Not only would a brain simulator have to simulate neurons, but also synapses, neurotransmitters, neurotransmitter receptor types, glial cell types (e.g. astrocyte computation), mRNA expression and probably about a library of congress worth of stuff we don't even know about yet.
That's essentially true, but this beats out solar and wind on the grounds of power density. For nations with not a lot of land area available to devote to energy farming, these will come out on top. Just one of these reactors will likely put out 1-2 Gigawatts. Sustained. That's hundreds of acres equivalent for solar or wind, during ideal conditions only.
How is there not a single post on the actual nuclear technology he is researching and advocating for! C'mon nerds!
Traveling wave reactors (google them) are projected to run without refueling for 60 years on what is 'waste' now and then become the storage facility for the next ~500 years until it fades into background rad. Oh, and they're made to be put in the ground like missile silos. Think of them as nuclear candles. Without having to refuel by hand and taking people out of the equation as much as possible the chances for error get reduced significantly. They also have large negative energy coefficients so a loss of coolant does not lead to a meltdown.
After researching as much as possible into TWRs I'd say the current stage of developement is trying to get the exact alloy of uranium, burnable poisons (look these up too, they're sweet), etc just right to create a long lived sustained reaction. I'd imagine that such work is really heavy on the super computer time.
I hope that these researchers have access to lots of money and super computer time. If only there was some tech billionaire funding them...
True, but misleading. Traveling wave reactors extend our fissile material by 1000s of years.
I would not call nuclear power a dead horse. Boiling water and light water reactors, sure.
High tech nuclear power is the only source of power we have to be able to deploy exponential electricity rapidly. Why would we need that? For the robot welfare state!
If you want to earn some bitcoins, I have some work for you...how are you at making web graphics?
You sort of miss the whole point of the early miners. The idea is to get a fair number of bitcoins into circulation, the fact that it's becoming harder to mine is a good thing (for bitcoin business owners). It means that the number of coins is stabilizing. Now they can be used for trading. If everybody is able to make their own coins then it just becomes monopoly money. It's the insured scarcity of the coins that gives them value.
Governments don't need to make Bitcoin illegal. They just need to make it unusably unstable. Ramp up the price, then make it crash. Over and Over. Nobody would use a currency system that swings wildly in value from day to day.
That said, I've already donated to XKCD www.xkcd.com/bitcoin
~S
I'd say an atomic explosion is about the worst you can go in terms of a nuclear accident. Japan has had the bomb dropped on them twice and both cities are still inhabited less than 100 years later. At worst, that 1% of the time may create some 'forced nature preserves'.
That said, I agree with you that the technology is only as strong as its weakest link, which is by far human interaction. The more automated and robotically maintained a nuclear plant could become the better off we'd all be.
Wouldn't it be great to be part of the generation that set up the world's power for the next 1000 years? It's possible with nuclear tech. It's not all designed today, but people are working towards that goal.
Read up on traveling wave reactors and watch Bill Gate's TED talk about it....it gives me hope that we can overcome the crappy nuclear tech we currently have today and replace it with something orders of magnitude safer, more efficient, and more abundant.
That's the problem...it'd have to program itself to get around that potential for corruption. At the very least, audit itself. We monkeys are a tricky bunch.
The conclusion would then be to have a computer controlled government!
Ideally, I'd like to see a computer controlled 'executive' branch and a human legislature. However, the legislature would have to provide solid evidence for overriding the executive decisions. If the process were completely open so that the public could observe and participate...who knows.
"The circuits for human language is ingrained into the brain at birth by our DNA"
I would disagree and say it's more the function of mirror neurons versus any specific 'language only' neurons. Brain damage due to stroke or brain tumors show that the language centers of the brain can actually move around, suggesting that where the language centers are currently is not inherent to its function.
Maybe there needs to be one of those 'team building' ropes courses like those found at summer camps...but online.
Some sort of activity where teamwork is required and dividing positions are superfluous to the task at hand. Once friendships are established talking about differing philosophical viewpoints becomes civil and rational. It's only when the 'other side' is viewed as a pack of rabid Palinistas (or Obama kool-aid drinkers) that we lose any hope of decent discourse.
Ya wankers.
Re:Sorry but it does not meet the criteria
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
It's not so much that it isn't a 'drug' but more that it is a desirable, or reinforcing behavior caused by the substance.
People are calling it a 'drug' because refined sugar has a similar psychoactive drug profile as many drugs of abuse. Typically, it is the quick come up and quick crash that is an indicator of an addictive drug. This is why taking a drug through the veins is much worse than eating it. Smoking is also nearly instantaneous.
Sugary/fatty foods have an initial rush, then a crash. The fiber slows down this rush, leading to it being less reinforcing.
This same psychoactive profile is partly why marijuana is less addictive than drugs such as cocaine or meth. Even taking heroin isn't a death sentence if you take it orally. IV heroin on the other hand is a one way ticket to junky town.
Slashdot Mirror
You pretty much hit it on the nose.
Not only would a brain simulator have to simulate neurons, but also synapses, neurotransmitters, neurotransmitter receptor types, glial cell types (e.g. astrocyte computation), mRNA expression and probably about a library of congress worth of stuff we don't even know about yet.
That's essentially true, but this beats out solar and wind on the grounds of power density. For nations with not a lot of land area available to devote to energy farming, these will come out on top. Just one of these reactors will likely put out 1-2 Gigawatts. Sustained. That's hundreds of acres equivalent for solar or wind, during ideal conditions only.
