD. It's MIMD. The total number of MIMD engineers out there is less than the total number of Perl 6 gurus. Put them in front of a machine with a few billion nodes and their brains will explode. It'd make a great Halloween video, but it's useless for Strong AI.
Lets say you could find a MIMD guru with the wizardry and dark arts expertise to program where angels fear to tread. Would that match the human brain? Well, still no. We don't have a specification for intelligence and you can't program Strong AI by guesswork alone. Strong AI proponents have tried and it doesn't work.
Ok, let's conjure up a specification. NOW can we match the human brain? Alan Turing proved the answer to that is yes. The brain is a Turing Complete machine, the computer is a Turing Complete machine, either can do the work of the other. You have to allow for the fact that brain cell DNA is self-modifying and that brain wiring is also self-modifying, producing an amazingly powerful and flexible system. You also have to allow for the fact that inter-neuron communication uses analogue or discrete signals, whereas computers are limited to binary, and the brain is incredibly small (reduced distances for signals). A computer with this many nodes would be multiple football stadia in size.
But, yeah, if we could solve the problem of not knowing what the hell intelligence even was, we could build an artificial brain equal to (but slower than) the human brain.
It is to avoid "legislation and regulation" that I suggested it should be a quango under charter from the UN and not run by the UN itself. This eliminates the apparent contradiction as well, since a chartered body would be protected from retaliation by the UN but would not be subservient to the UN. Quangos are different from agencies in the same way that the BBC is not a British government department. WIPO is as much our fault as geeks as it is the fault of the lobbyists who run it -- a world body was inevitable and we chose not to be it.
Just as yeast, bacteria, etc, form monocultures that are poisonous to potential competition, whatever culture gets globalized first becomes the monoculture in their domain and it's hard to impossible to replace it. By ignoring these structures, we're allowing toxic and pestilent entities to get there first. To judge what a non-toxic, chartered body would be like simply by examining toxic agencies that were allowed to form by us geeks being asleep at the wheel - that doesn't seem like the way to go.
Since DNS servers request from other DNS servers (and there can be multiple of those), individuals don't have to have secondary DNS. Anybody running a DNS server can add hooks into a parallel DNS tree. Which is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the system. DNS owners who are corrupt or hostile can link into shadow DNS trees that contain fake entries. So long as the shadow tree has its own DNSSec keys, DNS won't notice any difference at all. Equally, DNS owners who are benign can do exactly the same thing, only pointing to DNS trees containing validated and "good" entries. Essentially undetectable.
Then those hundreds of millions of Americans would see everything in the shadow trees and never know that they were looking into the shadows.
Authorities trying to track down where the shadows lie (outside of Mordor) will need to invent a traceroute for the DNS protocol and had better hope all DNS servers (a) respond to it, and (b) always pass such packets to the shadow realms (a bloody stupid thing to do). Otherwise, the link(s) into the other tree(s) could be almost anywhere.
The basic problem arose when the Pilgrims migrated from Europe to the New World, splitting society in half. This left Europe with brains and no backbone, whereas the US has backbone and no brains.
This is why NO key element in the Internet Backbone should belong to any individual corporation or any individual country. The backlash against the UN owning them was, I think, a serious mistake by geeks. Assuming a benign (even relatively speaking) US is clearly bogus. Placing ownership completely outside of any nation is the best hope we have. True, the UN hasn't exactly been perfect, but it is the closest we have to a multinational system that special interests (including the special interests of specific national agencies) cannot readily control.
In and of itself, though, this is not sufficient. We'd have to move away from the spanning tree topology currently popular on the Internet (because it's cheap) and move to as close to a full mesh topology - even across international borders - as finances permit.
The first part makes overt control much more difficult. The second part makes covert control much more difficult. Without both, total control - including over other nations - remains a possibility. This MUST be stopped.
I do not believe that private corporations, who are slaves to profits, are capable of deploying such a mesh. It would be expensive and would eliminate the congestion problems they're using as excuses to hike rates, so they'd be spending more and earning less. Shareholders would never permit it. That means the Internet can only be run either by a quango (a semi-devolved agency, similar to the British BBC, where it runs independently via an established charter even though it is government-funded) OR by a non-profit group that also has core policy defined by charter but is funded by the userbase.
