If you figure there's one Coke vending machine per 100 people, that's 3 million Coke machines in the US alone. So certainly the scale (if we extend to worldwide) is about right.
It all depends on how those "memories" can be dumped/viewed. If *only you* can view your own memories, then I don't see a problem. Depending on the neuroscience and the technology, this might indeed be how things end up. But I kinda doubt it.
This isn't my issue with it either. My (irrational) hatred for Glass-wearers is along the same vein as my disdain for people who have their cell phones out at nice restaurants while their dining companions are with them (often with their own cell phones out). Glass is a statement that you can't bear to be disconnected from the internet for fifteen fucking minutes while you enjoy a nice meal, a walk outside, or a social event. But yeah, it's not jealously.
Snowden began feeding top-secret documents detailing the National Security Agency's surveillance programs to The Guardian and other newspapers.
Does anyone know how Snowden decides which paper to leak which document to? For instance, The Washington Post seems to get more than its fair share. IIRC a plurality go to The Guardian. Is there some strategy behind where he leaks what? A cynical person would assume there's a bidding war going on, but most (legit) newspapers view it as unethical to pay for stories. [PDF]
Microryza, which appears to basically be Kickstarter for science projects, was recently brought to my attention. It doesn't look like there's anything barring non-academics / "amateurs" from starting up a project.
people who code on the job but aren't counted among the developer ranks
This part makes this whole result pretty absurd, imo. My job title is research scientist, though I'm more of a data scientist. In any case, you can't do my job without a fair amount of coding. I would certainly not classify myself as a hobbyist.
I haven't done the calculation, but I'd imagine that the odds of an airliner getting hit by a stray beam are much less than the odds of a civilian being hit by a stray bullet. Basing this off of the lower density of airliners in the night sky vs. people in a city. Also beams are a bit more predictable (unless reflective-material ricochet is indeed a concern).
Microbes can live on household surfaces for hundreds of years, however, is that most don't. Some well-known viruses, like HIV, live only a few seconds.
Silly me for not bothering to read past the answer to my question. Microbes aren't immortal. Ergo, they can die from "old age." Possibly obvious and not worth linking to? Granted.
Assuming the laser platform wasn't firing through some complicated Rube Goldberg-style mirror setup, wouldn't you be able to figure out where it was fired from based on where on the drone was hit / angle of incidence? If I get shot in the back, my buddies aren't going to look in front of me for my shooter.
I'm not a firearms enthusiast. But if I had to be armed, I would choose a "slug thrower" over a ray-gun any day--much less complicated tech that can go wrong. And, as people have pointed out elsewhere, bullets are not stopped (and bounced back) by reflective sheeting.
-More like cooked--these beams aren't visible spectrum.
-Yes, I'd rather be blind than have a bullet to the head.
-Cities and buildings shouldn't be in the linear line of fire of these beams (which will mainly be shooting up). The issue that X0563511 brought up is based on that obscure sciencey concept that things that go up usually come back down.
Using beam splitters, you could in theory target as many targets as the laser can handle while keeping the beams directed. You wouldn't even need to have multiple targeting systems--I vaguely remember seeing a talk once (where the lasers were being used for optical trapping) where the beam pattern was controlled by a single piece of optics.
Even if the problem is "between the dispenser and the faucet," as it were, it's still a problem. It's not like these soaps feature huge warning labels or, hell, even legibly-sized instructions, that say, "YOU MUST RINSE YOUR HANDS FOR UPWARDS OF TWO MINUTES OR ELSE THE SUPERBUGS WIN!!!" If they did that, then I think your argument would be valid, but when you make a product KNOWING that most people won't devote that long to scrubbing and you know that failure to do so will just lead to antibacterial-resistant strains, I call that negligence.
Agreed. If you really care about sharing gameplay videos, you're probably going to invest in a HD PVR so you can control your own content, edit/annotate/narrate and upload wherever you want.
My point in posting that was simply that we don't know what advances in physics will arise in the next few billion years. Just because the Second Law seems unbreakable now doesn't mean it will always be that way.
I agree with you that people erroneously assume that manned space exploration is done primarily for the purpose of scientific exploration. While it is certainly true--especially in previous eras--that exploration of our solar system is often best accomplished by intelligent and adaptable human beings as close to the "action" as possible, there's another reason why we need to develop capabilities for manned space flight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkj2lR9CT08
Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes.. and all of this.. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars.
Slashdot Mirror
Though the obvious response is, "for now."
Yes. Yes I am.
Back-of-the-hand estimation. Just looking for an order of magnitude figure here.
If you figure there's one Coke vending machine per 100 people, that's 3 million Coke machines in the US alone. So certainly the scale (if we extend to worldwide) is about right.
