Maybe google has an exception to its duplicate content rules built in for forums, since there is often a lot of copypasta being served as people discuss news stories etc?
I don't know, chess has a reputation of being the board game for the intelligentsia. If that were they case why are well known chess masters also not polymaths, CEOs, and world famous research scientists? Teaching children how to play chess will only improve their skills in one area - playing chess. It's a game you can even program a microchip to succeed at, which should be an indicator of the mental plumbing needed to achieve good results in chess. They might get better real world results by using something like Red Alert 2, where the pieces have vastly more moves.
Don't get me wrong, chess is a fun game, but it is an end unto itself.
Also, the productivity increases allowed by the use of laptops and computers far outweigh the alternative energy costs, by several orders of magnitude I'd say. I'm all for efficiency, but there is a distressing tendency to look at any energy use as being a bad thing. Energy is not in short supply, the only deficiency is in our ability to harness it effectively, an issue which I anticipate will be addressed over the coming fifty to a hundred years.
We don't care about your internal sectarian strife between extremist protestant cults and academia, and would like to read interesting comments about the new dinosaur. So far in this thread there have been none, not a one. Kind regards The rest of the world
If it works for radioactivity, could it work for almost anything? I mean could you literally put blood in one end and get clean water out the other? Not sure where I'm going with this but intersting...
Oh sarcasm, that's much better than trying to see the point I was making. Which is that there is no shortage of energy. As for wiring, look up HVDC and DESERTEC.
They never stop to think about how much energy we actually need and compare it to how much energy can be captured by the green efforts. Unfortunately, there is a HUGE gap between those two numbers and no amount of "good faith" will close that gap.
Covering 2% of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with PV cells would supply all of the planet's power requirements.
Per produced unit though, nuclear regularly costs 2-3 times as much as wind anyway. Note that's not per installed unit but per PRODUCED unit, taking into account efficiencies.
And wind maintenance is cheaper than nuclear, according to a recent Eirgrid publication. See also the European Supergrid project and DESERTEC for reference.
Apart from the usual "OMG, it's nuclear!!!" there are no valid arguments against nuclear power.
Except that it's 2-3 times more expensive than wind. Nuclear is great when you have no other options, but most places have many other options, renewable ones at that.
We already have the technology necessary to prevent world hunger, it's called birth control.
We don't even need technology to prevent world hunger, all we need are free and open democratic systems everywhere. Once you take out the dictators who hoard food and resources for themselves, world hunger becomes a past issue.
What is there on the moon or Mars to make it worth going there. Why should anyone want to live there?
Probably quite a bit, but we probably won't know till we get there.:D I'd be a lot more interested in the asteroids as an intermediate step, literally trillions of dollars worth of raw materials just floating around out there, and a gigantic nuclear furnace just pouring out free energy to help you process it right behind you. Welcome to the post scarcity society. Once we have that licked we can swan about planetary gravity wells on a whim, probably even create macroengineered catapults to make insterstellar travel more accessable eventually too.
Oh and your going to live the rest of your life in this box, you will never see the destination, nor will your children, their children, their children's children, and likely ten more generations after that.
Most people spend most of their lives in a tiny geographic area anyway, the only difference is you couldn't take holidays.
Even if that slightly far fetched scenario was to take place, and how bad things have gotten that it's only "slightly" far fetched, all it will do is hasten the inevitable. Unless they find a way to legally force anyone who wants to create something new to use their marketing channels, use their equipment, use their distribution networks, or use their IP, they are done. Other giants will arise of course, Apple has positioned itself well to take advantage of the fundamental groundshift for example, but the writing on the wall is very clear - creative power, cultural power, is returning to the hands of everyday people.
Unless they find a way to unplug the internet of course.
95 years? thats negating the right to use music that you have heard your whole life. Do these people voting understand why theres a limit?
Basically record companies and big media want to extend copyright because as the middleman between those who create and those who enjoy the creation, they get to scoop off 90% of the profits. Some of these profits they put into lobbying corrupt politicians, and don't think we haven't noticed who exactly they are.
But look what's happening - there are three effects coming together here. First of all, older creative works are being locked down by these media groups, for longer periods. Second of all, they had power through distribution and marketing networks, if you weren't with them, you would never be seen/heard. Thirdly, they had the means to create these artistic works, printers for books, sound studios for music, movie studios for well movies. Right now, distribution is basically free, so that's one incentive to sign a contract gone. And the cost to create these works is dropping daily. I can write, publish and make a fortune off a book right now if I want, no contracts signed with anyone. Music likewise. Even movies, I can buy a thousand euros worth of equipment and make a pretty damn good movie out of it, with enough patience. The bar is lowering.
So ultimately what might end up happening is the middlemen with their lock on older creative content will fade away, leaving behind only the shell of the laws they helped create, and from that will come an entirely fresh take on culture, a renaissance as it were. I still don't agree that copyrights should be more than say 24 years max, just pointing out that these copyright extensions will do no good whatsoever for the media giants, their time is done.
