"Actually quite far, mammals cloning suffer some problems that cheap sequencing will don't help solving."
These are only a problem for ethical researchers. If you don't mind making a few hundred mutated duds, and then just breeding from the healthy ones, it's easy. Been done for a number of species, humans are no different aside from awkwardly long gestation and time to sexual maturity. The field is far too difficult and expensive (Lots of equipment) for some Mad Scientist to dabble in a basement laboratory though, and multi-million-dollar grants don't come easy
It would be more accuratly termed 'cleaner coal.' It's still polluting, but not as much. It means things like the use of filters and electrostatic precipitators to reduce particulate pollution, and chemical processing to turn the really nasty stuff like sulphur dioxide into less nasty stuff. Think of it as like a giant catalytic converter from a can: Really nasty polluting gasses go in, moderatly polluting gasses come out. The ideal goal is to capture and store the carbon dioxide produced and then put it somewhere safe and out of reach, like a depleted natural gas pocket, but this is prohibatively expensive.
When I was on the dole, the benefits money was conditional upon my showing constant effort to apply for work. Unfortunatly I don't drive, and so my working radius was limited. There just weren't that many jobs I was willing to accept within reach, so I ended up submitted a lot of 'pad the numbers' applications. Half-hearted standard cover letter, standard CV, off they go. Because I didn't care if I didn't get that job, I was holding out for something better.
I got the something better, eventually. It still sucks, but it sucks less than a hour-long commute on the train to man helpdesk would.
Another factor was that the employment advisor kept asking me to apply for jobs I was completly unqualified for, on the grounds that one computer job is much like the other. I had a diploma in networking and a very good knowledge of hardware - and, to the layperson, that makes me perfectly qualified for a position as a web designer or programmer in languages completly unfamiliar to me. So it is quite possible that some of those sloppy resumes are by people who don't actually want the job at all, but need to apply in order to put on a show.
Demand on their time. When twenty people apply for a job, you can interview them all. When a hundred apply, you have to start examining CVs. But now, thanks to the internet, it's routine to get thousands of people apply for one job. What is an employer to do? They need some way to streamline the evaluation process. Games are another attempt to solve this problem.
Many still rely on the simplist possible method though: Grab half the pile of applications and throw them straight in the bin, because there just isn't time to read so many.
True, but if you do that then you get all the problems of Windows or Linux as well - at which point you really might as well just buy a non-Apple laptop. It'll be cheaper for the same spec. I do use a macbook, but only because it has one feature I consider I must-have and which I couldn't get anywhere else: Lots and lots of pixels. Noone else sold a laptop of such high resolution. Dell used to, but they discontinued that option. Maybe offerings have improved now.
Unless the old terms included a clause stating that they may change the terms in future and that your acceptance of the new terms is implied by your continued use of the service. It's a standard clause.
True. Even if civilisation collapsed completly and we were knocked back to the stone age (Astroid, perhaps?), the survivors would rebuild. Though when it came time for the industrial revolution, the phrase 'Curse the Ancient Plunderers!' may rapidly enter common use.
The post-scarcity utopia assumes a well-managed economic system. It doesn't matter if, say, all the food needs for humanity can be met by a few thousand people: Someone still has to decide who the thousand are, manage transport and distribute the food. On a massive scale. Right now this task is accomplished by a free market system: Give people the financial incentive, and rely on them to self-organise. It works. Not always perfectly, not always every very well, but it does work. It works better than any alternative so far. The only real hope would be for technological change to introduce new options - perhaps advances in computing technology could make it practical to coordinate centrally.
The real nightmare scenario is what happens when a voluntary economy switches to post-scarcity abruptly: Food still costs money, but now there isn't enough work. It doesn't matter that there are enough farms to feed everyone, because those farmers aren't going to be willing to just give their crops away without getting something in return. Transition to your post-scarcity utopia may be possible, but it wouldn't be easy. Relying on the inherent goodness of individuals isn't going to work.
But even that runs into problems. The modern world is built on spending - that's how the economy works. It must always grow, or else it falls apart. If enough people lived as you suggested, and stopped throwing money away on unneeded luxuries, what happens to all those who work in the factories that produce those luxuries, and those who mine the resources to feed those factories, and the workers in retail who sell them? All unemployed, which means they have no money to buy even essentials, which leads to more unemployment in a positive feedback loop that will destroy civilization. The economy depends upon wasteful spending, and civilization depends upon the economy. So you can't even advise people not to spend at all.
What about non-realtime? The scopes agree to record the same location, both record to local massive banks of hard drives. Then just load the drive banks into a shipping container and send the data physically to whichever supercomputer they use to churn through it all. It might mean a week of latency, but the universe isn't going anywhere.
