Not the production process so much as the design process. It'd mean starting over from scratch with a whole new architecture, redoing decades of work in hardware and software.
I think he refers to regulations - the very common process in which congress, rather than micro-managing every detail of a law, just deligates authority within a defined area to another agency. That's how most government departments operate. The FCC doesn't have to go to congress to pass a new law every time they reallocate some spectrum.
You should see what prolonged exposure has on skin. I got some on my fingers while washing and it wrickled up like a crumpled tissue. The effect seems to be temporary, but skin surely shouldn't do that.
Nitrogen overclocking is done for contests. You can get phase change cooling, which is the next best thing and will still get your processor far below zero. The big downside to that is just power consumption. It's also bulky and noisy.
I'm trying to figure out what you are saying, but I find your post rambling and self-contradictory.
The test for HIV doesn't use an electron microscope. It's a form of the ELISA test, using specific antibodies that attach only to HIV. Are you trying to claim that HIV is actually harmless, or accusing scientists of fabricating the tests where no virus exists? Because either way, there are about 35 million corpses that disagree with you.
When it comes to corporate ownership, the parties are really no different. Just ask, when did you last see any politician of significent position advocate for less restrictive copyright law, or criticise the high subsidies granted to the agricultural industry?
There seems to be an informal agreement between the parties as to which issues are designated the 'subjects of debate' - ideally things which get the public's emotions running high, but don't actually have a significent impact on those in charge or corporate profits. Gay marriage, abortion, that sort of thing.
Industry does do a lot of research. There's money to be made in curing HIV, after all. They do shy away from the purely theoretical though, because there's no money to be made if you don't get a patentable drug at the end of it.
Weight: Thirty kilograms. Power draw: 5.4A at 18V. Operating temperature range: 90-600 K Maximum acceleration: 3 km s-2. MTBF: Limited only by proton decay.
What trade, exactly? Space is really rather a lot of nothing, and what little is up there is prohibitively expensive to bring back. Some asteroids are potentially minable, but not valuable enough to justify the cost. Other than that there's not really anything of industrial value except for a few microgravity manufacturing operations* that could be done in earth orbit.
* You could grow really nice crystals, fewer flaws than on earth. Possibly valuable in semiconductor manufacturing, and certainly useful in scientific instruments.
There are other advantages to shrinking components. Higher clock rates become possible. The power consumption is also lessened, if you can offset the leakage issue somehow.
IBM could build a chip that way if they wanted to. It just wouldn't be cost-effective - would it take decades of very delicate work to make a single processor that way.
The electron emission part is a quantum effect. It can't be explained in purely classical terms. Fortunately the end result can be reduced down to a couple of handy equations simple enough for non-quantum-physicists to make use of the tubes.
Something of an oversimplification. Europe had known much persecution at the time, and it wasn't always the Catholics doing it. The most famous settlers, the Puritans, were trying to escape persecution from other Protestants - and given half the chance, they'd be just as harsh towards anyone they considered less pure than themselves.
There's some nasty radiation at the surface of Mars. Not much of a magnetic field, remember. I'm not sure how that would effect plants, but the crew are going to want a big lump of something massive above their heads.
Do not underestimate the sheer magnitude of that lot of money. It isn't a matter of 'should we.' It's a matter of 'can we.'
Putting Curiosity on Mars took $2.5B. That's a lot of money, but affordable for the most economically successful countries like the US. How much more would it cost to put up a colony? The ships would have to be a lot bigger, and it would need many of them. The total cost would easily enter the tens of billions just to get the materials there, and that's before you consider the century-odd of support before it is fully independent and the R&D costs. I'm cynical: Mankind may be willing to spend that much on finding new ways to kill each other more efficiently, but there just isn't the political will to drive expansion today.
Harvesting the oxide means you're bringing earth-moving equipment, chemical processing, and a furnace - either solar or nuclear. All of which is going to need maintenance and spares.
Even sending robotic missions ahead, it would be possibly the single most expensive project in the history of mankind.
Aside from the problem of a life support and food production system that can operate for 30 years, with a lead time on spare parts measured in years, and fresh supply shipments very limited. Plus the severe lack of medical services. Eventually a reliable colony would be possible - but the first few waves will just have to hope nothing breaks down and that the political environment back on earth keeps the resupply rockets flowing.
The only reason to bother doing so is PR. Keeping them alive for a few years is easier than bringing them back, and there is plenty of science to be done. The rovers have barely scraped the surface - literally.
Don't view it as suicide. Everyone dies eventually - a mars trip just hastens the inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
They really are. The US government has been selling off reserves for below-production-cost for some time, causing prices to be artificially low.
Not the production process so much as the design process. It'd mean starting over from scratch with a whole new architecture, redoing decades of work in hardware and software.
The president takes all credit and all blame for every action commited by the government at any level during their term.
That's just how it works. That's the cost of turning the office of president into a superstar position.
It was never intended to be like that.
