That's funny, everyone else's studies fail to show that, even when they're trying. I wonder why the WHO didn't have any trouble?
Because "everyone else's studies" don't fail to show such effects. About 30 seconds on google will find you studies that do claim to show such a relationship.
Your only example of a drug hurting others is alcohol. Show me the devastation caused to families by the scourge of marijuana. Oh, you can't. Cheers.
It's trivial to show pretty much any drug causing harm to others including marijuana. Some drugs are more dangerous than others and cannabis is less dangerous than many but there is clear data showing that its use can result in negative health and economic consequences to others in some circumstances. Used responsibly it presents little danger but it is perfectly possible for use of cannabis to result in harm to others. I would regard cannabis as less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes or alcohol but that shouldn't be interpreted as presenting no danger. Even something as safe as aspirin can be dangerous if used improperly or to excess.
"Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis."
"Cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;"
So a black hole forms when matter is condensed into a sufficiently small space so that even light cannot escape because gravity bends spacetime so much that there is no path to get outside the event horizon. Assuming the big bang theory is plausible, early in the universe the universe would (presumably) be incredibly dense with matter for some period of time. So how is it that having all that matter so close together didn't results in nothing but a bunch of black holes? How does the big bang theory get around much/all of the matter in the universe collapsing into a black hole in the early universe? What was different about spacetime to allow this to happen?
In fact, wouldn't that make Biblical creation very plausible?
No. There is nothing that would make creation as "described" in the bible plausible. The bible is a man made fable with no evidential support whatsoever made in a time when man lacked the technological capacity to make necessary observations. The bible makes no testable predictions nor does it describe any observed events. Any similarity to actual observations and scientific theories is purely coincidental.
But sometimes their effects are not fun. Sometimes their effects hurt other people. Nobody really gives a shit if you drink a beer or smoke a joint. But we do care when your use of those drugs causes undue risk or actual harm to others. We do care if you are not yet an adult and may not fully understand the consequences of your choices.
You're going to die, I'm going to die, everyone dies from something. Life is about having fun.
So you are arguing that we should hurry up the process of dying because we're all going to die anyway? Life is not all about having fun. That's an extremely immature and selfish attitude.
Drugs aren't for everybody, but people like drugs
People like all sorts of things but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any rules to keep everyone safe.
treat drug abuse as a medical condition, not crime; that approach has failed.
Not that simple. Sometimes drug abuse is just a medical condition. But often drug abuse causes people to hurt others which is (and should be) a crime. See the difference?
You do what you want. Stop telling other people what's good for them.
I'm not telling people what is good for them. I'm telling them what is bad for other people. I honestly don't care if a consenting adult uses recreational drugs PROVIDED they do not hurt anyone else in the process. Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others. Want to drink responsibly? Fine. Want to drink and drive? Hell no - now you are a risk to others. Your right to play with recreational drugs stops when it becomes a threat to the safety and well being of others.
I recall hearing a calculation on the radio: if we keep expanding our energy use at the present rate, in 2000 years, we will need more energy than all the stars in our galaxy produce.
You can find all sorts of absurd naive extrapolations if you bother to look for them. Doesn't make them true.
Except that Amazon does not employ people at random, especially at their HQ.
Unless you have evidence that there is a higher than average suicide rate among Amazon workers then that is a meaningless statement. A single data point does not make a trend nor does it say anything useful about working conditions at Amazon, good or bad. Unless you can point to something that makes this truly an exceptional case then statistically speaking it is just the expected outcome among a large population.
Unemployed people are more likely to commit suicide, for instance. And how many people choose to do it at work in an explicit attempt to make a statement against their employers?
Those people are accounted for in the actuarial tables. Unless there was something truly exceptional about this specific circumstance that you can point to (does not seem to be the case here) or if you have data indicating that there is a statistically higher than expected suicide rate among Amazon workers then it doesn't say anything about working conditions at Amazon. I'm not saying it isn't a tragedy (it very much is) but there is no evidence that this was an event outside the expected rate of normal either.
The article seems to imply that Amazon is somehow at fault here but there is no evidence presented to support that. It's a single data point with no evidence presented to explain why we should believe it was something other than what we should expect looking at actuarial tables.
Yeah, I get it, butthurt Americans are mad that they can no longer send men into space.
