What like teleportation? If we're using already existing technology- why not teleport stuff up into space.
OK- OK- so we have no Star Trek like teleportation yet... we also don't have space-trains yet either.
Don't get me wrong sounds neat- if you ignore that it's an easy terrorist target/war target; vulnerable to natural disasters (cannot be moved); we have no concept of what it would realistically cost to build something like this- and you have the whole concept of NIMBY- where my back yard is a 500 mile radius- because if one of these things comes and shoots out at high velocity and isn't shooting straight (yeah, I know she said that) - no prediction on where this will go.
I don't want to be a downer- think it sounds fine- I just hope the negatives have been explored. Interesting idea really.
I see it two ways. Either you're guilty or you're innocent.
If you're innocent- what does it matter- even if the field test incorrectly says you're over the limit- you still get sent free when the real test at the station show's you're not over the limit. Best case for taking the field-test- you don't have to go to the station. Worst case- you go to the station. If you refuse the field test- you get the worst case scenario every time.
It's the same if you're guilty. I've the machine malfunctions and you don't go to the station (best case you get let go) - or it says you're guilty and you end up going to the station- where you get charged because the machine there confirms your guilt. At least if you take the field test you stand a chance of getting let go.
If you're borderline- take as many tests and slow things down as much as possible. Hopefully you'll be in the clear by the time you reach the station.
I see no benefit under any scenario to refuse the in-the-field breathalyser test.
Without the technology of the day- they would have died. Without knowing how to farm in the new worldy- what they could and could not eat- they would have starved.
Same holds true for Mars. Without technology the early settlers would die. Without knowing how to get the raw ingredients for life they will die. There was probalby a lower life-span and higher mortality for the earlier settlers of the Americas- this also will be true for Mars.
Over a couple generations- the knowledge to thrive will build. Same as the Americas. Mankind is the alpha-species on earth because they can adapt, will adapt, and do adapt.
You could say- well if technology collapsed they would all die.
Yes, they would.
If technology collapsed on earth- you know what- almost everyone here would die over a few years too.
The bridge is out. Let's go really fast- because, even though there is no ramp- the car/bus will life off the ground when it reaches the end of the bridge- thus offsetting gravity.
I believe if you work whilst in prison you are paid for it. Probably not much, and probably not very useful whilst behind bars.
Nonetheless- to compare prison with slavery is far off. Slaves typically did nothing wrong to become what they were- and the goal to owning slaves was that it would enrich the owners.
Prison is a huge drain on the economy. Your paint does little to pay for it. Also- (assuming no wrongfull arrest) to go to prison you have to actively decide to break the laws of the nation...
Slavery: Greed from the individual owner. Enriches lives or provides extra money for owner.
Prison: Protection for the citizens. Drains money from the nation.
We won't see a space elevator in our lifetime. We certainly won't see sky hooks- not on earth.
I expect to see man on Mars in my lifetime- and I believe it will be a permenant station. I don't think we will go UNTIL we can sustain a base there- a trip and back doesn't make sense.
I don't expect we will see mass migration to Mars or elsewhere in our lifetime... or my children's lifetime. My comment about "if only there were a planet" was more tongue-in-cheek.
Eventually, yes. There will be many men who live outside of earth's confines... it won't be for a long time- and most likely not with any technology for which we currently have full understanding.
Yeah... I know... It's like the pioneers who moved to the Americas and had children there. How could they? How could they rob those children of all their heritage.
Their offspring would never have a chance to have happy lives- wealthy lives. I'm darn sure none of them would ever have an iPhone centuries later- or a computer on which to communicate with the world on a medium such as slash dot.
It's not shrinking, or flat population that is a problem- it's an aging population that is the problem. More mouths to feed with fewer young able-bodied labourers.
Simply put (and this is over simplified)- the worst challenge to an individual nation-state is an aging population. The worst challenge for the entire earth is over-population. Not enough children = problem for nation. Too many children = problem for humanity. Nation-states act in the best interest of themselves; thus even though it is bad for humanity- many places with declinining birth rates are actually in favour of increasing birth rates.
Many places in Europe would be facing population decline without immigration (some are declining)- and the problems of aging are not without concern.
An ideal situation would be a growing population... (so it isn't aging as a group) - and somewhere to put all these excess bodies. Without war to kill off young men (which, no, I'm not in favour of)- you're stuck with too problems- a grey population or a growing populations.
If only there were a planet nearby we could stick some people on and continue to expand.
