Stirling engines do not "run on heat", rather, they take their energy from "heat differentials" - as long as there is a difference in temperature, a Stirling engine will run (in theory, at least - I have never seen a Stirling engine run on say, liquid hydrogen on the "cold" plate, and liquid nitrogen on the "hot" plate - but in theory it would work). This leads to interesting design possibilities, much more so than other conventional heat engines.
One such design, which some of you here are familiar with, is known as an "OTEC" - or "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion". Pushed greatly by the book "The Millenium Project" - OTECs are devices, sitting on ocean-based platforms, which use the thermal gradients in the ocean at different depths to drive a Stirling-type engine which runs a generator to generate electricity (for a variety of uses in the book). These are actual devices, which have been built and tested (I am not sure if they are in real production or not). This is a very interesting use of stored (in the ocean) solar energy - the amount of energy taken out by OTECs would be miniscule, and would very likely not cause harm to flora and fauna (the ocean is HUGE).
On a similar note, I have, in the past, proposed here on Slashdot the idea of a "reverse OTEC" - which I proposed for be called a DTEC/GTEC/TTEC, for "Desert Thermal Energy Conversion" (or, alternatively, "Ground"/"Terra"). The idea being that we use the energy differential that exists between a few inches under the soil (hot side), and several feet down (cold side). Alternatively, we could bury the "hot" side of the collector in the concrete/asphault that makes up our roadways and parking lots (as well as place them on roofs). We could then gain heat from the sun, increasing the temperature differential (in the winter, when the ground is frozen in some areas - or at night, when surface temperatures drop, these engines would still work - the temperature gradient is still there, just smaller (or inverted in the winter) and not as large).
Using Sterling engine technology in this way helps to offset the "land use" argument - your land actually becomes more valuable, because not only does it provide parking or roads, but energy as well! The tradeoff being that road/parking lot construction and repair would become waaay more complicated, and probably more expensive. These issues would need to be studied. It could very well be that the economics don't work out for this and other reasons. Perhaps the issue then is to design better roadways and parking lots that don't fall apart in a few years, and instead last for a very long time (so you don't have to repair them as often).
I think such a design for Stirling engine use, coupled with more traditional solar heat panels (to drive the Stirlings as well), where they can be used (perhaps putting the panels on the rooftops would be better?) could easily help supplement the energy usage needs of many large urban sites, like malls and office complexes, as well as possibly neighborhoods.
You basically have 3 main parts or units for an autonomous robot - the body, the brains, and the sensors. You want to do this cheap, and you want to do this fast. So, start off with the body:
Go down to the Goodwill stores in your area. Look around. See something that can be used for the body? Grab it. Miscellaneous parts? Grab it. Go on 50% off day, all the better. You are looking for things like remote controls, old joysticks, used VCRs and cassette recorders, old radio controlled cars or other similar things (or remote controlled tank devices, etc). I was at some Goodwills these past two weekends, I managed to score 2 old "battlebot" toys (nice battery operated simple tank drives), 1 full direction radio-shack dune buggy, and a complete Star Wars Droid Mindstorms kit (cheesy, yeah - but goes great with my full RCX 1.5 kit) - spent less than 10 bucks (!). You want the remotes for the IR LEDs in them, and the other stuff for motors and gears, etc.
Another possibility (though more expensive) is to get some cheapo toys and such from bargain places (like Big Lots) that will work for a robot body. Don't forget ideas like a piece of 2x2 plywood, a couple of casters, a couple of lawnmower wheels, and a couple of cheap power screwdrivers (all that should be doable under $50.00).
Get him the "Robot Builder Bonanza" book - he will need it and cherish it - buy a used copy for cheap. Don't worry about the condition much, if he likes your gift, he won't care.
Alright, so you got the body - you need the brains. Hopefully, you didn't spend much more than 10 dollars on the body - but no more than $50. And the book should be cheap, too ($10.00 if you bought it used). So, for the brains you need something easy to use - go for a Basic Stamp 2 (Parallax). The hardware is cheap ($40.00), the software is plentiful (even free), and there is a lot of documentation and tutorials online. Interface electronics will be needed - a good pack of resistors, transistors (throw in many NPN and PNP power transistors for H-bridges, too), diodes, capacitors, and some relays and LEDs. Also, add several "glue logic" chips (most won't be needed for the Stamp, but they're cheap, so put some in). Toss in a breadboard, and add a few copper-holed protoboards, too.
Now, for sensors: remember those remote controls from Goodwill - well, there is where you get some of your sensors: You want simple devices for the sensors, so go with IR LED/phototransistor pairs - easy to drive and sense from the Stamp. The remotes and such will have one or more of the IR LEDs you will want (and some of the LEDs, as well). The VCRs, etc that you pick up will also have the receiver units or phototransistors needed (or, just buy some phototransistors). The reason I say get the stuff from Goodwill, is that the parts can sometimes be cheaper to get this way than buying new - but shop around, it may be cheaper to buy many of the parts from say, All Electronics or something.
Throw in some double-sided tape, some corruplast or thin plywood, a pack of screws and/or bolts - and hopefully he (or she?) will have enough imagination to supply to turn it all into a functional robot...
A client of mine has developed a brand new type of 3D display.
Yeah, right. I am not saying it is not possible, it very well might be. But when you look back at the history of 3D imagery, patents, methods of viewing, eye-brain trickery, etc - it seems like it all has been done before, in one manner or another.
Furthermore, none of the prior art, with the exception of true holograms (and perhaps a few of the volumetric 3D display systems), manage to convey true depth where the eye can focus on any one part of the image - most cause the eye to remain focused on one image plane, which leads to massive eye strain in the long run (which is a huge issue with most immersive 3D head mounted displays for VR use)...
Be glad you are indoors, where it is nice and warm this time of year, instead of cold, possibly wet/damp - shivering your ass off, scraping knuckles and getting greasy, etc while working on an automobile ("Oh, you know how to fix cars?" - after you tell them about the new brakes you installed on your car - "Well, our car is making this funny noise, and we thought...").
And before you start ranting about *nix style user rights being inherently more secure and whatnot...
Your comment is fair and accurate, though I would rather restore my user files than the entire system (still would be a pain, though). What you may or may not realize, though, is that you can easily set things up so that you have a separate user for browsing the internet - no, you don't need to login as them, but by a combination of su, xhost, and some scripting, you can basically have the icon you click on for browsing log you in as that special user, set your current x environment to allow that user to use it, and load up mozilla/firefox/thunderbird. To the user, it looks like normal - but, if something goes "terribly wrong" - only that "browsing user" is affected, nothing else. Make the files created/saved by the "browsing user" readable by all (or just by the user and root), and everything should be ok at that point. Granted, what I have described here could probably be done more easily via other methods (but that is the beauty of *nix, multiple solutions are possible, no one true way)...
There may even be such a way to do this in Windows as well, I don't know - if there is, then it should be implemented by default...
You know, the parent's question (and Timothy's suggestion on this being used for terrestrial TV) is showing some disturbing trends here on/. - and this isn't the first article or post that has been like this, it has been brewing for a very long time...
