Often intelligence has nothing to do with how decide to spend their time. I think the thing people should be worrying about is losing their ability to function in society properly. Obviously if you're a serious addict and you can't perform your job you've got a serious problem, but what's the big deal if you decide to smoke a couple of joints in your spare time.
The majority of people seem to think that there is no inbetween when it comes to drugs, either you're a straight-edged proper member of society or else you're a no-good junkie. I'm not suggesting that everyone go out and do drugs, but what's the big deal?
It seems that no-one really wants to talk about drugs from a neutral point of view. Most people either side with the government "Reefer Madness and War on Drugs" point of view or else they are uninformed pro-drugs zealots using only the facts they like to hear.
Don't bring the same old song and dance to the table, we know the creed of the war on drugs so well now that most people who would consider using drugs realize that it is only a propanganda assault and that it doesn't really explain WHY people shouldn't use drugs.
No one ever says they want to be a junkie when they grow up - and I don't think anyone ever says they want to be a theoretical physicist either.
The real sad thing about the whole situation is that the majority of people who invest their time with reading and/or making these sites are more than likely the most hardcore portion of his fan base. The general public isn't looking around to try to find out what is going to happen in the movie, so it shouldn't really be a big problem.
Interesting how closely your description of the molecular robots parallels cellular operations and dna. Perhaps this STM technique will be useful in genetics, being able to switch a few genes around and then putting the dna back in the nucleus with the precision of this STM technique would be pretty handy. (Mind you it would require a lot of other developments, but it's allways there to explore)
Allthough it would be possible to have thousands of these machines running and constantly making the molecules, it is a very subtle process and I don't think it lends itself well to mass production. I know that there are various groups working on ways of using lasers to selectively break only certain bonds in a group of molecules, and by doing so they could eventually create processes to generate new substances, however, this isn't nearly as precise as the STM method. I guess we'll have to wait and see what new techniques come out of the woodwork...
Although this is a good method for creating new molecules and whatnot, it doesn't really hold much opportunity for creating enough of a new substance to be used in any macroscopic situations. I can just see factories containing thousands of STM's pumping out a whopping 2000 molecules a day...
It could definately lead to the creation of new nanite structures, but it wouldn't give us any realistic method of mass production.
>At the same time, it does not speak well of the scientific community if it's members are adopting an attitude of, "This telescope is mine! Mine! Get your own!"
I'm not really so sure that it's a matter of "owning a telescope" or "over-using it". There are thousands of astronomers and not that many telescopes. This is the case with most pure science research since it requires extremely expensive apparatus (telescopes, accelerators, detectors, etc). With everyone trying to explore different aspects of science it makes it harder to determine who should be allocated the most time with this equipment. The way it is right now, many people must plan a whole year around getting to use a certain device for a week.
Once again it comes down to who's going to give out money for this research. Since particle physics/astrophysics/astronomy has little relevant technological usage (at our current levels of technology) there really isn't a reason for people to dole out the money for it. And that is why it seems like everyone is getting the shaft...
I'd have to agree with you that the ego's are a very real part of it, but I think that's unavoidable. Obviously people who do make significant contributions to the furthering of their field will be given more opportunity to continue with their research. I guess it just comes down to a personal matter of whether or not they are persuing it for the personal gains or the joy of making new discoveries and advances in itself.
The whole point we're getting at here is that people are becoming more and more disinterested with politics. People are realizing that there really isn't much of an option, the left tries to provide more services, the right tries to cut taxes... blah blah blah... Where is the real change?
The point of the matter is that until the system itself changes, the politics won't. So I wouldn't expect any great changes in the way things are run until the majority of the people realize that it's time to move on and explore different ways to maintain a successful society. Think of all the civilizations that gave way to stagnation... Holy Roman Empire, English Imperialism,... it's our turn next.
Maybe that's where the tech culture steps in. Since it's fundamental nature is to progress and include more and more people into its structure, it ensures it's own evolution.
I remember reading that there was a probable space shuttle disaster for 1 in every 300 launches. I can't remember where I read it, but I know it was legit. Seems like enough of a risk allready... Imagine what the public would say if every 300th plane was predicted to crash...
Besides the heat and pressure, one must also consider the dense atmosphere of acid that a creature would have to deal with, raining down acid from above! (such a reactive atmosphere would greatly hinder the ability to perform stable chemical reactions) For a good read on the possibilities of life in the solar system, check out Carl Sagan's "The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective". It's an oldie, but still a goodie!
Actually, the steps leading up to the creation of the black hole would allready signal the end for us. As the sun progresses through it's stellar evolution, it will eventually reach the 'red giant' stage where it's outer layers will reach out over the inner planets. We'll be cooked.
As for black holes, (I'm sure there's countless references in other posts) they only emit Hawking radiation (and not enough of it to be detected with todays technology). It's their interaction with other objects around them that releases the high energy particles like X-rays and what not, and it is really these interactions which we 'see' with our detectors, as well as the effects on other bodies orbits as this article details.
