> but I don't think that most of them are > doing this just because they can.
And even if they *did* do it just because they can, what's wrong with that?
Atleast it's something that has potential benefits to humanity.
Artists have "artistic liberty" to go ahead and do any damn thing they want and call it art. Why not scientists, too?
Even morals are relative - and where the lines are drawn is largely contingent upon one's upbringing and culture, rather than some universal moral code.
In the end, it is progress for humanity. That's what counts.
> If it's natural, it's less likely to cause problems.
Not really and not always.
It's just that if it's natural, you shrug and say that you were powerless to do anything about it.
Look at the Asian Tsunami - nature wiped out thousands in the blink of an eye. Or for that matter hurricanes and what not.
We might cause a few problems, but unfortunately since _we_ cause the problems we tend to notice them and find a way to prevent them. That's not a bad thing, that's the way we are learning.
And more importantly, some day man-made stuff will be powerful enough to control the vagaries of nature. I, for one, look forward to that day. And that will not happen without man learning to weild the power that you speak of.
Re:I'd be happy to pay that without a display
on
The Hundred-Buck PC
·
· Score: 1
Giving people the resources is a good thing, you never know what could come of it. Perhaps this might be of help.
And the OP is probably talking based on the wind-up radio idea, which I think is a good way to think, especially when you consider how cut-off some parts of the world are from civilization.
Re:I'd be happy to pay that without a display
on
The Hundred-Buck PC
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree.
For that matter, power is a big concern no matter where. If you notice, except for portable devices, we seldom worry about the power usage of most of our devices.
Besides, developing countries pay a lot more (relatively) per unit of power than developed countries, so it would definitely be something to think about.
And I wonder how LCD compares with CRT to power. Favourably, I'd guess.
Chaotic systems are hard to predict with a high degree of certainty over a long period of time. That doesn NOT mean that they can't be predicted over some range; you should notice that climate modelers give a range of possible temperature increases.
You're missing the point. You can predict with a degree of probability *assuming* the parameters that you have considered are the only parameters involved.
Climatic models give you the possible range of temperature increases assuming that those are the only factors involved.
You need to argue why their error bars are wrong - not that they can't predict anything.
Their error bars aren't wrong, they are incomplete. There is a fundamental difference.
You have observed a rise in temperature. I've observed that I've grown older. And as I grow, I've grown larger and have consequently have a larger surface area of my body emitting heat. Therefore, because of the population increase, there is a rise in temperature emitted by people. Therefore, population increase leads to global warming.
You see the problem? People are not trying to analyze the data, they are trying to fit the data to their ends.
And the truth is that you can't do that just by repeating the word "chaotic" over and over again.
Errr, FYI the system *is* quite chaotic. And more importantly, they qualify for all the elements required to categorize a system as being chaotic. And the idea behind giving weather & climate a chaotic description is not that they are absolutely indeterministic, merely that we do not know the initial conditions nor all the related parameters to make a judgement of what is affecting them.
You've agreed to the first two points. Now - we know that CO2 absorbs IR radiation (that's indisputable, you can do the experiment yourself if you care to). We know from very simple physics that adding such heat-trapping gases will warm the surface. It's basically the same physics as a greenhouse (hence the name).
You are trying to fit your data to your presumptions and not deducing from the original data.
The only way that adding CO2 wouldn't warm the surface was if there was some other negative feedback. Not only that - you then STILL have to account for the observed warming. It's getting to be quite the Oliver Stone scenario.
Yeah, except that you're ignoring a dozen other factors such as the fact that we are at the end of an ice-age, we still have unexplained long term effects of solar activity and dozens of other factors. Does the term Maunder minimum ring a bell to you?
You are simply refusing to admit simple physics - it's not any more of a leap than the chemistry that linked CFC's and Ozone. You just don't want to admit the link. It's there.
Oh yeah, am quite sure it's there. And to paraphrase you, the link will not magically appear by repeating "it's there" over and over again.
Have you read any of the papers on the subject? Try reading 10 different papers on the global warming and see the amount of "incontroversial evidence" that folks throw up. Most of it is consensus science, most of the links assumptions and judgements guesstimates.
Most climatologists and weather folks worth their salt are still iffy about their take on Global Warming.
Science? Most of the material out there on the topic is mostly hogwash.
Anyone who says that they can't see any ethical issues with this is lying.
I cannot understand why you have to paint everyone with your ethical and moral brush.
Can you honestly say that you have no problem with this?
Yes? What's wrong in this - if anything, it will help us create human organs that may prolong our lifespans.
If you are that concerned, remember that nature in and of itself has done these things in the course of evolution. And you're probably killing life everyday by consuming plants and animals.
This is no different. You're playing nature and the moral issues associated with it are no different.
If by any chance the chimeras do end up being sentient, we'll find a way of getting rid of that sentience and using them.