It all depends on how those "memories" can be dumped/viewed. If *only you* can view your own memories, then I don't see a problem. Depending on the neuroscience and the technology, this might indeed be how things end up. But I kinda doubt it.
This isn't my issue with it either. My (irrational) hatred for Glass-wearers is along the same vein as my disdain for people who have their cell phones out at nice restaurants while their dining companions are with them (often with their own cell phones out). Glass is a statement that you can't bear to be disconnected from the internet for fifteen fucking minutes while you enjoy a nice meal, a walk outside, or a social event. But yeah, it's not jealously.
Snowden began feeding top-secret documents detailing the National Security Agency's surveillance programs to The Guardian and other newspapers.
Does anyone know how Snowden decides which paper to leak which document to? For instance, The Washington Post seems to get more than its fair share. IIRC a plurality go to The Guardian. Is there some strategy behind where he leaks what? A cynical person would assume there's a bidding war going on, but most (legit) newspapers view it as unethical to pay for stories. [PDF]
Microryza, which appears to basically be Kickstarter for science projects, was recently brought to my attention. It doesn't look like there's anything barring non-academics / "amateurs" from starting up a project.
bah, stupid fat fingers. Obviously that should have read "research," unless you buy that I was going for a Russian accent there...
As long as he called it, please, "resarch."
people who code on the job but aren't counted among the developer ranks
This part makes this whole result pretty absurd, imo. My job title is research scientist, though I'm more of a data scientist. In any case, you can't do my job without a fair amount of coding. I would certainly not classify myself as a hobbyist.
I haven't done the calculation, but I'd imagine that the odds of an airliner getting hit by a stray beam are much less than the odds of a civilian being hit by a stray bullet. Basing this off of the lower density of airliners in the night sky vs. people in a city. Also beams are a bit more predictable (unless reflective-material ricochet is indeed a concern).
Microbes can live on household surfaces for hundreds of years, however, is that most don't. Some well-known viruses, like HIV, live only a few seconds.
Silly me for not bothering to read past the answer to my question. Microbes aren't immortal. Ergo, they can die from "old age." Possibly obvious and not worth linking to? Granted.
Assuming the laser platform wasn't firing through some complicated Rube Goldberg-style mirror setup, wouldn't you be able to figure out where it was fired from based on where on the drone was hit / angle of incidence? If I get shot in the back, my buddies aren't going to look in front of me for my shooter.
I'm not a firearms enthusiast. But if I had to be armed, I would choose a "slug thrower" over a ray-gun any day--much less complicated tech that can go wrong. And, as people have pointed out elsewhere, bullets are not stopped (and bounced back) by reflective sheeting.
Several things wrong with this.
-More like cooked--these beams aren't visible spectrum.
-Yes, I'd rather be blind than have a bullet to the head.
-Cities and buildings shouldn't be in the linear line of fire of these beams (which will mainly be shooting up). The issue that X0563511 brought up is based on that obscure sciencey concept that things that go up usually come back down.
Using beam splitters, you could in theory target as many targets as the laser can handle while keeping the beams directed. You wouldn't even need to have multiple targeting systems--I vaguely remember seeing a talk once (where the lasers were being used for optical trapping) where the beam pattern was controlled by a single piece of optics.
Considering drones should be susceptible to conventional means of destruction (read: bullets, missiles), I was wondering why bother with directed energy weapons? The answer appears to be (1) discretion (because a drone dropping out of the sky is totally not attention-grabbing) (2) the ability to shoot through walls (okay, that's pretty cool), and (3) lower "cost per kill."
The issue is not whether they kill germs. Hell, "old age" will eventually kill bacteria. The issue is whether antibacterial soaps are any more effective than just soap and water.
Even if the problem is "between the dispenser and the faucet," as it were, it's still a problem. It's not like these soaps feature huge warning labels or, hell, even legibly-sized instructions, that say, "YOU MUST RINSE YOUR HANDS FOR UPWARDS OF TWO MINUTES OR ELSE THE SUPERBUGS WIN!!!" If they did that, then I think your argument would be valid, but when you make a product KNOWING that most people won't devote that long to scrubbing and you know that failure to do so will just lead to antibacterial-resistant strains, I call that negligence.
Agreed. If you really care about sharing gameplay videos, you're probably going to invest in a HD PVR so you can control your own content, edit/annotate/narrate and upload wherever you want.
My point in posting that was simply that we don't know what advances in physics will arise in the next few billion years. Just because the Second Law seems unbreakable now doesn't mean it will always be that way.
http://www.thrivenotes.com/the-last-question/
There should be one between Corvallis and Oregon.
Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars.