Generating tissues on scaffolding outside the body is here. There are people with functional bladders that were grown outside of their bodies from cells harvested from their bodies and then implanted, and the summary mentions that doctors are growing an ear.
Sending the proper message to the body to cause it to regrow specific tissues with the correct functions, forms and locations is the holy grail, and I'm pretty sure the guy that used salamander protein powder on the tip of his finger is just about the only human research.
The stealth technology at the point the plane was designed required that the plane have flat surfaces. The plane was built, on purpose, in the face of a major design limitation. As much as anything, it was a proof of concept that got more funding than it should have(i.e., the military probably didn't need to actually buy a production run).
The F-22 might not have better stealth than we realize, but it is pretty clear that it is a whole new class of aircraft(beating expert F-15 pilots 3 to 1 is no joke) and it is stealthier than anything else that provides similar capabilities.
There is no science that agrees with it either(that is, at the moment, there is no notion of there being any evidence that could be used to support the kick start).
It could be treated philosophically or theologically, but not scientifically.
Wait, you need science to tell you that fish live better underwater than humans and believe that the Nazi's achieved a peaceful society? Wow.
And it isn't the notion of free will that is under assault, it is the definition of free will. "I'm a product of incredibly complicated information and I am not particularly subject to the information in my immediate surroundings" isn't really all that less satisfying than "I have a soul that exists separate from my body", unless you are very hung up on the "separate from my body" part.
Assuming that you put your first name in your email address, I have to comment that "Floyd" is just a good name for using in comedy. It isn't particularly common and it just seems like a name you could shout at someone, both of which are comedy gold. FLOYD!
So maybe it wasn't about your complaints, but about seeing a name that worked good.
Poor regulation was complicit in the fall of Bear Stearns. They were operating with obscene amounts of leverage (up to 30x if I remember correctly), with almost no transparency about what they were doing. Many of their creditors believed otherwise (most other investment banks were their creditors, among thousands of individuals who owned Bear Stearns bonds).
My parents own some Bear Stearns debt (some supposedly highly rated bonds at a reasonably high interest rate), so I may be biased. Their stock broker sold it to them as a good investment. I would rather they had bought some sort of basket with less, more distributed risk (i.e a mutual fund or etf with a lower interest rate) and I told them as much, but I'm not really sure that they did something stupid when they bought the bonds, and I don't think the broker would have sold them the bonds if there had been a clearer public picture what was going on inside of Bear Stearns.
I have a hard time agreeing that my parents should be the ones punished when the government, their broker, the rating agency that rated the bonds and Bear Stearns all failed to do their job (notice that everybody in that equation has already been paid, fees, fees, taxes and salary).
You are speaking with too much certainty again, with regard to CO2. Also, coal is probably a bigger radiation problem than nuclear. Waste is still a serious issue with nuclear, but the fact that it is generally rather solid is a big advantage, as is the ratio of energy production to waste production.
Saying the government bailed out all of those companies is a gross and horrible oversimplification.
People who Bear Stearns owed money to got bailed out. Bear Stearns no longer exists as a company(most of the operations continue to exist under J.P. Morgan).
Countrywide and Citigroup didn't get anything more than cheap credit from the government.
Flash objects become nice friendly play buttons that you activate only when you choose. There is even a whitelist if there are sites that you visit just for their flash content.
My understanding of estimates made by people a lot more qualified than I am is that the global population is going to peak at somewhere less than 15 billion, sometime during this century. So population driven demand is not unbounded. Standard of living driven demand is clearly going to go up by a huge amount.
If that is the case, doubling efficiency once would almost allow for present day standards of living(which are abysmal), but doubling efficiency three or four times and increasing energy production by some linear factor(rather than geometrically like you are proposing) would allow for a reasonable global standard of living. If population actually starts to decrease, per capita consumption of energy could go up without increasing production.
I think nuclear is a great idea. I don't think it is such a great idea that solar research should just be shelved(especially when current capital recovery times are approaching 10 years. Get that down to 3-5 years and people are going to start offsetting their air conditioning and what not). Where feasible(cost, demand profile, etc.), replacing coal with something with much a clearer environmental impact(I think this includes nuclear, good luck at town hall meetings...) is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
A 1 billion dollar highway isn't necessarily better than a 1 million dollar highway.
Iraq is insane, but it doesn't automatically reflect on the spending levels for this type of research.
Generating tissues on scaffolding outside the body is here. There are people with functional bladders that were grown outside of their bodies from cells harvested from their bodies and then implanted, and the summary mentions that doctors are growing an ear.
Sending the proper message to the body to cause it to regrow specific tissues with the correct functions, forms and locations is the holy grail, and I'm pretty sure the guy that used salamander protein powder on the tip of his finger is just about the only human research.
Some customers like their service packs on shiny CD's. Those actually get made somewhere.
The stealth technology at the point the plane was designed required that the plane have flat surfaces. The plane was built, on purpose, in the face of a major design limitation. As much as anything, it was a proof of concept that got more funding than it should have(i.e., the military probably didn't need to actually buy a production run).