Oh my God, I can't believe I'm actually reading stuff like this.
Do you want to take the risk? Obviously! Science and progress has always happened at the risk of something going wrong.
And what kinda weird analogy is that? The weather is not a dog - it's a system and like any system, if you cannot control the system you'll adapt to it.
There are people living in Minnesota and there're people living in Nevada. I'm quite sure that despite everything, they'd rather not be anywhere else. What's your point?
Technology will change, evolve and ultimately move on. But the solution is not to control its progress, but rather encourage its evolution.
The weather system is so chaotic that we do not yet even know of all the factors involved. More importantly, we hardly have sufficient data showing the complete interaction of all the factors and parameters involved to make any kind of effective future prediction.
And yet, we make tall claims. Your water boiling analogy is too simplistic - a better one would be you boiling water using minimal firewood in the middle of a forest on a mountain with wild life and equatorial weather. Can you still predict with certainty what would happen to the water?
Chaotic systems are hard to predict - and there is no shame in admitting that. Rather than do that, most climatologists make claims without bothering to sufficiently back up their data or their analytic methods.
There is a rise in global greenhouse gas levels. There is a rise in Earth's temperature. But there is no absolutely conclusive evidence linking the two.
I'm quite open, show me the evidence and I will believe. Look at what Crutzen, Rowland and Molina did - they proved conclusively the link between Ozone depletion & CFCs and they won a Nobel.
What climatologists are doing today is not science, they're still guesstimating. Educated guesses, perhaps. But guesses neverthless.
We've hardly been here a fraction of time the age of this rock and we hardly even know anything about the planet's weather conditions or its past. And yet, we'd like to delude ourselves that we are somehow responsible for an upcoming global catastrophe. Bah.
Slashdot Mirror
> but I don't think that most of them are
> doing this just because they can.
And even if they *did* do it just because they can, what's wrong with that?
Atleast it's something that has potential benefits to humanity.
Artists have "artistic liberty" to go ahead and do any damn thing they want and call it art. Why not scientists, too?
Even morals are relative - and where the lines are drawn is largely contingent upon one's upbringing and culture, rather than some universal moral code.
In the end, it is progress for humanity. That's what counts.
Arghh!
Reminds me of Ziggy - "A waist is a terrible thing to mind" =)
Seems like this guy wasn't all that far off
Joy Joy Snap together reactor!
Meltdown proof! Safe for all ages!
Let a thousand reactors bloom!
Okay, in which case Minnesota it is.
Funny. The last time I read something that bad it was on Slashdot.
:-|
Oh well, Slashdot, Vogons it's all the same.
Except that on Slashdot you keep coming back for more. Addictive Vogon poetry. That will be the day
Yeah, but Universities usually allow you to download a student edition for free.
For instance, my school (GTech) allows us to download XP Pro if you are enrolled as a student in some of the departments.
> If it's natural, it's less likely to cause problems.
Not really and not always.
It's just that if it's natural, you shrug and say that you were powerless to do anything about it.
Look at the Asian Tsunami - nature wiped out thousands in the blink of an eye. Or for that matter hurricanes and what not.
We might cause a few problems, but unfortunately since _we_ cause the problems we tend to notice them and find a way to prevent them. That's not a bad thing, that's the way we are learning.
And more importantly, some day man-made stuff will be powerful enough to control the vagaries of nature. I, for one, look forward to that day. And that will not happen without man learning to weild the power that you speak of.
We'll eventually figure things out.
> Van Halen radiation belt.
Well, looks like somebody is into classic rock =)
Thank you for the very graphical description.
NOT!
Perhaps you meant Robo-bumpers
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "bumper of my car".
Unpack me, Screw me, unscrew me.
The part that you missed.
Intel already *is* a competitor (and has been, for a while).
You mean like this?
> Duh. To get valuable information from Intel,
> their future competitor.
Future?
> Let me introduce you to mirrordor
:-p
And let me introduce you to good spelling...
Giving people the resources is a good thing, you never know what could come of it. Perhaps this might be of help.
And the OP is probably talking based on the wind-up radio idea, which I think is a good way to think, especially when you consider how cut-off some parts of the world are from civilization.
I agree.
For that matter, power is a big concern no matter where. If you notice, except for portable devices, we seldom worry about the power usage of most of our devices.
Besides, developing countries pay a lot more (relatively) per unit of power than developed countries, so it would definitely be something to think about.
And I wonder how LCD compares with CRT to power. Favourably, I'd guess.
Chaotic systems are hard to predict with a high degree of certainty over a long period of time. That doesn NOT mean that they can't be predicted over some range; you should notice that climate modelers give a range of possible temperature increases.
You're missing the point. You can predict with a degree of probability *assuming* the parameters that you have considered are the only parameters involved.
Climatic models give you the possible range of temperature increases assuming that those are the only factors involved.
You need to argue why their error bars are wrong - not that they can't predict anything.