Under the DMCA, more-or-less. For a service provider to decline a DMCA notice means they can be potentially liable, so unless the content in question is of particually high value of the customer pays very well they have little incentive to even give the contents of the notice a glance. Take it down first, ask questions later.
In Australia, Tivo disabled the 30-second-skip voluntarily to avoid conflict with broadcasters. Via a software update no less, pulling the functionality even from deployed units via mandated updates. This was long before Sony more infamously pulled the same stunt with OtherOS.
Don't forget the cycle too. Sunspots go up, sunspots go down.. that means a change in temperature, and as basically a ball of gas a change in temperature means a change in volume. I don't know how significent this pulsing effect would be, but if you can do measurements to 20km it might be measurable.
Better yet, don't. The sheer stupidity of that film and the massive cop-out at the ending can send me into a twenty minute fit of nerd-rage. The writers took a good premise, but rather than go into any real consideration of the complicated field of bioethics they just chickened out with something cliche but utterly unfounded.
Wouldn't get an image over the poles, but who needs those? Still not practical: The moon is a long way up. Low earth orbit is not. To get the same image from the moon as an LEO sat would require ridiculously large and delicate optics. Worse, got to get to the moon. LEO is easy, but moon would need more powerful, not-mass-produced rockets. Then you've got to put the thing together - no way that an instrument that large is landing in one piece, so you need either telepresence robots or a manned mission to bolt it all together.
The moon also has a rather longer day - a lunar rover running solar would have to operate for fifteen days of sun, then hibernate for fifteen days of darkness. And the occasional eclipse. With that and the lack of an atmosphere, solar power isn't going to be an issue. More concerning is the task of keeping it from melting after fifteen days of intense solar radiation and no atmospheric cooling.
Slashdot Mirror
"Actually quite far, mammals cloning suffer some problems that cheap sequencing will don't help solving."
These are only a problem for ethical researchers. If you don't mind making a few hundred mutated duds, and then just breeding from the healthy ones, it's easy. Been done for a number of species, humans are no different aside from awkwardly long gestation and time to sexual maturity. The field is far too difficult and expensive (Lots of equipment) for some Mad Scientist to dabble in a basement laboratory though, and multi-million-dollar grants don't come easy
But cost-efficient.
It's a generic insult with no more specific meaning than that the subject of the insult is an unlikeable person.
I have the Coolest Die Ever.
http://birds-are-nice.me/programming/glowydie2.jpg
Configurable for d6, 12, 20 or 100. And looks awesome.
I've only ever played one session of D&D though. Our DM had to leave the country soon after, so we never got to continue.
It would be more accuratly termed 'cleaner coal.' It's still polluting, but not as much. It means things like the use of filters and electrostatic precipitators to reduce particulate pollution, and chemical processing to turn the really nasty stuff like sulphur dioxide into less nasty stuff. Think of it as like a giant catalytic converter from a can: Really nasty polluting gasses go in, moderatly polluting gasses come out. The ideal goal is to capture and store the carbon dioxide produced and then put it somewhere safe and out of reach, like a depleted natural gas pocket, but this is prohibatively expensive.
When I was on the dole, the benefits money was conditional upon my showing constant effort to apply for work. Unfortunatly I don't drive, and so my working radius was limited. There just weren't that many jobs I was willing to accept within reach, so I ended up submitted a lot of 'pad the numbers' applications. Half-hearted standard cover letter, standard CV, off they go. Because I didn't care if I didn't get that job, I was holding out for something better.
I got the something better, eventually. It still sucks, but it sucks less than a hour-long commute on the train to man helpdesk would.
Another factor was that the employment advisor kept asking me to apply for jobs I was completly unqualified for, on the grounds that one computer job is much like the other. I had a diploma in networking and a very good knowledge of hardware - and, to the layperson, that makes me perfectly qualified for a position as a web designer or programmer in languages completly unfamiliar to me. So it is quite possible that some of those sloppy resumes are by people who don't actually want the job at all, but need to apply in order to put on a show.
Demand on their time. When twenty people apply for a job, you can interview them all. When a hundred apply, you have to start examining CVs. But now, thanks to the internet, it's routine to get thousands of people apply for one job. What is an employer to do? They need some way to streamline the evaluation process. Games are another attempt to solve this problem.
Many still rely on the simplist possible method though: Grab half the pile of applications and throw them straight in the bin, because there just isn't time to read so many.