I have seen many posts on other articles and other comments, including this one - that is suggesting a strange trend of this site becoming either a site for geek posers, or just plain norms, or something. Like the parent's "worrying about a 5W laser spread over a very large area" - how can someone call themselves a geek and not know (and more importantly, understand) what the inverse square law is, as it relates to lasers? Hell, you learn about it in high school, so unless the poster is younger, there is no excuse! Or, Timothy - who is an editor, and should have a geek quotient a little bit higher than average - speculating on using a laser system for terrestrial orbiting sattelites using telescopes to pick up the signal - after it is spread over a wide area and attenuated by atmospheric conditions? What kind of thinking is that?
Furthermore, I have seen a disturbing trend of so-called geeks on this site injecting or insisting that fairy-tales should be seriously studied (mainly whenever the story at hand relates to evolution or similar topics), or at least looked into or considered. WTF is happenning?
This kind of non-thinking, non-reasoning isn't only happenning on this forum, but in many forums nationwide. It is leading to a twisted form of fundamentalist-pseudoscience, that seems to snare a lot of otherwise intelligent and open-minded people. I am trying to understand how and why this is possible - all one has to do is keep their eyes open at the larger world (and yes, it is scary, but that should be fascinating, as well), and not let obvious bunk get in their way while seeking knowledge.
I am not saying "don't study religion" - religion has numerous great lessons for humanity, but we seem to ignore those lessons to our own detriment worldwide as a species, and instead focus on the worse parts of religion. I don't expect any answers here, but I just wanted to make this observation aloud. I felt it needed to be voiced, because it feels like/. is slowly becoming a site for anything but real geeks.
Since you seem to be interested in all of this, I thought I would let you know about a few other books which might pique your interest:
Linked, by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. Out of Control by Kevin Kelly. Emergence by Steven Johnson
Also - if you are brave, and don't mind an "internet kook" - look up "Project Mentifex", "Arthur T. Murray", "AI4U", "Mind", "MindAI", "Mind.Forth". What this will lead you too is fascinating, if convoluted. Basically, this guy, "Arthur T. Murray", aka. "Mentifex", is a known internet "kook", has been banned from many lists, etc - for his spam-like promotion of his ideas (or insanity?) about a program he claims will bring about AI (in its "utmost" form?). Most AI people on the internet despise him. I find his ideas fascinating, and I couldn't just pass him off as a nutcase - I feel that even if he does exhibit mental issues, there may be a grain of truth in his claims, however non-scientific they are. He has published a vanity book, as well, on his theories - buy it if you wish, but the majority of the information can be found on the internet. What is truely interesting, once you read between the lines and realize what he is trying to say - is that what he postulates (though in a "stream" fashion, rather than a neural net or other fashion) - is basically the same kind of model and ideas being related in "On Intelligence". I think there is promise in the ideas, if not in the presentation...
First off - give up on color printing - unless you have a job where you need to deliver color proofs from your home, 9 out of 10 times you don't need color. Your digital photos? Why print them out? If you really need the hard copy, take it to a kinkos or a kodak photo lab kiosk and pay for those you really want. Likely, it will be cheaper than the consumables in the long run, and the quality will probably be better. Plus, at kinkos you can blow them up to poster size, if needed.
Second part: but a used laser printer. If you can find one, a low page-count ( BTW - guess where you can get laser printers even cheaper? GOODWILL! I have been making some major Goodwill runs on the weekends here in Phoenix - just yesterday I was at the 16th street and Van Buren location (those in Phoenix know that this location isn't in the greatest of neighborhoods - no big deal, though) - two newer model HP LaserJets (1100's - I think) - with toner cartridges. They looked brand new, and they probably work just fine. If they don't, they are probably easy to get working, or if you want, Goodwill has a 30 day return period. Best of all was the price - under $20.00!!! That's less than an inkjet refill cartridge, for a laser printer and toner! You might find other bargains as well.
I think the awe and such you see stems from the fact that while a computer, in essence, is a simple machine (ie, a UTM) - the fact that it can do so many complex things, in a reprogrammable and commandable fashion - is nothing short of amazing.
However, even this is being turned on its head: Read "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram - in which he posits and develops a theory of complexity arising from simple algorithms - to the point of being able to develop UTMs from 2D cellular automata running in as few a six "instructions"! Six simple instructions, arising to create (or emulate) a fully functional symbolic computer. This isn't the only thing he proposes. No, this isn't magic - but it seems damn close...
On the subject of brains: I am currently reading a book entitled "On Intelligence" (whose author's name escapes me - he is the founder of Palm and Handspring) - in which he presents a very interesting theory on the human neocortex, how it works, and how consciousness, intelligence, and understanding arise from it. I haven't finished it, but the basic premise is that everything we are and do is the result of pattern matching (that is, at the neocortical level - emotions and other feelings tend to happen at lower levels, with feedback up and down from the neocortex - he doesn't discount this - but he is more concerned with creating intelligent machines without this extra baggage - whether that would be a good or bad thing is debatable). He presents an interesting thought experiment, which he terms the "100 step rule": Imagine a ball is thrown to you, how do you know to catch it? Or - how would you get a robot to catch it? The common way would be to have cameras and a computer to do calculations on the fly, etc - to arrive at an end-point to catch the ball. Rarely does this work, more often than not, such an attempt fails horribly - one only has to look at the Darpa Grand Challenge to see the results. So - how does the human brain do it? The neurons in the brain take, on average, 20ms to propagate a signal. In two seconds, you have your hand positioned to catch the ball - thus, 100 propagations through the neural net, right? Or, 100 steps. How is this possible? Part of the answer lies in the parallelism of the network - but the majority, at least according to this author - comes also from pattern matching: that as your eyes see the ball, patterns are matched from earlier trials of catching an object (the "ball-ness" is abstracted away - the patterns are "catching flying object"), to cause feedback to the arm nervous system (which causes feedback itself to the brain, for other patterns) to move the arm - in effect, through hundreds/thousands of trials at catching objects, your brain has stored away those patterns (of vision, movement, feeling, etc) for recall and playback any time a ball is thrown toward you. BTW - how many times have you had something thrown toward you that you didn't try to catch? If it comes into your sight, you are likely going to try to catch it - because of the patterns set up in your brain to do so - this "reflex" action comes from all of those trials (starting as an infant or a little later, I would suppose).
ENIAC wasn't a programmable computer, but a programmable calculator. It may be difficult to see the difference, but at the time ENIAC was being designed and built, the concept of arbitrarily operating on symbols (that could stand for numbers or anything else) was only being born (by Turing mainly). Up until the EDVAC, (or was it EDSAC, or Mark I? Too many old machines) - the stored program/data architecture (Von Neumann) didn't exist (the ENIAC was closer to a Harvard Architecture machine - that is, separate "memory" areas for data and program).
ENIAC also was a decimal machine, not binary - the counter registers (which could only add - subtraction was done via another method akin to 2's complement arithmetic, but on Base 10) were simple 10 flip-flop ring-counters built on vacuum tube technology. Basically, the system was a very, very fast adding machine, which could be reconfigured to move and add results around from various registers, until a final result was obtained. This reconfiguration was done via plugboards and wires originally, though later a punchcard system was added (late 40's-early 50's).
According to *every* history book on computers I have read, ENIAC was developed to create firing tables - prior to that, such tables were created by "computers" (the human version) - and were difficult to make, very error prone, and with the new number of weapons being created and used during WW2, impossible to keep up-to-date (what was really interesting is that ENIAC was essentially Babbage's Difference Engine, and to some extent the Analytical Engine, realized in electronic form). ENIAC was designed to address this, but was really too late in the effort: the war was over before it really could have any impact.
IIRC, ENIAC was also used somewhat for some atomic bomb calculations (actually, according to both computing and atomic bomb histories I have read, any computer or calculator that had spare cycles was fair game for such calcs - ENIAC was one among many) - but this didn't really come into play until later, after the war.
Read the history books - there are tons of them. Be sure to read both about the history of computing - from the abacus on forward - as well as about the role computers played in war time - especially in the case of WW2 - where atomic bombs and computers meshed - producing a weird combination of people versed in both (like Von Neumann) - as well as code breaking and war (Turing). Also the history of table calculation (Babbage's Machines and ENIAC), the need to calculate the census (Hollerith, who begat IBM). Read about the connections between automata and computers. There are actually a ton more of "connections" between some the "greats" in this history (Jaquard and Babbage knew each other well, for instance - there is also the connection between Mary Shelly, Tesla, Babbage, and Twain - in regards to Kemplan's Chess Playing Turk - which, while not an automaton, inspired, awed, and moved people to think about machines thinking, something which has driven computing for such a long while, even today).
If you have an interest in computers and computing - there is so much out there to know about the wonderful history, legends, and facts - the interconnections, the friendships and knowledge shared between people, etc - it is all a part of what is now these small and large machines around us. The more I read on it, the more I discover about it, the more amazed I am. It is literally beautiful...
You vote for the candidate that best represents you, and then THEY use their best judgement to decided how to vote on bills.
But how on earth could my representative use "their best judgement" if they didn't read it and debate it, before voting on it and passing it into law?
I know they didn't read it - they got it (out of thin air - one would think that was a big red flag), a several hundred page long document. I don't know about you, but it takes me a while to read anything 500+ pages long, but then again I am not a fast reader. They had gotten this thing, and somehow read it and passed it within a week or so - how could they have read it, let alone debated it?
Simple - they didn't. For all the faults in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11", he did honestly get on film several examples of congressmen flat out stating they didn't read it before they passed it.
How, pray tell, does this represent me in any way? How can one make an informed descision about anything without reviewing it? The simple answer is, YOU CAN'T!
I don't think I would want binary-only drivers on my server, if I was an admin. How do I know those drivers are secure? What if it isn't, and the code is bypassed or otherwised compromised to allow an intruder into my machine? What if I need to fix it because of this? How do I explain to my boss that "yeah, it is all open source, and we can fix anything - well, except this binary driver over here that was bypassed by an intruder who stole all of our IP"?
Yes, the same issues apply to Windows, on an even greater scale - and look how well security works (or doesn't) in that environment...
On home machines and possibly desktops, I could accept it (though ideally this wouldn't be the case) - but on servers...? I don't think I could honestly live with that...
Just how in the world does one become one, anyhow?
What company was it, recently (in the news), where the CEO was hired, "led" the company for 18 months, the board fired him, but gave him a HUGE severance package - upwards of 100+ million - that got the stockholders of the company in a tizzy and now they are suing the board (and the former CEO, maybe)?
I'll tell you what - let me run your company - any company. I certainly can't do any worse than any of these other bozo's - hell, I bet I could do better. You can even have me at a bargain: make my salary $75,000 a year, and if I don't do good after a year, cut me loose with a $2 million severance package.
Hell, that has to be a bargain - come on - someone out there needs a CEO, and I am serious!!! I will run your company, and you get my services cheap.
It galls me - that someone can run a company into the ground over 18 months and be cut loose with a severance package that will dwarf my total lifetime earning potential. Idiots making bank - what kind of screwed up crazy world is this?
Well - other than its "name", which puts the term "patriot" to shame...
What I hate most about it is not the Act itself (though it has its despicable parts) - but the fact that as a citizen, I wasn't represented by my congressmen when they passed it. It came out of the blue, it was voted on, and nobody read it...
Worse, my fellow citizens don't seem to care about this important fact: that a law so broad and reaching as this Act became law without their so-called representatives reading it, understanding what it said, and debating its merits! This isn't what these guys were elected for, right?
But this is what America has become - don't read the fine print on that contract you sign - and don't read it if it only likely will affect others who elected you - fuck 'em, right? Because you are now in office, and who gives a damn about the people, right? Just give me some more cash, err, donations - Ms. Rosen and Mr. Valentti, all will be OK. The people - screw them!
Who cares about the people - they'll elect me again, right? Shit, Bush is the dumbest motherfucker on the planet (you know they are thinking this) - yet the people spoke up for him again, too. Me - I'm a shoo-in!
Damn - I would at least have a little more respect for my so-called representatives had they at least read it (how many pages was it - 500?), questioned it, debated it, discussed it - and then, only then - voted on it in full conscience on what they were voting for. Hell - you would have thought at least one of them (well, there was one guy - Russ) would have had issues. I also wonder why no one even bothered to ask how such a large piece of legislation just "suddenly" appeared out of thin air - like it was waiting in the wings for just this sort of thing (9/11) to happen.
Assuming, of course, that nothing more meets the eye on that little bit of history either - I still have my doubts on the why's, how's, etc of that day - questions that have yet to be fully answered in my opinion - things don't add up.
But maybe, just maybe, if we close our eyes, plug our ears, and scream "nyha, nyha, nyha!!!" - it will all go away - ya think?
At least, it seems that is how the rest of America is...
What was really interesting about Heron's automata was their manner of programming. They used ropes and pulleys (along with cams and such for motion). In the simplest system, a weight was raised and allowed to fall by it resting on a hopper filled with grain (or sand), which was allowed to drain out. As the grain drained, the weight would fall, drawing the rope with it. The other end of the rope was wound around a shaft. This would turn the shaft, of course. Now, for the intriguing part: along the length of this shaft was placed various pegs. When the rope was wound around the shaft, it would be drawn against the pegs, and wound backwards (or the opposite direction of the first winding) - thus allowing for a "two state" system - the rope would turn the shaft one way, then start turning it the other way as it got past the winding. In turn, this shaft could also take up and let out other ropes (or turn belts/chains), which could be hooked up to other shafts with similar windings. All of these shafts, each turning in a pre-programmed manner (via the ropes being wound in certain manner on the shafts and pegs), could activate gears, cams, and levers to drive various machinery (typically, theater special effects machinery and automata - Heron was very involved in the theater - he also created an entirely mechanical theater that told a story in several acts, and included special effects such as "thunder" and "lightning"!). Setting up such "programs" must have been arduous, and I am certain that sometimes "bugs" occurred (ropes not wound correctly, or with too few turns, or getting stuck) - but when it worked, it would have been fascinating to watch...
