Pretty simple to slow down as long as you don't mind burning up part of your projectile during atmospheric braking, meteors do it all the time and the big ones make a nice crater. Earth based weapons are cheaper, the advantage of the Moon based one would be the difficulty in counter-battery fire. Obviously it wouldn't be very useful for moving targets due to the flight time but for anything that is stuck in place (cities, military bases, etc) it would work just fine. Refining your aim prior to real use would be easy as you could use projectiles small enough to burn up on re-entry to work up all your firing data. *shrug* It would likely be a bit of a boondoggle but the spin-off technologies and infrastructure buildup would be useful.
Sealing them is pretty straightforward actually, you just use a sprayable plastic to coat to the interior. Combine that with a series of air pressure sensors throughout and a small maintenance crew and you're all set. Settling the moon isn't really a problem from an engineering perspective, the issue is economics. It's expensive to get there, it's expensive to live there and so far there isn't much we want there. The only real things that would make any sense at the moment are A) A military installation with a mass driver so that we could bombard terrestrial targets with kinetic impactors instead of nukes or B) He3 mining, which won't be useful until we develop Fusion (and only certain kinds). Given significant other space activity it might also be a useful source of raw materials available from a lower gravity well than Earth. Oh, the dark side would make an excellent astronomical observatory but that's a pretty expensive project for what you'd get out of it.
Consumers have always expected the manufacturers of their products to give them honest advice about how to care for their products and not to use their position as the manufacturer to force you into situations that actually harm your own interests.
Sorry, that is incorrect. Google's business is selling context sensitive advertising space, providing free search to consumers merely gives them additional means to do so.
As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"
To which the correct answer is "I would have liked to but it was impossible since I knew exactly where I was."
Yeah, I suppose that there is still a pretty big Google fan base on/.
There will probably be a point in the future when Google has become recognized as Big Brother and the Snowden crowd turns on them, but that will probably be some time off in the future, long after Google's competitors have taken that stance
*Shrug* I'll switch when something else is better for searching. I used Alta Vista, then Yahoo, then Dogpile, now Google. Show me something else that is better and easier to use and I'll be using it by tomorrow. So far there are some interesting contenders but no one ready to take on the job as a full replacement.
However the goal for Genetic Manipulation in humans, isn't making someone a super human, but an average human.
That may be your goal but I guarantee it won't be the goal of the people with the most money available to invest in this technology. Life extension or more gifted children will be their primary wants.
It's not the modification itself that bothers me, it's the total lack of long term study requirements and no efforts to avoid cross pollination with traditional crops. Sure, maybe plants that produce their own insecticide are the bees knees and totally safe, or maybe they build up toxins in the environment like DDT did and we'll all be getting horrible cancers in thirty years. Personally, I'd just like there to be a bit more science involved then, yes Fish genes are safe, Tomato genes are safe so Fish genes + Tomato genes are safe.
Genetic modification will be no exception (except in cases of corporate profit, of course).
Well, it's too important to be available to just anyone, it's vital that we implement a hefty bureaucracy and strong regulatory oversight so that only people with connections and large bank accounts can work the system well enough to get the treatments, thus preserving the status quo of the current elite. Meanwhile we can boast about how well we're "protecting everyone from the dangers of unchecked human genome modification".
The only way I think we can buy a lease on responsible genetics is by having an oversight board that is controlled by neither big industry nor the local government.
Perhaps something like a UN ethics committee that does not accept appointments by governments, but selects its own members from scientific communities, with the UN councils only holding veto rights.
Right, because no one would ever figure out how to game a system like that. *rolls eyes*
What's more of a surprise is how few enhanced humans there are around in Star Trek.
Well, for humans it was due to our revulsion of the practice after the Eugenics Wars, but it was unusual that they ran into so few other species that had done so.
That would depend, is the driver or the pedestrians better customers for the company? A simple internet query checking buying history, market segment and income status should solve that equation in plenty of time.
Well, to be fair to the religious war score count the number of humans existing in the past was much lower. I'm sure if we adjust the numbers by percentage of total population they'll pull back into the lead as they deserve.
It's impossible to stop weak minded people from doing stupid things, block one thing and they'll just do something else stupid. In the meantime censorship hurts everyone else.
Only sometimes. Some forms of spending actually destroy wealth, in others it stays even. For example, suppose I pay for construction of a road that doesn't lead to or from anywhere useful. Both labor and materials were used up but nothing of value was added so in this case wealth was destroyed. In another example I buy a house that someone else has lived in and is now selling, no value has been created it was just transferred from one person to another.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a technical problem, it is a political one.
It's not even really a political one, it's an economic one. If we make things more expensive, someone has to pay and no one wants that hot potato.
Essentially solar energy activists aren't out to throw away all coal or fossil fuel plants
Perhaps the small minority of rational math literate ones, but that hasn't been my general experience.
Pretty simple to slow down as long as you don't mind burning up part of your projectile during atmospheric braking, meteors do it all the time and the big ones make a nice crater. Earth based weapons are cheaper, the advantage of the Moon based one would be the difficulty in counter-battery fire. Obviously it wouldn't be very useful for moving targets due to the flight time but for anything that is stuck in place (cities, military bases, etc) it would work just fine. Refining your aim prior to real use would be easy as you could use projectiles small enough to burn up on re-entry to work up all your firing data. *shrug* It would likely be a bit of a boondoggle but the spin-off technologies and infrastructure buildup would be useful.