So a UN quango (ie: the UN can only negotiate and enforce the terms of the charter, and where it is legally obliged to pay the charter-defined amount annually, but the quango is otherwise politically outside of the UN) would be the logical solution. It would defeat nationalists usurping the Internet, it would prevent many of the problems feared when UN ownership has been talked of before, but the UN would be contractually obliged to provide any and all protections necessary to stop nations threatening other nations' usage.
I don't seriously expect to get a positive response to this, but I can honestly think of no other solution since everything else has been tried and been shown to be a disaster.
The second head was actually not paper mache. It was plastic, fully animatronic and apparently exceedingly heavy. The problem was they'd no way to power it, a detail they'd completely overlooked at the time. They'd intended it to be heavily used.
The BBC's special effects were cheap but not that bad. Their SFX crew were quite capable of actually doing a brilliant job, as they demonstrated on The Tripods.
Some of his early Big Finish stories were impressive. Mind you, the first and third Stranger and Miss Brown stories were also good and showed what Colin Baker and Nicola Bryant could do with good scripts and no JNT.
I don't think anyone in the old series went back to their old lives - save Zoe and Jamie, who had their minds wiped. Most who left were burned out on traveling, save those who discovered that they'd learned enough to be able to turn what they'd learned into action. The Doctor was seen as a mentor and a teacher, and nobody stays a student forever. You graduate. In the Old Series, the Doctor kept a measure of emotional distance. Somewhat necessary, since we learn in Deadly Assassin that a regeneration can live up to a thousand years, giving a potential lifespan of a Timelord of 13,000 years - only a little less than that of an Osirin, in fact, if you add the time shift the Doctor added to the transport from Mars to the date Sutek first gets mentioned in Egypt.
I'd measure in terms of content, since episodes and seasons differ in length. It's the only way to produce a standard measure. William Hartnell managed about 67 hours of actual content, Patrick Troughton put in 59.5 hours, Tom Baker clocked in at 91 hours. In comparison, David Tennant put in a paltry 47 hours.
His final posting on Diaspora was of a translucent butterfly on the 7th. There was nothing that really stood out to be in his other postings as being suicidal, so I'm not going to go with that theory until there's something a bit more solid than the rumourmill. However, if it does turn out that that was what happened, it would alter how this image should be seen and therefore show that this was no sudden thing.
Slashdot Mirror
By "fewer" you mean "more". I take it you're on good terms with the Red Queen.
For England, most of the heat input is via the ocean currents. The oceans are extremely large and it takes a lot of heat to make any significant difference in temperature. England will notice changes in rainfall - as indeed it has - long before any other effect becomes noticeable. The delay resulting from the ocean will mask temperature changes in Britain up until the Atlantic Conveyer fails entirely. THEN, temperatures will drop somewhere between 20'F and 40'F.yes, drop. Global temperature refers to the mean temperature of the entire planet, deserts and all. It is NOT an addition you can just make to everything. It is an average. If Billy as a car and Mandy has a car, then Grim gives Mandy Billy's car pus one more, the average number of cars has gone up even though Billy is now sulking in a corner.
A destroyed climate is as bad for a hundred people as it is for 7 billion, so it would matter exactly as much.
Limit you all? LIMIT? Necessity is the mother of invention. If you feel limited by a need to invent, you're on the wrong site. Besides, what are these "limits" of which you speak? You can reduce pollution by increasing efficiency. Increased efficiency means you get more out for the same amount in (since you can't violate the law of conservation of matter and energy and therefore what would be pollutants are now something useful instead). That sounds like a recipe for profits, not limits.
Moving off coal and adopting nuclear fission (for now, fusion later) doesn't LIMIT you. You get much more power on the grid for less fuel and much less pollution. The miners won't be getting lung cancer or blown up in methane explosions, so saving lives and cutting medical (and rescue) expenses, all at the same time. Those freed-up people, if educated and retrained, could be a marvelous resource to tap into. The mistake made by many shifts in industry is to neglect the fact that humans are a powerful and valuable resource. Ignoring them limits your scope for imagination, exploration and development.
And let's examine that for a moment. Here's thousands, if not tens of thousands, of opportunities to try new things, explore new ideas and grow. Who but a fool would call that a limit?
Use the potential that change brings! Ignoring it and wasting it won't stop it, but it will limit what good can come from it.
The planet warming WILL result in regions cooling because it disrupts the heat transfer mechanisms. Central Europe cooling would likely be disruption to the trade winds and the Atlantic Conveyer. It is extremely naive to assume that global warming equates to local warming and the fact that your environment is the coldest in 50 years really should have tipped you off.