Re:I thought the first programmer is
on
The Real da Vinci Code
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The strange thing was is that Babbage was likely fully aware of a fairly new invention (for the time), known as the "relay". As a mathematician (of great renown, BTW), he was also fully aware of boolean logic, as well as binary arithmetic. In theory, he could have easily based his machine on boolean logic/arithmetic using relays and electricity - but for some reason, chose not to! It wouldn't be until Herman Hollerith in the late 1800's working in America to calculate the census - using punchcard machine tabulators and electricity, to advance down this road (and much later before more work was done to hook these tabulators together into something like a programmable calculator). I find it strange that Babbage didn't take this next step - and at least marry mechanical bits with electrical bits. It wasn't that his ideas couldn't be carried out with the technology of the day - they could. It was more likely Babbage's grander plans and financial issues (along with difficulties with his draftsman/engineer - Thomas something?) that left him from taking that next step. Had he not abandoned the Difference Engine and built it (by abandoning it, and coming up with the better design for the Analytical Engine - after spending a ton of Crown money for the Difference Engine - I can understand his investors backing out) - he would have gotten money to go ahead with the Analytical Engine in full (or, had he conceived the general purpose Analytical Engine first, etc). Furthermore, if he had taken an electrical/mechanical route - he could have likely saved a lot of money in the building of the machine (less precision needed, less machining needed). Ah well - that's history for you...
What you are describing is known as a "fuel-air" explosive - also known as "the poor man's nuke". See also "flour mill explosion" for the basics (and m-80 on a sack of flour from various anarchy texts)...
Peak oil isn't about where "we have reached the peak of all oil in the world, soon after the amount of oil being pulled out of the ground will begin to diminish", as you put it.
Peak oil occurs when it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than the oil you get gives you.
For instance, right now IIRC in the Middle East it takes one barrel of oil (1 BBL) to extract 40 barrels of oil (40 BBL). Say at some time in the future, one barrel in only equals.9999 barrels out - you are over the Peak, and now pumping oil becomes an energy sink, not a source.
This ignores using other energy sources to raise the barrels of oil. Regardless of this, though, oil won't be cheap no matter how you look at it when that time rolls around. Cheap oil drives the world (we EAT our oil - oil is food). I don't know if things will become as dire as some predictions I have read - but they certainly won't be pretty...
...they are both wrong and right at the same time?
Seems paradoxical - but it really isn't. First off, let me state that I consider myself to be a recent transhumanist convert. The way to this conclusion was long and arduous, but upon reviewing the evidence, it seems clear that something is selecting for increasing levels of intelligence in the universe. We are not the pinnacle, not by a longshot. Our machines, however...
Both of these camps need to do some reading: Dyson's "Darwin Among the Machines" would be a good place to start. Kelly's "Out of Control" should be on the list, along with Johnson's "Emergence". Also, Albert-Laszlo Barabasi's "Linked". Finally, Drexler's "Engines of Creation" and Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science".
There are few other texts which could be recommended, but the titles to these will be run across in the above reading. Careful reading of all of these texts will reveal something that we are only beginning to understand, the basics of which is that complexity arises from simplicity (namely, simple algorithms and UTM-like mechanisms), that feedback is a necessary part of the equation, whether it is evolution or development of conciousness, and that networks (of all kinds - chemical, electrical, social, etc) play a central part.
All of this (mainly in the human/machine symbiosis) seems to be leading, via combinitorial exponentialism (ie, exponential increases in power in one area translating into further exponential increases in other areas, which feedback onto prior areas, etc) to what has been declared the "technological singularity".
Of all of this, I have only read one dissenting opinion (not that there aren't others - but I have yet to have them pointed out) - that of Lanier's. While his theory is interesting - that software has not made the same strides as hardware, and that since it is still fragile, it is not likely to lead to a singularity - his thinking seems like that of a top-down AI researcher: that such leaps will come from complex software.
If you only look at it from the macro level of current software, one can easily see that such software is nowhere near capable. However, we know that complexity can arise from simple instructions: oOur own DNA points out that this is the case. Wolfram's experiments also lends credence to the idea of simple algorithms producing complex results. This is the direction that software and hardware will have to take in order to continue the trend toward singularity, a very "bottom-up" approach. Our own universe may be the result of such processing:
Are we merely software running in an emulator we call the Universe?
No one knows, and no one can know. We are inside the system, we can't be objective to determine the truth (assuming there is such thing as "truth"). A bottom up approach to software is what is needed. We are only beginning to take steps in that direction. Much of the problems with this research has been lack of understanding over "top-down" vs. "bottom-up", thus the "bottom-up" researchers get lumped in with the "top-down" failures, and funding is lost or otherwise not invested properly. We need more investigation on neural nets, particularly large hardware based systems - even if the current electronics would fill a building or more. We did it with serial Von Neumann architechture machines, we do it today with parallel processing supercomputers. We should be doing it today with neural networks...
The whole creationism vs. evolution is a tiresome debate. On the surface, one seems to favor over the other. But when you really start looking into it - it seems like there is a driving force - most like, a vastly distributed UTM driving all of the possible outcomes in the universe, with perhaps quantum particles making up the interacting "bits", which has been running simple algorithms over a very long time span. We are only beginning to touch these levels, only beginning to understand this stuff.
Living in Phoenix, Arizona - this is something I have thought about. I call it a DTEC (D is for desert) - basically, it is a land-based OTEC (I suppose you could also call it an "LTEC" - L for LAND, or TTEC - T for TERRA). The thermal gradient coming from either above ground collectors and below ground (where there is a constant temperature) collectors. The above ground collectors could either be actual solar collectors, or buried tubing in asphalt parking lots, etc.
I am sure this isn't done, though because the thermal gradient isn't high enough for it to be competative or practical versus just using solar heat collectors...
Is that you would "live forever" in meatspace. Proponents (believers?) of the idea of a technological singularity and transhumanism postulate that when the said singularity occurs, we will no longer be defined as "meat machines", but will be able to transcend such existance into a more temporal existance within (of, by and for) the machine space. That is, our existance will be simulated within a machine. To our immediate frame of reference, life would be no different, unless we wanted it to be. We would be information within the machine.
This virtual existance would be facilitated and likely designed by machines themselves - that is, strong AI likely evolved as we climb the exponential curve of technological progress. We find it difficult to view this rapid rate of change because we, as humans, tend to view such progress in a linear fashion. In truth, in the short term it does look linear, and so we extrapolate that it is linear. However, when you actually plot technological change rates over the centuries, such as within the narrow confines of communications, for instance - you see that it actually has an exponential curve to it. For the most part of humanity's history, this graph would look nearly flat and linear - it has only been recently (within the last 100 years) that the graph has begun a sharp climb upward.
Since everything after the singularity would be a simulation (likely due to a strong AI wanting to study us), even our "children" would be simulations - all of it, from conception to birth to growing, would be simulated (and could be "rebooted" or "restarted" at will). So, if it is simulated - it can be copied (cloning, at will?). Death would cease to matter (if you "die", you would either have an instant backup, or the simulation would be restarted to the moment before your death, or something similar).
Also note that if a strong AI were to develop, it would immediately begin aquiring and developing knowledge at that same exponential rate. Eventually, it might be able to figure out a true GUT - at which point manipulation of matter, regardless of distance or time - might be possible. If so, it would continue to build itself (the physical substrate) to house the simulation at phenomenal rates - likely deconstructing the universe to do so (and simulating it at the same time). The first species to reach the Singularity would likely search out and eliminate (or put in stasis, or simulate) any other species in the universe likely to reach a similar singularity (which posits why we haven't come into contact with an ET culture - either they are all post-singularity, and we are *already* being simulated - or we are likely the first - Occam's razor seems to suggest the former, but either is an interesting, possible "scary", proposition). Since the entire universe becomes the physical substrate for the simulation, and is simulated itself, overpopulation (or underpopulation) isn't a problem.
Of course, this then leads into the question of "what if another species has already gotten there" - and we are already in a simulation - how could we ever know? I think one way we would know is if no matter how hard we tried (if we try) to get to a post-Singularity - we couldn't, we kept hitting some wall (and it might be a very strange wall), that kept us from going "post-Singularity". That might be the one thing that would argue for such an artificial limit. The next question would be if such a thing really was reality, and we kept bumping up against it, trying to "breakthrough" - would our insistance be noticed, and would our simulation be "rebooted"?
Unfortunately, I don't have any answers to any of this (and greater minds than mine have been pondering these and similar questions for hundreds of years)...
Actually, knowing the VR and AR industry, this is actually a very cheap wearable-style "HMD" - $400 is a steal (heh, I remember paying $250.00 for a open-box StuntMaster from Best Buy in 1993 or so).
Slashdot Mirror
One such design, which some of you here are familiar with, is known as an "OTEC" - or "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion". Pushed greatly by the book "The Millenium Project" - OTECs are devices, sitting on ocean-based platforms, which use the thermal gradients in the ocean at different depths to drive a Stirling-type engine which runs a generator to generate electricity (for a variety of uses in the book). These are actual devices, which have been built and tested (I am not sure if they are in real production or not). This is a very interesting use of stored (in the ocean) solar energy - the amount of energy taken out by OTECs would be miniscule, and would very likely not cause harm to flora and fauna (the ocean is HUGE).
On a similar note, I have, in the past, proposed here on Slashdot the idea of a "reverse OTEC" - which I proposed for be called a DTEC/GTEC/TTEC, for "Desert Thermal Energy Conversion" (or, alternatively, "Ground"/"Terra"). The idea being that we use the energy differential that exists between a few inches under the soil (hot side), and several feet down (cold side). Alternatively, we could bury the "hot" side of the collector in the concrete/asphault that makes up our roadways and parking lots (as well as place them on roofs). We could then gain heat from the sun, increasing the temperature differential (in the winter, when the ground is frozen in some areas - or at night, when surface temperatures drop, these engines would still work - the temperature gradient is still there, just smaller (or inverted in the winter) and not as large).
Using Sterling engine technology in this way helps to offset the "land use" argument - your land actually becomes more valuable, because not only does it provide parking or roads, but energy as well! The tradeoff being that road/parking lot construction and repair would become waaay more complicated, and probably more expensive. These issues would need to be studied. It could very well be that the economics don't work out for this and other reasons. Perhaps the issue then is to design better roadways and parking lots that don't fall apart in a few years, and instead last for a very long time (so you don't have to repair them as often).
I think such a design for Stirling engine use, coupled with more traditional solar heat panels (to drive the Stirlings as well), where they can be used (perhaps putting the panels on the rooftops would be better?) could easily help supplement the energy usage needs of many large urban sites, like malls and office complexes, as well as possibly neighborhoods.
damn - left off the end tag...
You basically have 3 main parts or units for an autonomous robot - the body, the brains, and the sensors. You want to do this cheap, and you want to do this fast. So, start off with the body:
Go down to the Goodwill stores in your area. Look around. See something that can be used for the body? Grab it. Miscellaneous parts? Grab it. Go on 50% off day, all the better. You are looking for things like remote controls, old joysticks, used VCRs and cassette recorders, old radio controlled cars or other similar things (or remote controlled tank devices, etc). I was at some Goodwills these past two weekends, I managed to score 2 old "battlebot" toys (nice battery operated simple tank drives), 1 full direction radio-shack dune buggy, and a complete Star Wars Droid Mindstorms kit (cheesy, yeah - but goes great with my full RCX 1.5 kit) - spent less than 10 bucks (!). You want the remotes for the IR LEDs in them, and the other stuff for motors and gears, etc.
Another possibility (though more expensive) is to get some cheapo toys and such from bargain places (like Big Lots) that will work for a robot body. Don't forget ideas like a piece of 2x2 plywood, a couple of casters, a couple of lawnmower wheels, and a couple of cheap power screwdrivers (all that should be doable under $50.00).
Get him the "Robot Builder Bonanza" book - he will need it and cherish it - buy a used copy for cheap. Don't worry about the condition much, if he likes your gift, he won't care.
Alright, so you got the body - you need the brains. Hopefully, you didn't spend much more than 10 dollars on the body - but no more than $50. And the book should be cheap, too ($10.00 if you bought it used). So, for the brains you need something easy to use - go for a Basic Stamp 2 (Parallax). The hardware is cheap ($40.00), the software is plentiful (even free), and there is a lot of documentation and tutorials online. Interface electronics will be needed - a good pack of resistors, transistors (throw in many NPN and PNP power transistors for H-bridges, too), diodes, capacitors, and some relays and LEDs. Also, add several "glue logic" chips (most won't be needed for the Stamp, but they're cheap, so put some in). Toss in a breadboard, and add a few copper-holed protoboards, too.
Now, for sensors: remember those remote controls from Goodwill - well, there is where you get some of your sensors: You want simple devices for the sensors, so go with IR LED/phototransistor pairs - easy to drive and sense from the Stamp. The remotes and such will have one or more of the IR LEDs you will want (and some of the LEDs, as well). The VCRs, etc that you pick up will also have the receiver units or phototransistors needed (or, just buy some phototransistors). The reason I say get the stuff from Goodwill, is that the parts can sometimes be cheaper to get this way than buying new - but shop around, it may be cheaper to buy many of the parts from say, All Electronics or something.
Throw in some double-sided tape, some corruplast or thin plywood, a pack of screws and/or bolts - and hopefully he (or she?) will have enough imagination to supply to turn it all into a functional robot...
Yeah, right. I am not saying it is not possible, it very well might be. But when you look back at the history of 3D imagery, patents, methods of viewing, eye-brain trickery, etc - it seems like it all has been done before, in one manner or another.
Furthermore, none of the prior art, with the exception of true holograms (and perhaps a few of the volumetric 3D display systems), manage to convey true depth where the eye can focus on any one part of the image - most cause the eye to remain focused on one image plane, which leads to massive eye strain in the long run (which is a huge issue with most immersive 3D head mounted displays for VR use)...
Be glad you are indoors, where it is nice and warm this time of year, instead of cold, possibly wet/damp - shivering your ass off, scraping knuckles and getting greasy, etc while working on an automobile ("Oh, you know how to fix cars?" - after you tell them about the new brakes you installed on your car - "Well, our car is making this funny noise, and we thought...").
Your comment is fair and accurate, though I would rather restore my user files than the entire system (still would be a pain, though). What you may or may not realize, though, is that you can easily set things up so that you have a separate user for browsing the internet - no, you don't need to login as them, but by a combination of su, xhost, and some scripting, you can basically have the icon you click on for browsing log you in as that special user, set your current x environment to allow that user to use it, and load up mozilla/firefox/thunderbird. To the user, it looks like normal - but, if something goes "terribly wrong" - only that "browsing user" is affected, nothing else. Make the files created/saved by the "browsing user" readable by all (or just by the user and root), and everything should be ok at that point. Granted, what I have described here could probably be done more easily via other methods (but that is the beauty of *nix, multiple solutions are possible, no one true way)...
There may even be such a way to do this in Windows as well, I don't know - if there is, then it should be implemented by default...
Doug Malewicki's SkyTran...
You know, the parent's question (and Timothy's suggestion on this being used for terrestrial TV) is showing some disturbing trends here on /. - and this isn't the first article or post that has been like this, it has been brewing for a very long time...
I have seen many posts on other articles and other comments, including this one - that is suggesting a strange trend of this site becoming either a site for geek posers, or just plain norms, or something. Like the parent's "worrying about a 5W laser spread over a very large area" - how can someone call themselves a geek and not know (and more importantly, understand) what the inverse square law is, as it relates to lasers? Hell, you learn about it in high school, so unless the poster is younger, there is no excuse! Or, Timothy - who is an editor, and should have a geek quotient a little bit higher than average - speculating on using a laser system for terrestrial orbiting sattelites using telescopes to pick up the signal - after it is spread over a wide area and attenuated by atmospheric conditions? What kind of thinking is that?
Furthermore, I have seen a disturbing trend of so-called geeks on this site injecting or insisting that fairy-tales should be seriously studied (mainly whenever the story at hand relates to evolution or similar topics), or at least looked into or considered. WTF is happenning?
This kind of non-thinking, non-reasoning isn't only happenning on this forum, but in many forums nationwide. It is leading to a twisted form of fundamentalist-pseudoscience, that seems to snare a lot of otherwise intelligent and open-minded people. I am trying to understand how and why this is possible - all one has to do is keep their eyes open at the larger world (and yes, it is scary, but that should be fascinating, as well), and not let obvious bunk get in their way while seeking knowledge.
I am not saying "don't study religion" - religion has numerous great lessons for humanity, but we seem to ignore those lessons to our own detriment worldwide as a species, and instead focus on the worse parts of religion. I don't expect any answers here, but I just wanted to make this observation aloud. I felt it needed to be voiced, because it feels like /. is slowly becoming a site for anything but real geeks.
Linked, by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. Out of Control by Kevin Kelly. Emergence by Steven Johnson
Also - if you are brave, and don't mind an "internet kook" - look up "Project Mentifex", "Arthur T. Murray", "AI4U", "Mind", "MindAI", "Mind.Forth". What this will lead you too is fascinating, if convoluted. Basically, this guy, "Arthur T. Murray", aka. "Mentifex", is a known internet "kook", has been banned from many lists, etc - for his spam-like promotion of his ideas (or insanity?) about a program he claims will bring about AI (in its "utmost" form?). Most AI people on the internet despise him. I find his ideas fascinating, and I couldn't just pass him off as a nutcase - I feel that even if he does exhibit mental issues, there may be a grain of truth in his claims, however non-scientific they are. He has published a vanity book, as well, on his theories - buy it if you wish, but the majority of the information can be found on the internet. What is truely interesting, once you read between the lines and realize what he is trying to say - is that what he postulates (though in a "stream" fashion, rather than a neural net or other fashion) - is basically the same kind of model and ideas being related in "On Intelligence". I think there is promise in the ideas, if not in the presentation...
Good luck in your studies...
Second part: but a used laser printer. If you can find one, a low page-count ( BTW - guess where you can get laser printers even cheaper? GOODWILL! I have been making some major Goodwill runs on the weekends here in Phoenix - just yesterday I was at the 16th street and Van Buren location (those in Phoenix know that this location isn't in the greatest of neighborhoods - no big deal, though) - two newer model HP LaserJets (1100's - I think) - with toner cartridges. They looked brand new, and they probably work just fine. If they don't, they are probably easy to get working, or if you want, Goodwill has a 30 day return period. Best of all was the price - under $20.00!!! That's less than an inkjet refill cartridge, for a laser printer and toner! You might find other bargains as well.
Fight the scam - go laser, and don't look back!
I think the awe and such you see stems from the fact that while a computer, in essence, is a simple machine (ie, a UTM) - the fact that it can do so many complex things, in a reprogrammable and commandable fashion - is nothing short of amazing.
However, even this is being turned on its head: Read "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram - in which he posits and develops a theory of complexity arising from simple algorithms - to the point of being able to develop UTMs from 2D cellular automata running in as few a six "instructions"! Six simple instructions, arising to create (or emulate) a fully functional symbolic computer. This isn't the only thing he proposes. No, this isn't magic - but it seems damn close...
On the subject of brains: I am currently reading a book entitled "On Intelligence" (whose author's name escapes me - he is the founder of Palm and Handspring) - in which he presents a very interesting theory on the human neocortex, how it works, and how consciousness, intelligence, and understanding arise from it. I haven't finished it, but the basic premise is that everything we are and do is the result of pattern matching (that is, at the neocortical level - emotions and other feelings tend to happen at lower levels, with feedback up and down from the neocortex - he doesn't discount this - but he is more concerned with creating intelligent machines without this extra baggage - whether that would be a good or bad thing is debatable). He presents an interesting thought experiment, which he terms the "100 step rule": Imagine a ball is thrown to you, how do you know to catch it? Or - how would you get a robot to catch it? The common way would be to have cameras and a computer to do calculations on the fly, etc - to arrive at an end-point to catch the ball. Rarely does this work, more often than not, such an attempt fails horribly - one only has to look at the Darpa Grand Challenge to see the results. So - how does the human brain do it? The neurons in the brain take, on average, 20ms to propagate a signal. In two seconds, you have your hand positioned to catch the ball - thus, 100 propagations through the neural net, right? Or, 100 steps. How is this possible? Part of the answer lies in the parallelism of the network - but the majority, at least according to this author - comes also from pattern matching: that as your eyes see the ball, patterns are matched from earlier trials of catching an object (the "ball-ness" is abstracted away - the patterns are "catching flying object"), to cause feedback to the arm nervous system (which causes feedback itself to the brain, for other patterns) to move the arm - in effect, through hundreds/thousands of trials at catching objects, your brain has stored away those patterns (of vision, movement, feeling, etc) for recall and playback any time a ball is thrown toward you. BTW - how many times have you had something thrown toward you that you didn't try to catch? If it comes into your sight, you are likely going to try to catch it - because of the patterns set up in your brain to do so - this "reflex" action comes from all of those trials (starting as an infant or a little later, I would suppose).
Anyhow, read the book - very fascinating...
ENIAC also was a decimal machine, not binary - the counter registers (which could only add - subtraction was done via another method akin to 2's complement arithmetic, but on Base 10) were simple 10 flip-flop ring-counters built on vacuum tube technology. Basically, the system was a very, very fast adding machine, which could be reconfigured to move and add results around from various registers, until a final result was obtained. This reconfiguration was done via plugboards and wires originally, though later a punchcard system was added (late 40's-early 50's).