Their error bars aren't wrong, they are incomplete. There is a fundamental difference.
You have observed a rise in temperature. I've observed that I've grown older. And as I grow, I've grown larger and have consequently have a larger surface area of my body emitting heat. Therefore, because of the population increase, there is a rise in temperature emitted by people. Therefore, population increase leads to global warming.
You see the problem? People are not trying to analyze the data, they are trying to fit the data to their ends.
And the truth is that you can't do that just by repeating the word "chaotic" over and over again.
Errr, FYI the system *is* quite chaotic. And more importantly, they qualify for all the elements required to categorize a system as being chaotic. And the idea behind giving weather & climate a chaotic description is not that they are absolutely indeterministic, merely that we do not know the initial conditions nor all the related parameters to make a judgement of what is affecting them.
You've agreed to the first two points. Now - we know that CO2 absorbs IR radiation (that's indisputable, you can do the experiment yourself if you care to). We know from very simple physics that adding such heat-trapping gases will warm the surface. It's basically the same physics as a greenhouse (hence the name).
You are trying to fit your data to your presumptions and not deducing from the original data.
The only way that adding CO2 wouldn't warm the surface was if there was some other negative feedback. Not only that - you then STILL have to account for the observed warming. It's getting to be quite the Oliver Stone scenario.
Yeah, except that you're ignoring a dozen other factors such as the fact that we are at the end of an ice-age, we still have unexplained long term effects of solar activity and dozens of other factors. Does the term Maunder minimum ring a bell to you?
You are simply refusing to admit simple physics - it's not any more of a leap than the chemistry that linked CFC's and Ozone. You just don't want to admit the link. It's there.
Oh yeah, am quite sure it's there. And to paraphrase you, the link will not magically appear by repeating "it's there" over and over again.
Have you read any of the papers on the subject? Try reading 10 different papers on the global warming and see the amount of "incontroversial evidence" that folks throw up. Most of it is consensus science, most of the links assumptions and judgements guesstimates.
Most climatologists and weather folks worth their salt are still iffy about their take on Global Warming.
Science? Most of the material out there on the topic is mostly hogwash.
what i'd like to know is: when was the last time gates did something usefull? or even, when was the last time he paid someone to do something usefull?
Helped bring computers to the masses. But I suppose you'd disagree - so perhaps you should have a look at "something" useful he paid to get done.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, Born to Frag.
It would be a cost vs. other factors at work.
As long as Walmart would be selling $400 mammoth computers, it would be hard.
I *am* from Georgia, you insensitive clod x-(
Anyone who says that they can't see any ethical issues with this is lying.
I cannot understand why you have to paint everyone with your ethical and moral brush.
Can you honestly say that you have no problem with this?
Yes? What's wrong in this - if anything, it will help us create human organs that may prolong our lifespans.
If you are that concerned, remember that nature in and of itself has done these things in the course of evolution. And you're probably killing life everyday by consuming plants and animals.
This is no different. You're playing nature and the moral issues associated with it are no different.
If by any chance the chimeras do end up being sentient, we'll find a way of getting rid of that sentience and using them.
*shrug*
Oh my God, I can't believe I'm actually reading stuff like this.
Do you want to take the risk? Obviously! Science and progress has always happened at the risk of something going wrong.
And what kinda weird analogy is that? The weather is not a dog - it's a system and like any system, if you cannot control the system you'll adapt to it.
There are people living in Minnesota and there're people living in Nevada. I'm quite sure that despite everything, they'd rather not be anywhere else. What's your point?
Technology will change, evolve and ultimately move on. But the solution is not to control its progress, but rather encourage its evolution.
The weather system is so chaotic that we do not yet even know of all the factors involved. More importantly, we hardly have sufficient data showing the complete interaction of all the factors and parameters involved to make any kind of effective future prediction.
And yet, we make tall claims. Your water boiling analogy is too simplistic - a better one would be you boiling water using minimal firewood in the middle of a forest on a mountain with wild life and equatorial weather. Can you still predict with certainty what would happen to the water?
Chaotic systems are hard to predict - and there is no shame in admitting that. Rather than do that, most climatologists make claims without bothering to sufficiently back up their data or their analytic methods.
There is a rise in global greenhouse gas levels. There is a rise in Earth's temperature. But there is no absolutely conclusive evidence linking the two.
I'm quite open, show me the evidence and I will believe. Look at what Crutzen, Rowland and Molina did - they proved conclusively the link between Ozone depletion & CFCs and they won a Nobel.
What climatologists are doing today is not science, they're still guesstimating. Educated guesses, perhaps. But guesses neverthless.
We've hardly been here a fraction of time the age of this rock and we hardly even know anything about the planet's weather conditions or its past. And yet, we'd like to delude ourselves that we are somehow responsible for an upcoming global catastrophe. Bah.
You missed Nuclear Winter.