And the stream of centenarians dying would provide fertilizer for making lunar soil.
That's both amusing and practical, I like it.
Not that they could be sealed and made habitable.
Sealing them is pretty straightforward actually, you just use a sprayable plastic to coat to the interior. Combine that with a series of air pressure sensors throughout and a small maintenance crew and you're all set. Settling the moon isn't really a problem from an engineering perspective, the issue is economics. It's expensive to get there, it's expensive to live there and so far there isn't much we want there. The only real things that would make any sense at the moment are A) A military installation with a mass driver so that we could bombard terrestrial targets with kinetic impactors instead of nukes or B) He3 mining, which won't be useful until we develop Fusion (and only certain kinds). Given significant other space activity it might also be a useful source of raw materials available from a lower gravity well than Earth. Oh, the dark side would make an excellent astronomical observatory but that's a pretty expensive project for what you'd get out of it.
To fight terrorism of course.
Consumers have always expected the manufacturers of their products to give them honest advice about how to care for their products and not to use their position as the manufacturer to force you into situations that actually harm your own interests.
Lol, since when?
Google's business is to search websites.
Sorry, that is incorrect. Google's business is selling context sensitive advertising space, providing free search to consumers merely gives them additional means to do so.
As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"
To which the correct answer is "I would have liked to but it was impossible since I knew exactly where I was."
If it had been known that google was manipulating the search results to favor themselves, it would have been a huge credibility hit.
Why, didn't you assume that already? I know I did.
Yeah, I suppose that there is still a pretty big Google fan base on /.
There will probably be a point in the future when Google has become recognized as Big Brother and the Snowden crowd turns on them, but that will probably be some time off in the future, long after Google's competitors have taken that stance
*Shrug* I'll switch when something else is better for searching. I used Alta Vista, then Yahoo, then Dogpile, now Google. Show me something else that is better and easier to use and I'll be using it by tomorrow. So far there are some interesting contenders but no one ready to take on the job as a full replacement.
However the goal for Genetic Manipulation in humans, isn't making someone a super human, but an average human.
That may be your goal but I guarantee it won't be the goal of the people with the most money available to invest in this technology. Life extension or more gifted children will be their primary wants.
As for genetic modification of crops.
It's not the modification itself that bothers me, it's the total lack of long term study requirements and no efforts to avoid cross pollination with traditional crops. Sure, maybe plants that produce their own insecticide are the bees knees and totally safe, or maybe they build up toxins in the environment like DDT did and we'll all be getting horrible cancers in thirty years. Personally, I'd just like there to be a bit more science involved then, yes Fish genes are safe, Tomato genes are safe so Fish genes + Tomato genes are safe.
Genetic modification will be no exception (except in cases of corporate profit, of course).
Well, it's too important to be available to just anyone, it's vital that we implement a hefty bureaucracy and strong regulatory oversight so that only people with connections and large bank accounts can work the system well enough to get the treatments, thus preserving the status quo of the current elite. Meanwhile we can boast about how well we're "protecting everyone from the dangers of unchecked human genome modification".
The only way I think we can buy a lease on responsible genetics is by having an oversight board that is controlled by neither big industry nor the local government. Perhaps something like a UN ethics committee that does not accept appointments by governments, but selects its own members from scientific communities, with the UN councils only holding veto rights.
Right, because no one would ever figure out how to game a system like that. *rolls eyes*
What's more of a surprise is how few enhanced humans there are around in Star Trek.
Well, for humans it was due to our revulsion of the practice after the Eugenics Wars, but it was unusual that they ran into so few other species that had done so.
That would depend, is the driver or the pedestrians better customers for the company? A simple internet query checking buying history, market segment and income status should solve that equation in plenty of time.
And where exactly do you think those raw materials are going to come from if you don't have any money to pay for them?
The REAL problem is that you can't imagine what you could possibly ever do without a 'job'.
You mean things like starving, freezing and being dirty?
I can think of plenty of things to occupy my time besides work, but I still need an income.
Well, to be fair to the religious war score count the number of humans existing in the past was much lower. I'm sure if we adjust the numbers by percentage of total population they'll pull back into the lead as they deserve.
Islam is no poison any degree more than other religions, because it is nothing more than that: a religion.
This isn't a particularly strong statement given the record of the other religions.
It's impossible to stop weak minded people from doing stupid things, block one thing and they'll just do something else stupid. In the meantime censorship hurts everyone else.
But the stuff you spent the money for does.
Only sometimes. Some forms of spending actually destroy wealth, in others it stays even. For example, suppose I pay for construction of a road that doesn't lead to or from anywhere useful. Both labor and materials were used up but nothing of value was added so in this case wealth was destroyed. In another example I buy a house that someone else has lived in and is now selling, no value has been created it was just transferred from one person to another.
For public companies perhaps a flat corporate tax on market valuation...?
That's actually pretty clever.
The typical libertarian who wants complete deregulation of *everything* but complains when Comcast is their only broadband choice.
If you're going to complain about Libertarians you need to at least pick a better example, ISP monopolies are very much a symptom of regulations.