According to *every* history book on computers I have read, ENIAC was developed to create firing tables - prior to that, such tables were created by "computers" (the human version) - and were difficult to make, very error prone, and with the new number of weapons being created and used during WW2, impossible to keep up-to-date (what was really interesting is that ENIAC was essentially Babbage's Difference Engine, and to some extent the Analytical Engine, realized in electronic form). ENIAC was designed to address this, but was really too late in the effort: the war was over before it really could have any impact.
IIRC, ENIAC was also used somewhat for some atomic bomb calculations (actually, according to both computing and atomic bomb histories I have read, any computer or calculator that had spare cycles was fair game for such calcs - ENIAC was one among many) - but this didn't really come into play until later, after the war.
Read the history books - there are tons of them. Be sure to read both about the history of computing - from the abacus on forward - as well as about the role computers played in war time - especially in the case of WW2 - where atomic bombs and computers meshed - producing a weird combination of people versed in both (like Von Neumann) - as well as code breaking and war (Turing). Also the history of table calculation (Babbage's Machines and ENIAC), the need to calculate the census (Hollerith, who begat IBM). Read about the connections between automata and computers. There are actually a ton more of "connections" between some the "greats" in this history (Jaquard and Babbage knew each other well, for instance - there is also the connection between Mary Shelly, Tesla, Babbage, and Twain - in regards to Kemplan's Chess Playing Turk - which, while not an automaton, inspired, awed, and moved people to think about machines thinking, something which has driven computing for such a long while, even today).
If you have an interest in computers and computing - there is so much out there to know about the wonderful history, legends, and facts - the interconnections, the friendships and knowledge shared between people, etc - it is all a part of what is now these small and large machines around us. The more I read on it, the more I discover about it, the more amazed I am. It is literally beautiful...
But how on earth could my representative use "their best judgement" if they didn't read it and debate it, before voting on it and passing it into law?
I know they didn't read it - they got it (out of thin air - one would think that was a big red flag), a several hundred page long document. I don't know about you, but it takes me a while to read anything 500+ pages long, but then again I am not a fast reader. They had gotten this thing, and somehow read it and passed it within a week or so - how could they have read it, let alone debated it?
Simple - they didn't. For all the faults in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11", he did honestly get on film several examples of congressmen flat out stating they didn't read it before they passed it.
How, pray tell, does this represent me in any way? How can one make an informed descision about anything without reviewing it? The simple answer is, YOU CAN'T!
Yes, the same issues apply to Windows, on an even greater scale - and look how well security works (or doesn't) in that environment...
On home machines and possibly desktops, I could accept it (though ideally this wouldn't be the case) - but on servers...? I don't think I could honestly live with that...
You are advocating that the punishment for this behavior be rape? What kind of person are you?
What company was it, recently (in the news), where the CEO was hired, "led" the company for 18 months, the board fired him, but gave him a HUGE severance package - upwards of 100+ million - that got the stockholders of the company in a tizzy and now they are suing the board (and the former CEO, maybe)?
I'll tell you what - let me run your company - any company. I certainly can't do any worse than any of these other bozo's - hell, I bet I could do better. You can even have me at a bargain: make my salary $75,000 a year, and if I don't do good after a year, cut me loose with a $2 million severance package.
Hell, that has to be a bargain - come on - someone out there needs a CEO, and I am serious!!! I will run your company, and you get my services cheap.
It galls me - that someone can run a company into the ground over 18 months and be cut loose with a severance package that will dwarf my total lifetime earning potential. Idiots making bank - what kind of screwed up crazy world is this?
What I hate most about it is not the Act itself (though it has its despicable parts) - but the fact that as a citizen, I wasn't represented by my congressmen when they passed it. It came out of the blue, it was voted on, and nobody read it...
Worse, my fellow citizens don't seem to care about this important fact: that a law so broad and reaching as this Act became law without their so-called representatives reading it, understanding what it said, and debating its merits! This isn't what these guys were elected for, right?
But this is what America has become - don't read the fine print on that contract you sign - and don't read it if it only likely will affect others who elected you - fuck 'em, right? Because you are now in office, and who gives a damn about the people, right? Just give me some more cash, err, donations - Ms. Rosen and Mr. Valentti, all will be OK. The people - screw them!
Who cares about the people - they'll elect me again, right? Shit, Bush is the dumbest motherfucker on the planet (you know they are thinking this) - yet the people spoke up for him again, too. Me - I'm a shoo-in!
Damn - I would at least have a little more respect for my so-called representatives had they at least read it (how many pages was it - 500?), questioned it, debated it, discussed it - and then, only then - voted on it in full conscience on what they were voting for. Hell - you would have thought at least one of them (well, there was one guy - Russ) would have had issues. I also wonder why no one even bothered to ask how such a large piece of legislation just "suddenly" appeared out of thin air - like it was waiting in the wings for just this sort of thing (9/11) to happen.
Assuming, of course, that nothing more meets the eye on that little bit of history either - I still have my doubts on the why's, how's, etc of that day - questions that have yet to be fully answered in my opinion - things don't add up.
But maybe, just maybe, if we close our eyes, plug our ears, and scream "nyha, nyha, nyha!!!" - it will all go away - ya think?
At least, it seems that is how the rest of America is...
What was really interesting about Heron's automata was their manner of programming. They used ropes and pulleys (along with cams and such for motion). In the simplest system, a weight was raised and allowed to fall by it resting on a hopper filled with grain (or sand), which was allowed to drain out. As the grain drained, the weight would fall, drawing the rope with it. The other end of the rope was wound around a shaft. This would turn the shaft, of course. Now, for the intriguing part: along the length of this shaft was placed various pegs. When the rope was wound around the shaft, it would be drawn against the pegs, and wound backwards (or the opposite direction of the first winding) - thus allowing for a "two state" system - the rope would turn the shaft one way, then start turning it the other way as it got past the winding. In turn, this shaft could also take up and let out other ropes (or turn belts/chains), which could be hooked up to other shafts with similar windings. All of these shafts, each turning in a pre-programmed manner (via the ropes being wound in certain manner on the shafts and pegs), could activate gears, cams, and levers to drive various machinery (typically, theater special effects machinery and automata - Heron was very involved in the theater - he also created an entirely mechanical theater that told a story in several acts, and included special effects such as "thunder" and "lightning"!). Setting up such "programs" must have been arduous, and I am certain that sometimes "bugs" occurred (ropes not wound correctly, or with too few turns, or getting stuck) - but when it worked, it would have been fascinating to watch...