From the article:"Although the scientists will know within a couple of months of launch whether the experiment is working properly, they will be very cautious and scrupulous before making definitive claims about the result. Even after the main data-taking is over, the team will gently tweak the spacecraft and change settings for another two or three months to see how those variations affect the readings from the gyroscopes." Although I believe that the science they are employing to test this aspect of general relativity is concrete, I am not too sure if the actual satellite will function as well as they believe. Any forces acting on the satellite will measure up on these gyro's - even to a small degree - and space isn't as 'empty' as we think. Solar flux will provide a torque on the satellite, and impacts with micro-meteors can seriously damage components as well as provide momentum transfer. With a satellite so dependant on maintaining a stable platform for these gyros, it will truly be a wonder if they get the data they are hoping for - the errors involved might shadow what they are actually trying to see.
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of people seem to think that there is no inbetween when it comes to drugs, either you're a straight-edged proper member of society or else you're a no-good junkie. I'm not suggesting that everyone go out and do drugs, but what's the big deal?
It seems that no-one really wants to talk about drugs from a neutral point of view. Most people either side with the government "Reefer Madness and War on Drugs" point of view or else they are uninformed pro-drugs zealots using only the facts they like to hear.
Don't bring the same old song and dance to the table, we know the creed of the war on drugs so well now that most people who would consider using drugs realize that it is only a propanganda assault and that it doesn't really explain WHY people shouldn't use drugs.
No one ever says they want to be a junkie when they grow up - and I don't think anyone ever says they want to be a theoretical physicist either.
Allthough it would be possible to have thousands of these machines running and constantly making the molecules, it is a very subtle process and I don't think it lends itself well to mass production. I know that there are various groups working on ways of using lasers to selectively break only certain bonds in a group of molecules, and by doing so they could eventually create processes to generate new substances, however, this isn't nearly as precise as the STM method. I guess we'll have to wait and see what new techniques come out of the woodwork...
It could definately lead to the creation of new nanite structures, but it wouldn't give us any realistic method of mass production.
Scanning Tunneling Microscope -it says right at the top of the post.
I'm not really so sure that it's a matter of "owning a telescope" or "over-using it". There are thousands of astronomers and not that many telescopes. This is the case with most pure science research since it requires extremely expensive apparatus (telescopes, accelerators, detectors, etc). With everyone trying to explore different aspects of science it makes it harder to determine who should be allocated the most time with this equipment. The way it is right now, many people must plan a whole year around getting to use a certain device for a week.
Once again it comes down to who's going to give out money for this research. Since particle physics/astrophysics/astronomy has little relevant technological usage (at our current levels of technology) there really isn't a reason for people to dole out the money for it. And that is why it seems like everyone is getting the shaft...
I'd have to agree with you that the ego's are a very real part of it, but I think that's unavoidable. Obviously people who do make significant contributions to the furthering of their field will be given more opportunity to continue with their research. I guess it just comes down to a personal matter of whether or not they are persuing it for the personal gains or the joy of making new discoveries and advances in itself.
The whole point we're getting at here is that people are becoming more and more disinterested with politics. People are realizing that there really isn't much of an option, the left tries to provide more services, the right tries to cut taxes... blah blah blah... Where is the real change? The point of the matter is that until the system itself changes, the politics won't. So I wouldn't expect any great changes in the way things are run until the majority of the people realize that it's time to move on and explore different ways to maintain a successful society. Think of all the civilizations that gave way to stagnation... Holy Roman Empire, English Imperialism, ... it's our turn next.
Maybe that's where the tech culture steps in. Since it's fundamental nature is to progress and include more and more people into its structure, it ensures it's own evolution.
I remember reading that there was a probable space shuttle disaster for 1 in every 300 launches. I can't remember where I read it, but I know it was legit. Seems like enough of a risk allready... Imagine what the public would say if every 300th plane was predicted to crash...
Besides the heat and pressure, one must also consider the dense atmosphere of acid that a creature would have to deal with, raining down acid from above! (such a reactive atmosphere would greatly hinder the ability to perform stable chemical reactions) For a good read on the possibilities of life in the solar system, check out Carl Sagan's "The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective". It's an oldie, but still a goodie!
Actually, the steps leading up to the creation of the black hole would allready signal the end for us. As the sun progresses through it's stellar evolution, it will eventually reach the 'red giant' stage where it's outer layers will reach out over the inner planets. We'll be cooked. As for black holes, (I'm sure there's countless references in other posts) they only emit Hawking radiation (and not enough of it to be detected with todays technology). It's their interaction with other objects around them that releases the high energy particles like X-rays and what not, and it is really these interactions which we 'see' with our detectors, as well as the effects on other bodies orbits as this article details.
From the article:"Although the scientists will know within a couple of months of launch whether the experiment is working properly, they will be very cautious and scrupulous before making definitive claims about the result. Even after the main data-taking is over, the team will gently tweak the spacecraft and change settings for another two or three months to see how those variations affect the readings from the gyroscopes." Although I believe that the science they are employing to test this aspect of general relativity is concrete, I am not too sure if the actual satellite will function as well as they believe. Any forces acting on the satellite will measure up on these gyro's - even to a small degree - and space isn't as 'empty' as we think. Solar flux will provide a torque on the satellite, and impacts with micro-meteors can seriously damage components as well as provide momentum transfer. With a satellite so dependant on maintaining a stable platform for these gyros, it will truly be a wonder if they get the data they are hoping for - the errors involved might shadow what they are actually trying to see.