Umm, actually most of us aren't all that worried about it. Those of us who care know we've got programs in the works to revive our ability to put humans into space and we knew there would be a bit of a gap. It will get resolved soon enough in all likelihood. The rest simply don't care at all. Maybe a few folks get bent about it but they're a tiny minority.
The transit time to Mars is less than the time numerous astronauts have spent on the ISS, so it's not really a relevant problem to interplanetary travel.
It's a VERY relevant problem. Remember that the astronauts have to be able to function once they reach Mars and so far we really aren't sure they would be up to the task. Physically they are kind of a wreck when they have to deal with gravity after that long without it even with exercising vigorously.
Especially since it's not fatal, like some of the other problems are.
Astronauts that come back to Earth after a 6 month journey in space are nearly unable to function unassisted for a significant period after re-entering the gravity well. I've listened to astronauts describe what it's like and it sounds very unpleasant. They feel absolutely terrible for quite a few days after landing and their body takes months to fully recover.
The physical effects of microgravity might not be the biggest problem but it is a serious one if you want to get a functioning person to actually do useful things on another planet and get them back alive.
Other than the fact that they are science fiction?
Thirty years ago smart phones as we know them today were science fiction. 100 years ago space travel was science fiction. Just because we haven't done something yet doesn't mean it cannot be done. The barriers to building a rotating space stations are primarily economic. We largely already possess the technology to build one. We just haven't gone to the trouble because it makes sense to reduce cost to orbit (by a lot) first. A rotating space station would probably have to be quite robust and heavy (due to the fast rotation) and cost to orbit is rather high currently. We'll probably get to the rotating space craft in a few decades. I'd be surprised to see anything substantial before 2040 at the earliest and I think that is very optimistic.
There is a reason you don't see large rotating space stations or people on other planets.
Of course there are reasons you twit. Stop wasting everyone's time pointing out the obvious.
No, you are a troll and not a very good one either.
I like talking about it. Don't tell me what I should discuss.
So you admit you are trolling. You certainly aren't "discussing" anything. You are just calling people "space nutters". That makes you an ass. Or if by some chance you actually believe the nonsense you are spouting it means you are an idiot AND an ass.
If you get 20,000 people together for ANY reason, you are going to get at least a few who are not mentally well. The US has 12.1 suicides per 100,000 people annually. That means that in a random group of 20,000 people in the USA you would expect 2-3 of them to try to (successfully) commit suicide in a given year and presumable some number more to attempt it. One guy in a company that large does not justify drawing any deeper conclusions than he was one of those 2-3 people.
From the various anecdotes I've heard about Amazon, I sure as hell wouldn't want to work there.
You could say that about any number of companies. Cultural fit is an important consideration at any job. Google is a great place to work for some but it would be a terrible place for me personally. We have people at my company who do jobs that I'm perfectly capable of doing but would absolutely loathe doing. Sometimes one part of a business can be a good fit and another branch of the same company can be a terrible fit.
Is Amazon a great or terrible place to work? I think that depends on your personal perspective. Probably doesn't fit most of us well but obviously some people think it is fine.
Or is there another solution? I'm certainly not anything close to an expert in this field, but maybe there's a biological or chemical solution rather than a physics solution.
Nothing that we know how to do at this time. There may be medical treatments possible some day but we're still at the stage where we are figuring out the physiology of what is happening. Developing a treatment from that data is going to take quite a long time given the expense and limited number of subjects available to study.
I don't think we actually have a realistic way of generating artificial gravity. Right now the closest thing is to use centrifugal force by spinning a spacecraft,
That IS what we are talking about when we discuss "artificial gravity" in terms of current technology. Simulated gravity would be a better term. But there are other potential technologies if you want to get a little more exotic.
which we haven't actually done and apparently would require a much larger spacecraft as well as extra fuel to spin up and then adjust the spin over time.
We absolutely HAVE rotated spacecraft to simulate gravity. We just haven't figured out how to do it very well.
Which implies that they no longer think it's caused by lack of gravity. Apparently it's a subtle difference, but they seem to think it's due to microgravity in space and how it behaves, rather than the lack of gravity.