I think he refers to regulations - the very common process in which congress, rather than micro-managing every detail of a law, just deligates authority within a defined area to another agency. That's how most government departments operate. The FCC doesn't have to go to congress to pass a new law every time they reallocate some spectrum.
You should see what prolonged exposure has on skin. I got some on my fingers while washing and it wrickled up like a crumpled tissue. The effect seems to be temporary, but skin surely shouldn't do that.
Nitrogen overclocking is done for contests. You can get phase change cooling, which is the next best thing and will still get your processor far below zero. The big downside to that is just power consumption. It's also bulky and noisy.
I always interpreted that card as 'use your vast wealth, skilled lawyers and political connections to weasel your way out of court.'
Maybe not - but in the event of nuclear war, Russia would immediately jump in on their side too.
I'm trying to figure out what you are saying, but I find your post rambling and self-contradictory.
The test for HIV doesn't use an electron microscope. It's a form of the ELISA test, using specific antibodies that attach only to HIV. Are you trying to claim that HIV is actually harmless, or accusing scientists of fabricating the tests where no virus exists? Because either way, there are about 35 million corpses that disagree with you.
When it comes to corporate ownership, the parties are really no different. Just ask, when did you last see any politician of significent position advocate for less restrictive copyright law, or criticise the high subsidies granted to the agricultural industry?
There seems to be an informal agreement between the parties as to which issues are designated the 'subjects of debate' - ideally things which get the public's emotions running high, but don't actually have a significent impact on those in charge or corporate profits. Gay marriage, abortion, that sort of thing.
The movie never established if that was their idea of a joke, or just a problem with the untested translation machine.
Industry does do a lot of research. There's money to be made in curing HIV, after all. They do shy away from the purely theoretical though, because there's no money to be made if you don't get a patentable drug at the end of it.
Weight: Thirty kilograms.
Power draw: 5.4A at 18V.
Operating temperature range: 90-600 K
Maximum acceleration: 3 km s-2.
MTBF: Limited only by proton decay.
What trade, exactly? Space is really rather a lot of nothing, and what little is up there is prohibitively expensive to bring back. Some asteroids are potentially minable, but not valuable enough to justify the cost. Other than that there's not really anything of industrial value except for a few microgravity manufacturing operations* that could be done in earth orbit.
* You could grow really nice crystals, fewer flaws than on earth. Possibly valuable in semiconductor manufacturing, and certainly useful in scientific instruments.
There are other advantages to shrinking components. Higher clock rates become possible. The power consumption is also lessened, if you can offset the leakage issue somehow.
IBM could build a chip that way if they wanted to. It just wouldn't be cost-effective - would it take decades of very delicate work to make a single processor that way.
The electron emission part is a quantum effect. It can't be explained in purely classical terms. Fortunately the end result can be reduced down to a couple of handy equations simple enough for non-quantum-physicists to make use of the tubes.
Something of an oversimplification. Europe had known much persecution at the time, and it wasn't always the Catholics doing it. The most famous settlers, the Puritans, were trying to escape persecution from other Protestants - and given half the chance, they'd be just as harsh towards anyone they considered less pure than themselves.
There's some nasty radiation at the surface of Mars. Not much of a magnetic field, remember. I'm not sure how that would effect plants, but the crew are going to want a big lump of something massive above their heads.
Do not underestimate the sheer magnitude of that lot of money. It isn't a matter of 'should we.' It's a matter of 'can we.'
Putting Curiosity on Mars took $2.5B. That's a lot of money, but affordable for the most economically successful countries like the US. How much more would it cost to put up a colony? The ships would have to be a lot bigger, and it would need many of them. The total cost would easily enter the tens of billions just to get the materials there, and that's before you consider the century-odd of support before it is fully independent and the R&D costs. I'm cynical: Mankind may be willing to spend that much on finding new ways to kill each other more efficiently, but there just isn't the political will to drive expansion today.
Harvesting the oxide means you're bringing earth-moving equipment, chemical processing, and a furnace - either solar or nuclear. All of which is going to need maintenance and spares.
Even sending robotic missions ahead, it would be possibly the single most expensive project in the history of mankind.
A great many of them died, and they were settling in a place that had a breathable atmosphere and soil you could grow crops in.
Aside from the problem of a life support and food production system that can operate for 30 years, with a lead time on spare parts measured in years, and fresh supply shipments very limited. Plus the severe lack of medical services. Eventually a reliable colony would be possible - but the first few waves will just have to hope nothing breaks down and that the political environment back on earth keeps the resupply rockets flowing.
The only reason to bother doing so is PR. Keeping them alive for a few years is easier than bringing them back, and there is plenty of science to be done. The rovers have barely scraped the surface - literally.
Don't view it as suicide. Everyone dies eventually - a mars trip just hastens the inevitable.
Anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.
Anthropomorphic climate change would be a man who follows you around with a hosepipe and a heat lamp.