This won't get anywhere near simulating a brain.
How is there not a single post on the actual nuclear technology he is researching and advocating for! C'mon nerds!
Traveling wave reactors (google them) are projected to run without refueling for 60 years on what is 'waste' now and then become the storage facility for the next ~500 years until it fades into background rad. Oh, and they're made to be put in the ground like missile silos. Think of them as nuclear candles. Without having to refuel by hand and taking people out of the equation as much as possible the chances for error get reduced significantly. They also have large negative energy coefficients so a loss of coolant does not lead to a meltdown.
After researching as much as possible into TWRs I'd say the current stage of developement is trying to get the exact alloy of uranium, burnable poisons (look these up too, they're sweet), etc just right to create a long lived sustained reaction. I'd imagine that such work is really heavy on the super computer time.
I hope that these researchers have access to lots of money and super computer time. If only there was some tech billionaire funding them...
Beat me to it! MMOs always gave off the addictive drug stink to me, this just proves it further.
"Other nations of europe, please get rid of your nuclear power..and buy from us!"
"Fuel is finite"
True, but misleading. Traveling wave reactors extend our fissile material by 1000s of years.
I would not call nuclear power a dead horse. Boiling water and light water reactors, sure.
High tech nuclear power is the only source of power we have to be able to deploy exponential electricity rapidly. Why would we need that? For the robot welfare state!
~Scott
With Bitcoin all(heh) it takes is a VPN, Tor, and public wifi to ensure anonymity. Not easy, but certainly better than paypal...
If you want to earn some bitcoins, I have some work for you...how are you at making web graphics?
You sort of miss the whole point of the early miners. The idea is to get a fair number of bitcoins into circulation, the fact that it's becoming harder to mine is a good thing (for bitcoin business owners). It means that the number of coins is stabilizing. Now they can be used for trading. If everybody is able to make their own coins then it just becomes monopoly money. It's the insured scarcity of the coins that gives them value.
There's always BitCoin.....
There are methods of doing this, they are very complex and can render very little useful visual information.
You'd have as much success by sending pictures to an opera singer then having him call you with a description in song.
HOLY SHIT!
If you can print your own money and need to destabilize a competitor, why not?
Traceable to an IP. Now, are you claiming an IP address = a person?
Governments don't need to make Bitcoin illegal. They just need to make it unusably unstable. Ramp up the price, then make it crash. Over and Over. Nobody would use a currency system that swings wildly in value from day to day.
That said, I've already donated to XKCD www.xkcd.com/bitcoin ~S
I'd say an atomic explosion is about the worst you can go in terms of a nuclear accident. Japan has had the bomb dropped on them twice and both cities are still inhabited less than 100 years later. At worst, that 1% of the time may create some 'forced nature preserves'.
That said, I agree with you that the technology is only as strong as its weakest link, which is by far human interaction. The more automated and robotically maintained a nuclear plant could become the better off we'd all be.
Wouldn't it be great to be part of the generation that set up the world's power for the next 1000 years? It's possible with nuclear tech. It's not all designed today, but people are working towards that goal.
Read up on traveling wave reactors and watch Bill Gate's TED talk about it....it gives me hope that we can overcome the crappy nuclear tech we currently have today and replace it with something orders of magnitude safer, more efficient, and more abundant.
The very fact that you say 'Wind Plant' shows you don't quite grasp the power density of wind power.
It's more like *Wind Farming*.
Thousands of acres would need to be set aside for a wind farm large enough to power a city.
What if it was hit by a hurricane or tornado?
Da Vinci would be proud.
That's the problem...it'd have to program itself to get around that potential for corruption. At the very least, audit itself. We monkeys are a tricky bunch.
You've caught me several times!
Each time I read a post of yours I at first think you're being sarcastic or facetious. Turns out you're for real though.
Go lick door knobs, your finely adjusted back should keep you safe.
The conclusion would then be to have a computer controlled government!
Ideally, I'd like to see a computer controlled 'executive' branch and a human legislature. However, the legislature would have to provide solid evidence for overriding the executive decisions. If the process were completely open so that the public could observe and participate...who knows.
"The circuits for human language is ingrained into the brain at birth by our DNA"
I would disagree and say it's more the function of mirror neurons versus any specific 'language only' neurons. Brain damage due to stroke or brain tumors show that the language centers of the brain can actually move around, suggesting that where the language centers are currently is not inherent to its function.
Maybe there needs to be one of those 'team building' ropes courses like those found at summer camps...but online.
Some sort of activity where teamwork is required and dividing positions are superfluous to the task at hand. Once friendships are established talking about differing philosophical viewpoints becomes civil and rational. It's only when the 'other side' is viewed as a pack of rabid Palinistas (or Obama kool-aid drinkers) that we lose any hope of decent discourse.
Ya wankers.
It's not so much that it isn't a 'drug' but more that it is a desirable, or reinforcing behavior caused by the substance. People are calling it a 'drug' because refined sugar has a similar psychoactive drug profile as many drugs of abuse. Typically, it is the quick come up and quick crash that is an indicator of an addictive drug. This is why taking a drug through the veins is much worse than eating it. Smoking is also nearly instantaneous. Sugary/fatty foods have an initial rush, then a crash. The fiber slows down this rush, leading to it being less reinforcing. This same psychoactive profile is partly why marijuana is less addictive than drugs such as cocaine or meth. Even taking heroin isn't a death sentence if you take it orally. IV heroin on the other hand is a one way ticket to junky town.
http://www.spacex.com/