That's about as useful as saying "whoever wants it more will win the game", along with a list of other mind-over-matter clichés.
Not really. One example that I can think of (I haven't the details handy) was when two liferafts were deployed from a sinking ship, same equipment in each, same number of people. In one the captain lost the run of himself, didn't keep up discipline, and eventually ended up dying, while the people in his raft were malnourished and near death when recovered. On the other raft however the first mate maintained discipline, kept up spirits, and his guys were able to get into the recovery ship unassisted.
WTF? Who's gonna not have the will to survive? Isn't screaming in fear an indication of this desire?
There's a difference between the will to live and the will to survive. Survival means you live by reasoning, determination, training, and actions. Living simply means you continue to breathe until you are found. The will to survive is the mental conditioning of your mind to survive no matter what man, nature, or luck throws at you. Never underestimate the power of the mind.
You've the problem of your mouth and throat instantly icing over at -50c to deal with then. Better to conserve heat and hold your breath until you are a bit lower.
I'd rather be thinking "Hey I can see my house from here, wheeeeeeeee" than spending my last few minutes in blind animal terror. Sure, the last thing going through my mind would probably be my feet, but that's no reason to quit!
You don't get bonus points for "but he survived to feel the impact" on your autopsy report.
There is no effing achievement for that!
Meh, I'd rather not be put down in my sleep like an ailing pet, thanks. More seriously though, the will to survive is probably the single most important factor in any survival situation, closely followed by knowledge of what to do in your environment. Its shocking how many people just give up, lie down and die, sometimes when help was close at hand. Keeping your spirits up is vital, even if you've just been sucked out of a plane!:D
That was compared to winning the lottery ten times in a row though. I'd say there are probably a few maneuvers you could pull to maximise your chances of survival though - curl up into a ball for the first while (Heat Escape Lessening Posture), then go limp for the last bit of the fall. Are there things you can do to help mitigate sudden pressure changes, like breathe out all the air in your lungs?
Maybe some people would rather go unconscious given the minimal chances of surviving the impact, but sod that, I want every last second baby.:D
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe google has an exception to its duplicate content rules built in for forums, since there is often a lot of copypasta being served as people discuss news stories etc?
I don't know, chess has a reputation of being the board game for the intelligentsia. If that were they case why are well known chess masters also not polymaths, CEOs, and world famous research scientists? Teaching children how to play chess will only improve their skills in one area - playing chess. It's a game you can even program a microchip to succeed at, which should be an indicator of the mental plumbing needed to achieve good results in chess. They might get better real world results by using something like Red Alert 2, where the pieces have vastly more moves.
Don't get me wrong, chess is a fun game, but it is an end unto itself.
I was more referring to using laptops versus say pen and paper.
Also, the productivity increases allowed by the use of laptops and computers far outweigh the alternative energy costs, by several orders of magnitude I'd say. I'm all for efficiency, but there is a distressing tendency to look at any energy use as being a bad thing. Energy is not in short supply, the only deficiency is in our ability to harness it effectively, an issue which I anticipate will be addressed over the coming fifty to a hundred years.
Yup, stone and wood carving and freehand sketching over here, also camping and bushcraft.
We don't care about your internal sectarian strife between extremist protestant cults and academia, and would like to read interesting comments about the new dinosaur. So far in this thread there have been none, not a one.
Kind regards
The rest of the world
If it works for radioactivity, could it work for almost anything? I mean could you literally put blood in one end and get clean water out the other? Not sure where I'm going with this but intersting...
Oh sarcasm, that's much better than trying to see the point I was making. Which is that there is no shortage of energy. As for wiring, look up HVDC and DESERTEC.
They never stop to think about how much energy we actually need and compare it to how much energy can be captured by the green efforts. Unfortunately, there is a HUGE gap between those two numbers and no amount of "good faith" will close that gap.
Covering 2% of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with PV cells would supply all of the planet's power requirements.
Per produced unit though, nuclear regularly costs 2-3 times as much as wind anyway. Note that's not per installed unit but per PRODUCED unit, taking into account efficiencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Recent_construction_cost_estimates
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf
And wind maintenance is cheaper than nuclear, according to a recent Eirgrid publication. See also the European Supergrid project and DESERTEC for reference.
Apart from the usual "OMG, it's nuclear!!!" there are no valid arguments against nuclear power.
Except that it's 2-3 times more expensive than wind. Nuclear is great when you have no other options, but most places have many other options, renewable ones at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Recent_construction_cost_estimates
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf
See also the European Supergrid project and DESERTEC for reference.
We already have the technology necessary to prevent world hunger, it's called birth control.
We don't even need technology to prevent world hunger, all we need are free and open democratic systems everywhere. Once you take out the dictators who hoard food and resources for themselves, world hunger becomes a past issue.