I think that is just a bad summary. There is little practical difference between free falling and being in a space with no gravity. If I put you in a box you would have no way to tell the difference and the effects on your body would be identical.
To put that perspective in perspective, the Iraq war cost $1.7 trillion -- an order of magnitude more than the ISS, so probably enough to try a lot of interesting designs.
Good luck getting Congress to pony up $1.7trillion for anything science related unless it directly involves killing foreigners, particularly those with brown skin. Especially a republican controlled congress.
This is why I hate Space Nutters: they talk like gene editing is even a potential solution. It isn't.
This is why you shouldn't talk out your ass about things you clearly don't understand. Seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your "space nutter" trolling is both wrong and tiresome.
There is no such thing as gene editing
Curious because my wife who is an MD just attended a conference were they discussed existing technology for gene editing. It's real, available today, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
You guys are anti-science and ignorant.
is this some sort of George Orwell doublespeak? You spout off ignorant and demonstrably wrong statements about science and then claim everyone who doesn't go along with your idiocy is "anti-science and ignorant". Go away troll.
It does seem, though, that no one has any even medium term plans to pull anything of the sort off.
I think the reasons for that are almost entirely economic in origin. Technologically it doesn't seem to be a terrible difficult problem. But currently getting the materials into space to work on the problem is tremendously expensive at present. The ISS cost about $150Billion to build. To put that in perspective the GDP of Iraq is $156Billion in 2016 dollars and Iraq has the 56th largest economy in the world. Making a rotating version of the ISS would undoubtedly be even more expensive with current technology.
There do not seem to be any big drawbacks to a rotating station in principle, right?
Technologically none that I'm aware of. Economically there are some showstoppers currently.
Lot of issues there. First is the assumption that it is a "deficiency". It's not clear that such a term is appropriate. Second, there are a HUGE number of ethical issues to sort through when we are talking about altering the human genome. It's not that it's immoral per se but it has the potential to become so if we aren't careful. Third, is that it is unclear at present if such an edit to the genome is possible, practical, or even desirable. It's also unclear what second and third order effects might result. Few medical treatments come with no side effects.
The biggest difference is that artificial gravity carries no ethical baggage with it and there is in all likelihood far less risk. It's not likely to be as simple as changing one gene to fix a very particular problem with no side effects. We evolved in a particular way and actions that tinker with that finely tuned system rarely come without complications or difficulties.
I use OwnCloud, eGroupware, F-Droid, OsMand, Kore/Kodi, XMPP and a bunch of other stuff. I don't want my Phone syncing with servers other than mine or reporting location or software information to anyone.
You didn't answer the question. If you don't want to be tracked I can respect that. Just put the phone down and I assure you that you can exist comfortably without it. The notion that you can own a phone connected to the INTERNET that does not reveal any information about you is frankly absurd. Especially when you didn't write or review most of the code on that device. Furthermore the device you indicated you use is KNOWN to have reported data and you have zero way to know if the hardware isn't still doing so.
My phones do what I say, and derive location info based on GPS and Passive Beaconing.
Ha! Did you write all the code for your phone? Is the firmware and hardware source code available to you? If not then your confidence that your phone is never doing something you don't want is laughably naive. Using open source software doesn't change that fact. A better approach is to basically assume your phone is always spying on you and to use it accordingly. If you are worried about what information it is revealing then put it down and walk away.
Poor Space Nutters can't face the fact they won't be living on a Mars Utopia and are stuck here with the rest of us commoners.
Who peed in your cereal? Every time there is a space discussion I see you making idiotic trolls calling anyone who shows the least enthusiasm for manned space flight "space nutters". If you don't like talking about it then go away and find some discussion that does interest you. You're a cynic about space travel. We get it. Move on. You aren't adding any insight to the discussion and your trolls are vacuous and unconvincing.
So the next interesting question is how much gravity (artificial or real) would be required to mitigate this problem? At what percentage of 1g does the problem dissipate?
I'm also wondering when we are going to get a space station or other craft into space which has a rotating cylinder that can provide artificial gravity. We need to know that the effects of long term exposure to microgravity is but we also should be working on technology to provide artificial gravity for long duration space travel since we know our bodies don't do well without gravity. This should be well within our capability to achieve and is one of the necessary technologies we would need to develop for serious manned exploration of space.