If quantum states that are unconnected across space and time are able to communicate with each other, then:
a) Single photons can interfere with themselves (has been done)
b) Interference patterns will work across time just as well as they can across space (has been done)
So unless I'm missing something, their claim that it is unlikely would appear flawed.
The latest experiments match the original observations. In the past day or so, they tweaked a number of parameters - such as the length of pulse - to see if more precise timing and more precise correlation would have any impact. The numbers didn't change. So, Scotty was wrong - we CAN break the laws of physics! (But the fine is 2795 Ningis if we're caught.)
"Somatic retrotransposition alters the genetic landscape of the human brain", Nature (2011), 30/10/2011, Baille, J. K., Barnet, M. W., et al
E-mail me your e-mail address and I'll forward it to you.
If you're interested in the original paper, the authors sent me a copy. E-mail me your e-mail address and I'll forward it to you.
That turns out not to be correct even in general.
Specifically for humans, retrotransposition turns out to be commonplace.
About 3,000 times over a lifetime commonplace.
I have a copy of the research paper that claims each brain cell modifies its own genetic code independently of any other cell up to 3000 times in a lifetime. This is now established science. Each cell in your brain has a unique genome.
It saves time. They only have to add an R if things don't get fixed.
The brain is a machine, so reductionism works just fine. What I did not say, and needs to be taken into account, is that you cannot parallelize a process further than it can be reduced into wholly independent steps. (Interdependent steps should be split into the dependent and independent components, with suitable barrier operations to synchronize them.) Further, any parallel architecture, brain included, is subject to Amdahl's Law.
Computer hardware is capable of matching the human brain today, at least at the level of computation power. You can build a cluster of the required number of nodes, linked together via a hypercube network topology. You'd be bankrupt if you did, but you can do it. Nobody would have the faintest idea of how to program a supercomputer on that scale - you might not have noticed, but parallel programming is a highly arcane art. SIMD is about the only design anyone knows how to program on these proto-Deep Thoughts, but the brain isn't SIMD. It's MIMD. The total number of MIMD engineers out there is less than the total number of Perl 6 gurus. Put them in front of a machine with a few billion nodes and their brains will explode. It'd make a great Halloween video, but it's useless for Strong AI.
Lets say you could find a MIMD guru with the wizardry and dark arts expertise to program where angels fear to tread. Would that match the human brain? Well, still no. We don't have a specification for intelligence and you can't program Strong AI by guesswork alone. Strong AI proponents have tried and it doesn't work.
Ok, let's conjure up a specification. NOW can we match the human brain? Alan Turing proved the answer to that is yes. The brain is a Turing Complete machine, the computer is a Turing Complete machine, either can do the work of the other. You have to allow for the fact that brain cell DNA is self-modifying and that brain wiring is also self-modifying, producing an amazingly powerful and flexible system. You also have to allow for the fact that inter-neuron communication uses analogue or discrete signals, whereas computers are limited to binary, and the brain is incredibly small (reduced distances for signals). A computer with this many nodes would be multiple football stadia in size.
But, yeah, if we could solve the problem of not knowing what the hell intelligence even was, we could build an artificial brain equal to (but slower than) the human brain.
Ok, found it. Neurons operate at 200 Hz, not 10. That gives a brain speed of 24 THz.
Even if that were true, 10 Hz over a super-cluster of 120 billion neurons is an effective speed of 1.2 THz.
It is to avoid "legislation and regulation" that I suggested it should be a quango under charter from the UN and not run by the UN itself. This eliminates the apparent contradiction as well, since a chartered body would be protected from retaliation by the UN but would not be subservient to the UN. Quangos are different from agencies in the same way that the BBC is not a British government department. WIPO is as much our fault as geeks as it is the fault of the lobbyists who run it -- a world body was inevitable and we chose not to be it.
Just as yeast, bacteria, etc, form monocultures that are poisonous to potential competition, whatever culture gets globalized first becomes the monoculture in their domain and it's hard to impossible to replace it. By ignoring these structures, we're allowing toxic and pestilent entities to get there first. To judge what a non-toxic, chartered body would be like simply by examining toxic agencies that were allowed to form by us geeks being asleep at the wheel - that doesn't seem like the way to go.
Since DNS servers request from other DNS servers (and there can be multiple of those), individuals don't have to have secondary DNS. Anybody running a DNS server can add hooks into a parallel DNS tree. Which is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the system. DNS owners who are corrupt or hostile can link into shadow DNS trees that contain fake entries. So long as the shadow tree has its own DNSSec keys, DNS won't notice any difference at all. Equally, DNS owners who are benign can do exactly the same thing, only pointing to DNS trees containing validated and "good" entries. Essentially undetectable.