True, but if you do that then you get all the problems of Windows or Linux as well - at which point you really might as well just buy a non-Apple laptop. It'll be cheaper for the same spec. I do use a macbook, but only because it has one feature I consider I must-have and which I couldn't get anywhere else: Lots and lots of pixels. Noone else sold a laptop of such high resolution. Dell used to, but they discontinued that option. Maybe offerings have improved now.
Unless the old terms included a clause stating that they may change the terms in future and that your acceptance of the new terms is implied by your continued use of the service. It's a standard clause.
Because it is the only tablet OS with big-name backing other than iOS, which is even worse.
A mixed economy in denial.
True. Even if civilisation collapsed completly and we were knocked back to the stone age (Astroid, perhaps?), the survivors would rebuild. Though when it came time for the industrial revolution, the phrase 'Curse the Ancient Plunderers!' may rapidly enter common use.
The post-scarcity utopia assumes a well-managed economic system. It doesn't matter if, say, all the food needs for humanity can be met by a few thousand people: Someone still has to decide who the thousand are, manage transport and distribute the food. On a massive scale. Right now this task is accomplished by a free market system: Give people the financial incentive, and rely on them to self-organise. It works. Not always perfectly, not always every very well, but it does work. It works better than any alternative so far. The only real hope would be for technological change to introduce new options - perhaps advances in computing technology could make it practical to coordinate centrally.
The real nightmare scenario is what happens when a voluntary economy switches to post-scarcity abruptly: Food still costs money, but now there isn't enough work. It doesn't matter that there are enough farms to feed everyone, because those farmers aren't going to be willing to just give their crops away without getting something in return. Transition to your post-scarcity utopia may be possible, but it wouldn't be easy. Relying on the inherent goodness of individuals isn't going to work.
But even that runs into problems. The modern world is built on spending - that's how the economy works. It must always grow, or else it falls apart. If enough people lived as you suggested, and stopped throwing money away on unneeded luxuries, what happens to all those who work in the factories that produce those luxuries, and those who mine the resources to feed those factories, and the workers in retail who sell them? All unemployed, which means they have no money to buy even essentials, which leads to more unemployment in a positive feedback loop that will destroy civilization. The economy depends upon wasteful spending, and civilization depends upon the economy. So you can't even advise people not to spend at all.
This is why the field of robotics is represented by Kevin Warwick, AKA Captain Cyborg.
What about non-realtime? The scopes agree to record the same location, both record to local massive banks of hard drives. Then just load the drive banks into a shipping container and send the data physically to whichever supercomputer they use to churn through it all. It might mean a week of latency, but the universe isn't going anywhere.
Under the DMCA, more-or-less. For a service provider to decline a DMCA notice means they can be potentially liable, so unless the content in question is of particually high value of the customer pays very well they have little incentive to even give the contents of the notice a glance. Take it down first, ask questions later.
In Australia, Tivo disabled the 30-second-skip voluntarily to avoid conflict with broadcasters. Via a software update no less, pulling the functionality even from deployed units via mandated updates. This was long before Sony more infamously pulled the same stunt with OtherOS.
Couldn't that be solved just by using a CBR codec, or padding the stream with random data?
There was a time when copyright was a purely civil matter, and the FBI wouldn't have been involved at all. That was before the NET act.
The extra z was accepted lingo in the piracy scene.
Fifteen years ago.
Just a little out of date, that's all.
Don't forget the cycle too. Sunspots go up, sunspots go down.. that means a change in temperature, and as basically a ball of gas a change in temperature means a change in volume. I don't know how significent this pulsing effect would be, but if you can do measurements to 20km it might be measurable.
"Surrogates"
Better yet, don't. The sheer stupidity of that film and the massive cop-out at the ending can send me into a twenty minute fit of nerd-rage. The writers took a good premise, but rather than go into any real consideration of the complicated field of bioethics they just chickened out with something cliche but utterly unfounded.
Wouldn't get an image over the poles, but who needs those? Still not practical: The moon is a long way up. Low earth orbit is not. To get the same image from the moon as an LEO sat would require ridiculously large and delicate optics. Worse, got to get to the moon. LEO is easy, but moon would need more powerful, not-mass-produced rockets. Then you've got to put the thing together - no way that an instrument that large is landing in one piece, so you need either telepresence robots or a manned mission to bolt it all together.
The moon also has a rather longer day - a lunar rover running solar would have to operate for fifteen days of sun, then hibernate for fifteen days of darkness. And the occasional eclipse. With that and the lack of an atmosphere, solar power isn't going to be an issue. More concerning is the task of keeping it from melting after fifteen days of intense solar radiation and no atmospheric cooling.