A lot of companies are afraid of taking TOO big of a contract from Apple.
It's reasonable to be cautious of taking on more than you can handle from one customer. Companies that deal with Walmart run into the same problem. If they become too big a percentage of your business then you are taking on substantial risk of being unable to refuse to take a bad deal.
I worked for a company that made parts for Apple about 5 years ago. Apple kept telling us to knock down the price or they'd cancel the contract. Eventually we were selling to them at a loss.
Then your company was managed by idiots. If the choice is between canceling a contract and losing money on every sale then it is a no brainer. If they ask you to sell at a loss you say no. This is true even if the customer is very big. If Apple wants to work with you to reduce costs then it can be a discussion but you have to be a weapons grade idiot to sell something for less than it costs you to make on an ongoing basis.
Unfortunately we got sold to another company...who just signed a contract with Apple. But the parts we are making are not Apple exclusive, so we got that going for us, which is nice.
As long as they aren't afraid to say NO to Apple when they need to then working with Apple is fine. You can't magically make something cost less than it actually does. No amount of kicking and screaming on Apple's part will change this in the short term.
Too companies are leading the state of the art in OLED screen technology: LG and Samsung. Both Korean, and both way too big for even Apple to buy.
Samsung is (probably) too bug but LG had revenue of US$55B in 2015. Apple has nearly 5X that amount of money in cash and made $45B in PROFIT in 2015 alone. So no, LG is definitely not too big for Apple to buy if they wanted to and they certainly could offer to buy or finance the OLED technology portion rather than the whole company. Not saying that's a good idea but it's certainly something Apple could do if they felt the need.
Who do you think makes most of the parts for Apple in the first place? I'm pretty sure it's Samsung.
So why would Apple want to tie themselves to what is arguably their #1 handset and tablet competitor in Samsung if they didn't have to? I'm sure Apple has their reasons but their aren't immediately obvious to outsiders like myself. I'm sure Apple has considered all this but they aren't sharing their reasoning publicly.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, everyone else's studies fail to show that, even when they're trying. I wonder why the WHO didn't have any trouble?
Because "everyone else's studies" don't fail to show such effects. About 30 seconds on google will find you studies that do claim to show such a relationship.
Your only example of a drug hurting others is alcohol. Show me the devastation caused to families by the scourge of marijuana. Oh, you can't. Cheers.
It's trivial to show pretty much any drug causing harm to others including marijuana. Some drugs are more dangerous than others and cannabis is less dangerous than many but there is clear data showing that its use can result in negative health and economic consequences to others in some circumstances. Used responsibly it presents little danger but it is perfectly possible for use of cannabis to result in harm to others. I would regard cannabis as less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes or alcohol but that shouldn't be interpreted as presenting no danger. Even something as safe as aspirin can be dangerous if used improperly or to excess.
Per the World Health Organization:
"Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis."
"Cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;"
So a black hole forms when matter is condensed into a sufficiently small space so that even light cannot escape because gravity bends spacetime so much that there is no path to get outside the event horizon. Assuming the big bang theory is plausible, early in the universe the universe would (presumably) be incredibly dense with matter for some period of time. So how is it that having all that matter so close together didn't results in nothing but a bunch of black holes? How does the big bang theory get around much/all of the matter in the universe collapsing into a black hole in the early universe? What was different about spacetime to allow this to happen?
This was my thought... a photon is a particle, that travels in a wave.
Stop right there. Your understanding of particle wave duality is incomplete. Go back and study before you continue. MinutePhysics has some excellent videos on the topic.
In fact, wouldn't that make Biblical creation very plausible?
No. There is nothing that would make creation as "described" in the bible plausible. The bible is a man made fable with no evidential support whatsoever made in a time when man lacked the technological capacity to make necessary observations. The bible makes no testable predictions nor does it describe any observed events. Any similarity to actual observations and scientific theories is purely coincidental.
Drugs are fun. That's why.
But sometimes their effects are not fun. Sometimes their effects hurt other people. Nobody really gives a shit if you drink a beer or smoke a joint. But we do care when your use of those drugs causes undue risk or actual harm to others. We do care if you are not yet an adult and may not fully understand the consequences of your choices.
You're going to die, I'm going to die, everyone dies from something. Life is about having fun.