Almost certainly the first manned missions to mars will have to be one-way trips. It just makes more sense economically. They first pioneers may one day return to earth- but the provisions for such will not be guaranteed and there should be no expectation of such.
I wouldn't want to take anyone who was not prepared to say goodbye to earth. (not that I would want to go... after it's been settled for 50 years maybe... but wouldn't want to be the first.)
There already is a place called "Little Britain" - that's what "Brittany" in France means. You have Great Britain the island (Big Britain) - and "Little Britain aka Brittany" in France- that is where many of the original Briton's fled when the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes started conquering modern day England.
Ironic- they fled to not be ruled by the English- and over generations they faced a fate worse by far... worse than death... they became part of France.;)
Yes, I am British (or at least I was raised in Britain until my mid teen years... ethnically I'm Eastern European and have spent my adult-life in the US).
That said- I had already been living in the United States for almost a decade when 9/11 happened- so my perspective on it should not really be too much different from a natural born American.
Not meaning to be a contrarian- but- the ones that crashed the plane instead of letting it be used as a weapon... those were heros.
The vast majority of the victims of 9/11 were innocent victims- not heroes. Why do we call someone a hero for being unfortunate to be killed whilst going innocently about their life. It is a shame. They didn't deserve it. They wern't heroes.
If walking home tonight I get gunned down by a terrorist as I walk along the street- I won't be a hero- I'd be a victim.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew a Chinese girl who tried teaching a web-bot once. She gave up because instead of listening to her it kept trying to peak down her browse.
Ooops- forgot to link my Wikipedia link to teleportation
Uses already available technology?
What like teleportation? If we're using already existing technology- why not teleport stuff up into space.
OK- OK- so we have no Star Trek like teleportation yet... we also don't have space-trains yet either.
Don't get me wrong sounds neat- if you ignore that it's an easy terrorist target/war target; vulnerable to natural disasters (cannot be moved); we have no concept of what it would realistically cost to build something like this- and you have the whole concept of NIMBY- where my back yard is a 500 mile radius- because if one of these things comes and shoots out at high velocity and isn't shooting straight (yeah, I know she said that) - no prediction on where this will go.
I don't want to be a downer- think it sounds fine- I just hope the negatives have been explored. Interesting idea really.
I can't see anything impractical or horrifically energy-intensive about this system.
That's because the article doesn't fill you in on all the important facts:
- it would be built by British Rail.
A robot like that would never settle for a slash dotter.
So will the spaceport will be built at Sodor?
I see it two ways. Either you're guilty or you're innocent.
If you're innocent- what does it matter- even if the field test incorrectly says you're over the limit- you still get sent free when the real test at the station show's you're not over the limit. Best case for taking the field-test- you don't have to go to the station. Worst case- you go to the station. If you refuse the field test- you get the worst case scenario every time.
It's the same if you're guilty. I've the machine malfunctions and you don't go to the station (best case you get let go) - or it says you're guilty and you end up going to the station- where you get charged because the machine there confirms your guilt. At least if you take the field test you stand a chance of getting let go.
If you're borderline- take as many tests and slow things down as much as possible. Hopefully you'll be in the clear by the time you reach the station.
I see no benefit under any scenario to refuse the in-the-field breathalyser test.
I dunno. That specific cop may not come looking for you- but they could put a warrant out for you that a Jersey cop would respect.
It's probably not worth the escalation that not showing up to court could bring to you.
I see it now.
I, Phone.
The first rule of Phone-botics. Never ask for any gestures from a human to unlock the phone that could hurt a human.
Great- so now I have to memorise the riverdance choreography to unlock my phone for use?
I am predicting strange looks from my coworkers.
Without the technology of the day- they would have died. Without knowing how to farm in the new worldy- what they could and could not eat- they would have starved.
Same holds true for Mars. Without technology the early settlers would die. Without knowing how to get the raw ingredients for life they will die. There was probalby a lower life-span and higher mortality for the earlier settlers of the Americas- this also will be true for Mars.
Over a couple generations- the knowledge to thrive will build. Same as the Americas. Mankind is the alpha-species on earth because they can adapt, will adapt, and do adapt.
You could say- well if technology collapsed they would all die.
Yes, they would.
If technology collapsed on earth- you know what- almost everyone here would die over a few years too.
That's life.
My favourite.
The bridge is out. Let's go really fast- because, even though there is no ramp- the car/bus will life off the ground when it reaches the end of the bridge- thus offsetting gravity.