The F-22 might not have better stealth than we realize, but it is pretty clear that it is a whole new class of aircraft(beating expert F-15 pilots 3 to 1 is no joke) and it is stealthier than anything else that provides similar capabilities.
http://brlcad.org/
Probably not a direct competitor, but it wouldn't be utterly shocking if there was functional overlap.
Radical scientists are calling the movie dishonest:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled
There are probably more fundamentalist Bible believing evangelical Genesis describes evolution Christians in the U.S. than there are in Britain.
There also happens to be a rather large group of fundamentalist I believe every-damn-thing my pa told me Christians in the U.S.
There is no science that agrees with it either(that is, at the moment, there is no notion of there being any evidence that could be used to support the kick start).
It could be treated philosophically or theologically, but not scientifically.
Wait, you need science to tell you that fish live better underwater than humans and believe that the Nazi's achieved a peaceful society? Wow.
And it isn't the notion of free will that is under assault, it is the definition of free will. "I'm a product of incredibly complicated information and I am not particularly subject to the information in my immediate surroundings" isn't really all that less satisfying than "I have a soul that exists separate from my body", unless you are very hung up on the "separate from my body" part.
You mean the Zebra sneezes and it doesn't affect the gigawatt scale prevailing wind?!
Assuming that you put your first name in your email address, I have to comment that "Floyd" is just a good name for using in comedy. It isn't particularly common and it just seems like a name you could shout at someone, both of which are comedy gold. FLOYD!
So maybe it wasn't about your complaints, but about seeing a name that worked good.
Poor regulation was complicit in the fall of Bear Stearns. They were operating with obscene amounts of leverage (up to 30x if I remember correctly), with almost no transparency about what they were doing. Many of their creditors believed otherwise (most other investment banks were their creditors, among thousands of individuals who owned Bear Stearns bonds).
My parents own some Bear Stearns debt (some supposedly highly rated bonds at a reasonably high interest rate), so I may be biased. Their stock broker sold it to them as a good investment. I would rather they had bought some sort of basket with less, more distributed risk (i.e a mutual fund or etf with a lower interest rate) and I told them as much, but I'm not really sure that they did something stupid when they bought the bonds, and I don't think the broker would have sold them the bonds if there had been a clearer public picture what was going on inside of Bear Stearns.
I have a hard time agreeing that my parents should be the ones punished when the government, their broker, the rating agency that rated the bonds and Bear Stearns all failed to do their job (notice that everybody in that equation has already been paid, fees, fees, taxes and salary).
The purchase of Skype for $4 billion was the short sighted bullshit typical of publicly traded American companies.
I guess they might make that back if they hold on to it for a long time, but I sort of doubt it.
You are speaking with too much certainty again, with regard to CO2. Also, coal is probably a bigger radiation problem than nuclear. Waste is still a serious issue with nuclear, but the fact that it is generally rather solid is a big advantage, as is the ratio of energy production to waste production.
Saying the government bailed out all of those companies is a gross and horrible oversimplification.
People who Bear Stearns owed money to got bailed out. Bear Stearns no longer exists as a company(most of the operations continue to exist under J.P. Morgan).
Countrywide and Citigroup didn't get anything more than cheap credit from the government.
I'm sort of guessing here, but how often do you cross the width of a bridge?
Pretty sure the same sort of thing is going on.
So instead of breaking, a modern OS just stops working?
Neat.
If you are using Firefox, you might like Flashblock:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/433/
Flash objects become nice friendly play buttons that you activate only when you choose. There is even a whitelist if there are sites that you visit just for their flash content.
Well, if you can get the SSD for less than you would pay for a brand new laptop, it might make sense.
Do let us know if you find a large SSD that costs less than $600.
Why would you chop off a perfectly good minigun just to sew on a pointless 3rd arm?
Unfortunately, explaining or presenting a decent set of ethics does very little to actually instill those ethics.
The point where human spirit triumphs?
We've been there for a long, long time.
My understanding of estimates made by people a lot more qualified than I am is that the global population is going to peak at somewhere less than 15 billion, sometime during this century. So population driven demand is not unbounded. Standard of living driven demand is clearly going to go up by a huge amount.
If that is the case, doubling efficiency once would almost allow for present day standards of living(which are abysmal), but doubling efficiency three or four times and increasing energy production by some linear factor(rather than geometrically like you are proposing) would allow for a reasonable global standard of living. If population actually starts to decrease, per capita consumption of energy could go up without increasing production.
I think nuclear is a great idea. I don't think it is such a great idea that solar research should just be shelved(especially when current capital recovery times are approaching 10 years. Get that down to 3-5 years and people are going to start offsetting their air conditioning and what not). Where feasible(cost, demand profile, etc.), replacing coal with something with much a clearer environmental impact(I think this includes nuclear, good luck at town hall meetings...) is a good thing.
If it pays for itself, it probably isn't an energy sink.
For most homes, better insulation and heat pumps(already mentioned by another reply) will probably save more energy for less dollars.
One gets to become high geek when they try to become high geek. The title is awarded as a penalty.