So you are arguing that we should hurry up the process of dying because we're all going to die anyway? Life is not all about having fun. That's an extremely immature and selfish attitude.
Drugs aren't for everybody, but people like drugs
People like all sorts of things but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any rules to keep everyone safe.
treat drug abuse as a medical condition, not crime; that approach has failed.
Not that simple. Sometimes drug abuse is just a medical condition. But often drug abuse causes people to hurt others which is (and should be) a crime. See the difference?
You do what you want. Stop telling other people what's good for them.
I'm not telling people what is good for them. I'm telling them what is bad for other people. I honestly don't care if a consenting adult uses recreational drugs PROVIDED they do not hurt anyone else in the process. Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others. Want to drink responsibly? Fine. Want to drink and drive? Hell no - now you are a risk to others. Your right to play with recreational drugs stops when it becomes a threat to the safety and well being of others.
I recall hearing a calculation on the radio: if we keep expanding our energy use at the present rate, in 2000 years, we will need more energy than all the stars in our galaxy produce.
You can find all sorts of absurd naive extrapolations if you bother to look for them. Doesn't make them true.
Except that Amazon does not employ people at random, especially at their HQ.
Unless you have evidence that there is a higher than average suicide rate among Amazon workers then that is a meaningless statement. A single data point does not make a trend nor does it say anything useful about working conditions at Amazon, good or bad. Unless you can point to something that makes this truly an exceptional case then statistically speaking it is just the expected outcome among a large population.
Unemployed people are more likely to commit suicide, for instance. And how many people choose to do it at work in an explicit attempt to make a statement against their employers?
Those people are accounted for in the actuarial tables. Unless there was something truly exceptional about this specific circumstance that you can point to (does not seem to be the case here) or if you have data indicating that there is a statistically higher than expected suicide rate among Amazon workers then it doesn't say anything about working conditions at Amazon. I'm not saying it isn't a tragedy (it very much is) but there is no evidence that this was an event outside the expected rate of normal either.
The article seems to imply that Amazon is somehow at fault here but there is no evidence presented to support that. It's a single data point with no evidence presented to explain why we should believe it was something other than what we should expect looking at actuarial tables.
Yeah, I get it, butthurt Americans are mad that they can no longer send men into space.
Umm, actually most of us aren't all that worried about it. Those of us who care know we've got programs in the works to revive our ability to put humans into space and we knew there would be a bit of a gap. It will get resolved soon enough in all likelihood. The rest simply don't care at all. Maybe a few folks get bent about it but they're a tiny minority.
The transit time to Mars is less than the time numerous astronauts have spent on the ISS, so it's not really a relevant problem to interplanetary travel.
It's a VERY relevant problem. Remember that the astronauts have to be able to function once they reach Mars and so far we really aren't sure they would be up to the task. Physically they are kind of a wreck when they have to deal with gravity after that long without it even with exercising vigorously.
Especially since it's not fatal, like some of the other problems are.
Astronauts that come back to Earth after a 6 month journey in space are nearly unable to function unassisted for a significant period after re-entering the gravity well. I've listened to astronauts describe what it's like and it sounds very unpleasant. They feel absolutely terrible for quite a few days after landing and their body takes months to fully recover.
The physical effects of microgravity might not be the biggest problem but it is a serious one if you want to get a functioning person to actually do useful things on another planet and get them back alive.
Other than the fact that they are science fiction?
Thirty years ago smart phones as we know them today were science fiction. 100 years ago space travel was science fiction. Just because we haven't done something yet doesn't mean it cannot be done. The barriers to building a rotating space stations are primarily economic. We largely already possess the technology to build one. We just haven't gone to the trouble because it makes sense to reduce cost to orbit (by a lot) first. A rotating space station would probably have to be quite robust and heavy (due to the fast rotation) and cost to orbit is rather high currently. We'll probably get to the rotating space craft in a few decades. I'd be surprised to see anything substantial before 2040 at the earliest and I think that is very optimistic.
There is a reason you don't see large rotating space stations or people on other planets.
Of course there are reasons you twit. Stop wasting everyone's time pointing out the obvious.
I'm not a cynic. I'm a realist
No, you are a troll and not a very good one either.
I like talking about it. Don't tell me what I should discuss.