The strange thing was is that Babbage was likely fully aware of a fairly new invention (for the time), known as the "relay". As a mathematician (of great renown, BTW), he was also fully aware of boolean logic, as well as binary arithmetic. In theory, he could have easily based his machine on boolean logic/arithmetic using relays and electricity - but for some reason, chose not to! It wouldn't be until Herman Hollerith in the late 1800's working in America to calculate the census - using punchcard machine tabulators and electricity, to advance down this road (and much later before more work was done to hook these tabulators together into something like a programmable calculator). I find it strange that Babbage didn't take this next step - and at least marry mechanical bits with electrical bits. It wasn't that his ideas couldn't be carried out with the technology of the day - they could. It was more likely Babbage's grander plans and financial issues (along with difficulties with his draftsman/engineer - Thomas something?) that left him from taking that next step. Had he not abandoned the Difference Engine and built it (by abandoning it, and coming up with the better design for the Analytical Engine - after spending a ton of Crown money for the Difference Engine - I can understand his investors backing out) - he would have gotten money to go ahead with the Analytical Engine in full (or, had he conceived the general purpose Analytical Engine first, etc). Furthermore, if he had taken an electrical/mechanical route - he could have likely saved a lot of money in the building of the machine (less precision needed, less machining needed). Ah well - that's history for you...
What you are describing is known as a "fuel-air" explosive - also known as "the poor man's nuke". See also "flour mill explosion" for the basics (and m-80 on a sack of flour from various anarchy texts)...
Peak oil occurs when it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than the oil you get gives you.
For instance, right now IIRC in the Middle East it takes one barrel of oil (1 BBL) to extract 40 barrels of oil (40 BBL). Say at some time in the future, one barrel in only equals .9999 barrels out - you are over the Peak, and now pumping oil becomes an energy sink, not a source.
This ignores using other energy sources to raise the barrels of oil. Regardless of this, though, oil won't be cheap no matter how you look at it when that time rolls around. Cheap oil drives the world (we EAT our oil - oil is food). I don't know if things will become as dire as some predictions I have read - but they certainly won't be pretty...
Seems paradoxical - but it really isn't. First off, let me state that I consider myself to be a recent transhumanist convert. The way to this conclusion was long and arduous, but upon reviewing the evidence, it seems clear that something is selecting for increasing levels of intelligence in the universe. We are not the pinnacle, not by a longshot. Our machines, however...
Both of these camps need to do some reading: Dyson's "Darwin Among the Machines" would be a good place to start. Kelly's "Out of Control" should be on the list, along with Johnson's "Emergence". Also, Albert-Laszlo Barabasi's "Linked". Finally, Drexler's "Engines of Creation" and Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science".
There are few other texts which could be recommended, but the titles to these will be run across in the above reading. Careful reading of all of these texts will reveal something that we are only beginning to understand, the basics of which is that complexity arises from simplicity (namely, simple algorithms and UTM-like mechanisms), that feedback is a necessary part of the equation, whether it is evolution or development of conciousness, and that networks (of all kinds - chemical, electrical, social, etc) play a central part.
All of this (mainly in the human/machine symbiosis) seems to be leading, via combinitorial exponentialism (ie, exponential increases in power in one area translating into further exponential increases in other areas, which feedback onto prior areas, etc) to what has been declared the "technological singularity".
Of all of this, I have only read one dissenting opinion (not that there aren't others - but I have yet to have them pointed out) - that of Lanier's. While his theory is interesting - that software has not made the same strides as hardware, and that since it is still fragile, it is not likely to lead to a singularity - his thinking seems like that of a top-down AI researcher: that such leaps will come from complex software.
If you only look at it from the macro level of current software, one can easily see that such software is nowhere near capable. However, we know that complexity can arise from simple instructions: oOur own DNA points out that this is the case. Wolfram's experiments also lends credence to the idea of simple algorithms producing complex results. This is the direction that software and hardware will have to take in order to continue the trend toward singularity, a very "bottom-up" approach. Our own universe may be the result of such processing:
Are we merely software running in an emulator we call the Universe?
No one knows, and no one can know. We are inside the system, we can't be objective to determine the truth (assuming there is such thing as "truth"). A bottom up approach to software is what is needed. We are only beginning to take steps in that direction. Much of the problems with this research has been lack of understanding over "top-down" vs. "bottom-up", thus the "bottom-up" researchers get lumped in with the "top-down" failures, and funding is lost or otherwise not invested properly. We need more investigation on neural nets, particularly large hardware based systems - even if the current electronics would fill a building or more. We did it with serial Von Neumann architechture machines, we do it today with parallel processing supercomputers. We should be doing it today with neural networks...
The whole creationism vs. evolution is a tiresome debate. On the surface, one seems to favor over the other. But when you really start looking into it - it seems like there is a driving force - most like, a vastly distributed UTM driving all of the possible outcomes in the universe, with perhaps quantum particles making up the interacting "bits", which has been running simple algorithms over a very long time span. We are only beginning to touch these levels, only beginning to understand this stuff.
Of course, all of
I am sure this isn't done, though because the thermal gradient isn't high enough for it to be competative or practical versus just using solar heat collectors...
This virtual existance would be facilitated and likely designed by machines themselves - that is, strong AI likely evolved as we climb the exponential curve of technological progress. We find it difficult to view this rapid rate of change because we, as humans, tend to view such progress in a linear fashion. In truth, in the short term it does look linear, and so we extrapolate that it is linear. However, when you actually plot technological change rates over the centuries, such as within the narrow confines of communications, for instance - you see that it actually has an exponential curve to it. For the most part of humanity's history, this graph would look nearly flat and linear - it has only been recently (within the last 100 years) that the graph has begun a sharp climb upward.
Since everything after the singularity would be a simulation (likely due to a strong AI wanting to study us), even our "children" would be simulations - all of it, from conception to birth to growing, would be simulated (and could be "rebooted" or "restarted" at will). So, if it is simulated - it can be copied (cloning, at will?). Death would cease to matter (if you "die", you would either have an instant backup, or the simulation would be restarted to the moment before your death, or something similar).
Also note that if a strong AI were to develop, it would immediately begin aquiring and developing knowledge at that same exponential rate. Eventually, it might be able to figure out a true GUT - at which point manipulation of matter, regardless of distance or time - might be possible. If so, it would continue to build itself (the physical substrate) to house the simulation at phenomenal rates - likely deconstructing the universe to do so (and simulating it at the same time). The first species to reach the Singularity would likely search out and eliminate (or put in stasis, or simulate) any other species in the universe likely to reach a similar singularity (which posits why we haven't come into contact with an ET culture - either they are all post-singularity, and we are *already* being simulated - or we are likely the first - Occam's razor seems to suggest the former, but either is an interesting, possible "scary", proposition). Since the entire universe becomes the physical substrate for the simulation, and is simulated itself, overpopulation (or underpopulation) isn't a problem.
Of course, this then leads into the question of "what if another species has already gotten there" - and we are already in a simulation - how could we ever know? I think one way we would know is if no matter how hard we tried (if we try) to get to a post-Singularity - we couldn't, we kept hitting some wall (and it might be a very strange wall), that kept us from going "post-Singularity". That might be the one thing that would argue for such an artificial limit. The next question would be if such a thing really was reality, and we kept bumping up against it, trying to "breakthrough" - would our insistance be noticed, and would our simulation be "rebooted"?
Unfortunately, I don't have any answers to any of this (and greater minds than mine have been pondering these and similar questions for hundreds of years)...
Actually, knowing the VR and AR industry, this is actually a very cheap wearable-style "HMD" - $400 is a steal (heh, I remember paying $250.00 for a open-box StuntMaster from Best Buy in 1993 or so).