I believe if you work whilst in prison you are paid for it. Probably not much, and probably not very useful whilst behind bars.
Nonetheless- to compare prison with slavery is far off. Slaves typically did nothing wrong to become what they were- and the goal to owning slaves was that it would enrich the owners.
Prison is a huge drain on the economy. Your paint does little to pay for it. Also- (assuming no wrongfull arrest) to go to prison you have to actively decide to break the laws of the nation...
Slavery: Greed from the individual owner. Enriches lives or provides extra money for owner.
Prison: Protection for the citizens. Drains money from the nation.
Very different.
We won't see a space elevator in our lifetime. We certainly won't see sky hooks- not on earth.
I expect to see man on Mars in my lifetime- and I believe it will be a permenant station. I don't think we will go UNTIL we can sustain a base there- a trip and back doesn't make sense.
I don't expect we will see mass migration to Mars or elsewhere in our lifetime... or my children's lifetime. My comment about "if only there were a planet" was more tongue-in-cheek.
Eventually, yes. There will be many men who live outside of earth's confines... it won't be for a long time- and most likely not with any technology for which we currently have full understanding.
I believe the Chinese are fond of green tea.
I wondered what "her" was "king" and decided- she can call herself whatever she likes... it's not sillier than the rest of her title anyway.
Yeah... I know... It's like the pioneers who moved to the Americas and had children there. How could they? How could they rob those children of all their heritage.
Their offspring would never have a chance to have happy lives- wealthy lives. I'm darn sure none of them would ever have an iPhone centuries later- or a computer on which to communicate with the world on a medium such as slash dot.
Well- I'm sure they wouldn't have done this before running it past Gates and Allen. So the two users are probably fine with it.
It's not shrinking, or flat population that is a problem- it's an aging population that is the problem. More mouths to feed with fewer young able-bodied labourers.
Simply put (and this is over simplified)- the worst challenge to an individual nation-state is an aging population. The worst challenge for the entire earth is over-population. Not enough children = problem for nation. Too many children = problem for humanity. Nation-states act in the best interest of themselves; thus even though it is bad for humanity- many places with declinining birth rates are actually in favour of increasing birth rates.
Many places in Europe would be facing population decline without immigration (some are declining)- and the problems of aging are not without concern.
An ideal situation would be a growing population... (so it isn't aging as a group) - and somewhere to put all these excess bodies. Without war to kill off young men (which, no, I'm not in favour of)- you're stuck with too problems- a grey population or a growing populations.
If only there were a planet nearby we could stick some people on and continue to expand.
Almost certainly the first manned missions to mars will have to be one-way trips. It just makes more sense economically. They first pioneers may one day return to earth- but the provisions for such will not be guaranteed and there should be no expectation of such.
I wouldn't want to take anyone who was not prepared to say goodbye to earth. (not that I would want to go... after it's been settled for 50 years maybe... but wouldn't want to be the first.)
There already is a place called "Little Britain" - that's what "Brittany" in France means. You have Great Britain the island (Big Britain) - and "Little Britain aka Brittany" in France- that is where many of the original Briton's fled when the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes started conquering modern day England.
Ironic- they fled to not be ruled by the English- and over generations they faced a fate worse by far... worse than death... they became part of France. ;)
I'm just hoping they find Natasha Henstridge
you've given yourself away, limey
Yes, I am British (or at least I was raised in Britain until my mid teen years... ethnically I'm Eastern European and have spent my adult-life in the US).
That said- I had already been living in the United States for almost a decade when 9/11 happened- so my perspective on it should not really be too much different from a natural born American.
Not meaning to be a contrarian- but- the ones that crashed the plane instead of letting it be used as a weapon... those were heros.
The vast majority of the victims of 9/11 were innocent victims- not heroes. Why do we call someone a hero for being unfortunate to be killed whilst going innocently about their life. It is a shame. They didn't deserve it. They wern't heroes.
If walking home tonight I get gunned down by a terrorist as I walk along the street- I won't be a hero- I'd be a victim.
Yes, exactly- although those require large heat differentials to work.
This converted heat without loss to moving parts, without a heat differential (other than the LED being cold and attracting heat).
The kicker for this is the low-power/output and that the "environment" was over 100C -which is higher than the average human-occupied space ;).
If they could get this to work at lower temperatures with higher output it would be stunning... it would change our civilization.