So you admit you are trolling. You certainly aren't "discussing" anything. You are just calling people "space nutters". That makes you an ass. Or if by some chance you actually believe the nonsense you are spouting it means you are an idiot AND an ass.
If you get 20,000 people together for ANY reason, you are going to get at least a few who are not mentally well. The US has 12.1 suicides per 100,000 people annually. That means that in a random group of 20,000 people in the USA you would expect 2-3 of them to try to (successfully) commit suicide in a given year and presumable some number more to attempt it. One guy in a company that large does not justify drawing any deeper conclusions than he was one of those 2-3 people.
From the various anecdotes I've heard about Amazon, I sure as hell wouldn't want to work there.
You could say that about any number of companies. Cultural fit is an important consideration at any job. Google is a great place to work for some but it would be a terrible place for me personally. We have people at my company who do jobs that I'm perfectly capable of doing but would absolutely loathe doing. Sometimes one part of a business can be a good fit and another branch of the same company can be a terrible fit.
Is Amazon a great or terrible place to work? I think that depends on your personal perspective. Probably doesn't fit most of us well but obviously some people think it is fine.
Or is there another solution? I'm certainly not anything close to an expert in this field, but maybe there's a biological or chemical solution rather than a physics solution.
Nothing that we know how to do at this time. There may be medical treatments possible some day but we're still at the stage where we are figuring out the physiology of what is happening. Developing a treatment from that data is going to take quite a long time given the expense and limited number of subjects available to study.
I don't think we actually have a realistic way of generating artificial gravity. Right now the closest thing is to use centrifugal force by spinning a spacecraft,
That IS what we are talking about when we discuss "artificial gravity" in terms of current technology. Simulated gravity would be a better term. But there are other potential technologies if you want to get a little more exotic.
which we haven't actually done and apparently would require a much larger spacecraft as well as extra fuel to spin up and then adjust the spin over time.
We absolutely HAVE rotated spacecraft to simulate gravity. We just haven't figured out how to do it very well.
Which implies that they no longer think it's caused by lack of gravity. Apparently it's a subtle difference, but they seem to think it's due to microgravity in space and how it behaves, rather than the lack of gravity.
I think that is just a bad summary. There is little practical difference between free falling and being in a space with no gravity. If I put you in a box you would have no way to tell the difference and the effects on your body would be identical.
To put that perspective in perspective, the Iraq war cost $1.7 trillion -- an order of magnitude more than the ISS, so probably enough to try a lot of interesting designs.
Good luck getting Congress to pony up $1.7trillion for anything science related unless it directly involves killing foreigners, particularly those with brown skin. Especially a republican controlled congress.
This is why I hate Space Nutters: they talk like gene editing is even a potential solution. It isn't.
This is why you shouldn't talk out your ass about things you clearly don't understand. Seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your "space nutter" trolling is both wrong and tiresome.
There is no such thing as gene editing
Curious because my wife who is an MD just attended a conference were they discussed existing technology for gene editing. It's real, available today, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
You guys are anti-science and ignorant.
is this some sort of George Orwell doublespeak? You spout off ignorant and demonstrably wrong statements about science and then claim everyone who doesn't go along with your idiocy is "anti-science and ignorant". Go away troll.
It does seem, though, that no one has any even medium term plans to pull anything of the sort off.
I think the reasons for that are almost entirely economic in origin. Technologically it doesn't seem to be a terrible difficult problem. But currently getting the materials into space to work on the problem is tremendously expensive at present. The ISS cost about $150Billion to build. To put that in perspective the GDP of Iraq is $156Billion in 2016 dollars and Iraq has the 56th largest economy in the world. Making a rotating version of the ISS would undoubtedly be even more expensive with current technology.
There do not seem to be any big drawbacks to a rotating station in principle, right?
Technologically none that I'm aware of. Economically there are some showstoppers currently.
What if you could just edit out that deficiency?
Lot of issues there. First is the assumption that it is a "deficiency". It's not clear that such a term is appropriate. Second, there are a HUGE number of ethical issues to sort through when we are talking about altering the human genome. It's not that it's immoral per se but it has the potential to become so if we aren't careful. Third, is that it is unclear at present if such an edit to the genome is possible, practical, or even desirable. It's also unclear what second and third order effects might result. Few medical treatments come with no side effects.