What is there on the moon or Mars to make it worth going there. Why should anyone want to live there?
Probably quite a bit, but we probably won't know till we get there. :D I'd be a lot more interested in the asteroids as an intermediate step, literally trillions of dollars worth of raw materials just floating around out there, and a gigantic nuclear furnace just pouring out free energy to help you process it right behind you. Welcome to the post scarcity society. Once we have that licked we can swan about planetary gravity wells on a whim, probably even create macroengineered catapults to make insterstellar travel more accessable eventually too.
Oh and your going to live the rest of your life in this box, you will never see the destination, nor will your children, their children, their children's children, and likely ten more generations after that.
Most people spend most of their lives in a tiny geographic area anyway, the only difference is you couldn't take holidays.
Even if that slightly far fetched scenario was to take place, and how bad things have gotten that it's only "slightly" far fetched, all it will do is hasten the inevitable. Unless they find a way to legally force anyone who wants to create something new to use their marketing channels, use their equipment, use their distribution networks, or use their IP, they are done. Other giants will arise of course, Apple has positioned itself well to take advantage of the fundamental groundshift for example, but the writing on the wall is very clear - creative power, cultural power, is returning to the hands of everyday people.
Unless they find a way to unplug the internet of course.
Haha.
Yeah, its about time Google had some competition in that area. :-p
95 years? thats negating the right to use music that you have heard your whole life. Do these people voting understand why theres a limit?
Basically record companies and big media want to extend copyright because as the middleman between those who create and those who enjoy the creation, they get to scoop off 90% of the profits. Some of these profits they put into lobbying corrupt politicians, and don't think we haven't noticed who exactly they are.
But look what's happening - there are three effects coming together here. First of all, older creative works are being locked down by these media groups, for longer periods. Second of all, they had power through distribution and marketing networks, if you weren't with them, you would never be seen/heard. Thirdly, they had the means to create these artistic works, printers for books, sound studios for music, movie studios for well movies. Right now, distribution is basically free, so that's one incentive to sign a contract gone. And the cost to create these works is dropping daily. I can write, publish and make a fortune off a book right now if I want, no contracts signed with anyone. Music likewise. Even movies, I can buy a thousand euros worth of equipment and make a pretty damn good movie out of it, with enough patience. The bar is lowering.
So ultimately what might end up happening is the middlemen with their lock on older creative content will fade away, leaving behind only the shell of the laws they helped create, and from that will come an entirely fresh take on culture, a renaissance as it were. I still don't agree that copyrights should be more than say 24 years max, just pointing out that these copyright extensions will do no good whatsoever for the media giants, their time is done.
That's about as useful as saying "whoever wants it more will win the game", along with a list of other mind-over-matter clichés.
Not really. One example that I can think of (I haven't the details handy) was when two liferafts were deployed from a sinking ship, same equipment in each, same number of people. In one the captain lost the run of himself, didn't keep up discipline, and eventually ended up dying, while the people in his raft were malnourished and near death when recovered. On the other raft however the first mate maintained discipline, kept up spirits, and his guys were able to get into the recovery ship unassisted.
Mental attitude makes all the difference.
WTF? Who's gonna not have the will to survive? Isn't screaming in fear an indication of this desire?
There's a difference between the will to live and the will to survive. Survival means you live by reasoning, determination, training, and actions. Living simply means you continue to breathe until you are found. The will to survive is the mental conditioning of your mind to survive no matter what man, nature, or luck throws at you. Never underestimate the power of the mind.
You've the problem of your mouth and throat instantly icing over at -50c to deal with then. Better to conserve heat and hold your breath until you are a bit lower.
I'd rather be thinking "Hey I can see my house from here, wheeeeeeeee" than spending my last few minutes in blind animal terror. Sure, the last thing going through my mind would probably be my feet, but that's no reason to quit!
You don't get bonus points for "but he survived to feel the impact" on your autopsy report.
There is no effing achievement for that!
Meh, I'd rather not be put down in my sleep like an ailing pet, thanks. More seriously though, the will to survive is probably the single most important factor in any survival situation, closely followed by knowledge of what to do in your environment. Its shocking how many people just give up, lie down and die, sometimes when help was close at hand. Keeping your spirits up is vital, even if you've just been sucked out of a plane! :D
That was compared to winning the lottery ten times in a row though. I'd say there are probably a few maneuvers you could pull to maximise your chances of survival though - curl up into a ball for the first while (Heat Escape Lessening Posture), then go limp for the last bit of the fall. Are there things you can do to help mitigate sudden pressure changes, like breathe out all the air in your lungs?
Maybe some people would rather go unconscious given the minimal chances of surviving the impact, but sod that, I want every last second baby. :D
+5 please.
Is it wrong that I mentally read that in a rough baritone?
Its starting to look more and more like project Rho haven't really got a clue what they are talking about though:
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/03/while_doing_some_poking_around.php