Then those hundreds of millions of Americans would see everything in the shadow trees and never know that they were looking into the shadows.
Authorities trying to track down where the shadows lie (outside of Mordor) will need to invent a traceroute for the DNS protocol and had better hope all DNS servers (a) respond to it, and (b) always pass such packets to the shadow realms (a bloody stupid thing to do). Otherwise, the link(s) into the other tree(s) could be almost anywhere.
The basic problem arose when the Pilgrims migrated from Europe to the New World, splitting society in half. This left Europe with brains and no backbone, whereas the US has backbone and no brains.
Rumour has it that the movie Idiocracy was actually made by Nostrodamus and was a prediction of world affairs in the 21st century.
This is why NO key element in the Internet Backbone should belong to any individual corporation or any individual country. The backlash against the UN owning them was, I think, a serious mistake by geeks. Assuming a benign (even relatively speaking) US is clearly bogus. Placing ownership completely outside of any nation is the best hope we have. True, the UN hasn't exactly been perfect, but it is the closest we have to a multinational system that special interests (including the special interests of specific national agencies) cannot readily control.
In and of itself, though, this is not sufficient. We'd have to move away from the spanning tree topology currently popular on the Internet (because it's cheap) and move to as close to a full mesh topology - even across international borders - as finances permit.
The first part makes overt control much more difficult. The second part makes covert control much more difficult. Without both, total control - including over other nations - remains a possibility. This MUST be stopped.
I do not believe that private corporations, who are slaves to profits, are capable of deploying such a mesh. It would be expensive and would eliminate the congestion problems they're using as excuses to hike rates, so they'd be spending more and earning less. Shareholders would never permit it. That means the Internet can only be run either by a quango (a semi-devolved agency, similar to the British BBC, where it runs independently via an established charter even though it is government-funded) OR by a non-profit group that also has core policy defined by charter but is funded by the userbase.
So a UN quango (ie: the UN can only negotiate and enforce the terms of the charter, and where it is legally obliged to pay the charter-defined amount annually, but the quango is otherwise politically outside of the UN) would be the logical solution. It would defeat nationalists usurping the Internet, it would prevent many of the problems feared when UN ownership has been talked of before, but the UN would be contractually obliged to provide any and all protections necessary to stop nations threatening other nations' usage.
I don't seriously expect to get a positive response to this, but I can honestly think of no other solution since everything else has been tried and been shown to be a disaster.
The second head was actually not paper mache. It was plastic, fully animatronic and apparently exceedingly heavy. The problem was they'd no way to power it, a detail they'd completely overlooked at the time. They'd intended it to be heavily used.
The BBC's special effects were cheap but not that bad. Their SFX crew were quite capable of actually doing a brilliant job, as they demonstrated on The Tripods.
Some of his early Big Finish stories were impressive. Mind you, the first and third Stranger and Miss Brown stories were also good and showed what Colin Baker and Nicola Bryant could do with good scripts and no JNT.
I don't think anyone in the old series went back to their old lives - save Zoe and Jamie, who had their minds wiped. Most who left were burned out on traveling, save those who discovered that they'd learned enough to be able to turn what they'd learned into action. The Doctor was seen as a mentor and a teacher, and nobody stays a student forever. You graduate. In the Old Series, the Doctor kept a measure of emotional distance. Somewhat necessary, since we learn in Deadly Assassin that a regeneration can live up to a thousand years, giving a potential lifespan of a Timelord of 13,000 years - only a little less than that of an Osirin, in fact, if you add the time shift the Doctor added to the transport from Mars to the date Sutek first gets mentioned in Egypt.
I'd measure in terms of content, since episodes and seasons differ in length. It's the only way to produce a standard measure. William Hartnell managed about 67 hours of actual content, Patrick Troughton put in 59.5 hours, Tom Baker clocked in at 91 hours. In comparison, David Tennant put in a paltry 47 hours.
You never watched Unearthly Child?
His final posting on Diaspora was of a translucent butterfly on the 7th. There was nothing that really stood out to be in his other postings as being suicidal, so I'm not going to go with that theory until there's something a bit more solid than the rumourmill. However, if it does turn out that that was what happened, it would alter how this image should be seen and therefore show that this was no sudden thing.