The biggest difference is that artificial gravity carries no ethical baggage with it and there is in all likelihood far less risk. It's not likely to be as simple as changing one gene to fix a very particular problem with no side effects. We evolved in a particular way and actions that tinker with that finely tuned system rarely come without complications or difficulties.
I use OwnCloud, eGroupware, F-Droid, OsMand, Kore/Kodi, XMPP and a bunch of other stuff. I don't want my Phone syncing with servers other than mine or reporting location or software information to anyone.
You didn't answer the question. If you don't want to be tracked I can respect that. Just put the phone down and I assure you that you can exist comfortably without it. The notion that you can own a phone connected to the INTERNET that does not reveal any information about you is frankly absurd. Especially when you didn't write or review most of the code on that device. Furthermore the device you indicated you use is KNOWN to have reported data and you have zero way to know if the hardware isn't still doing so.
My phones do what I say, and derive location info based on GPS and Passive Beaconing.
Ha! Did you write all the code for your phone? Is the firmware and hardware source code available to you? If not then your confidence that your phone is never doing something you don't want is laughably naive. Using open source software doesn't change that fact. A better approach is to basically assume your phone is always spying on you and to use it accordingly. If you are worried about what information it is revealing then put it down and walk away.
Poor Space Nutters can't face the fact they won't be living on a Mars Utopia and are stuck here with the rest of us commoners.
Who peed in your cereal? Every time there is a space discussion I see you making idiotic trolls calling anyone who shows the least enthusiasm for manned space flight "space nutters". If you don't like talking about it then go away and find some discussion that does interest you. You're a cynic about space travel. We get it. Move on. You aren't adding any insight to the discussion and your trolls are vacuous and unconvincing.
So the next interesting question is how much gravity (artificial or real) would be required to mitigate this problem? At what percentage of 1g does the problem dissipate?
I'm also wondering when we are going to get a space station or other craft into space which has a rotating cylinder that can provide artificial gravity. We need to know that the effects of long term exposure to microgravity is but we also should be working on technology to provide artificial gravity for long duration space travel since we know our bodies don't do well without gravity. This should be well within our capability to achieve and is one of the necessary technologies we would need to develop for serious manned exploration of space.
A lot of companies are afraid of taking TOO big of a contract from Apple.
It's reasonable to be cautious of taking on more than you can handle from one customer. Companies that deal with Walmart run into the same problem. If they become too big a percentage of your business then you are taking on substantial risk of being unable to refuse to take a bad deal.
I worked for a company that made parts for Apple about 5 years ago. Apple kept telling us to knock down the price or they'd cancel the contract. Eventually we were selling to them at a loss.
Then your company was managed by idiots. If the choice is between canceling a contract and losing money on every sale then it is a no brainer. If they ask you to sell at a loss you say no. This is true even if the customer is very big. If Apple wants to work with you to reduce costs then it can be a discussion but you have to be a weapons grade idiot to sell something for less than it costs you to make on an ongoing basis.
Unfortunately we got sold to another company...who just signed a contract with Apple. But the parts we are making are not Apple exclusive, so we got that going for us, which is nice.
As long as they aren't afraid to say NO to Apple when they need to then working with Apple is fine. You can't magically make something cost less than it actually does. No amount of kicking and screaming on Apple's part will change this in the short term.
Too companies are leading the state of the art in OLED screen technology: LG and Samsung. Both Korean, and both way too big for even Apple to buy.
Samsung is (probably) too bug but LG had revenue of US$55B in 2015. Apple has nearly 5X that amount of money in cash and made $45B in PROFIT in 2015 alone. So no, LG is definitely not too big for Apple to buy if they wanted to and they certainly could offer to buy or finance the OLED technology portion rather than the whole company. Not saying that's a good idea but it's certainly something Apple could do if they felt the need.
Who do you think makes most of the parts for Apple in the first place? I'm pretty sure it's Samsung.
So why would Apple want to tie themselves to what is arguably their #1 handset and tablet competitor in Samsung if they didn't have to? I'm sure Apple has their reasons but their aren't immediately obvious to outsiders like myself. I'm sure Apple has considered all this but they aren't sharing their reasoning publicly.