What's wrong with this: measuring "% pain" in an animal that cannot give meaningful feedback (mouse grimace? don't even want to think how they correlated that to pain as I'm sure they tried to) and the defacto assumption that all the experiment's subjects feel pain to the same degree (hint: humans don't all feel pain to the same degree and it is very hard to measure in us even though we can provide very clear feedback to people inflicting pain on us)
Bah! Biology and related fields are not science any more than astrology is.
There are no "first principles' in biology from which to theorize, it's practioners almost uniformly have a poor grasp of basic math and statistics, and their typically, poorly designed 'experiments', usually involve the discomfort, torture, mutilation, or murder of another creature.
Make it so biologists and their ilk are only allowed to experiment on each other. That way the results will be more relevant to humans and the experiments will be fewer and much more carefully designed. Well maybe. Biologists seem to be a sadistic bunch.
Look at our bridges and infrastructure... potholes, rusting out, replaced/repaired on an irregular basis, usually years after they should have been EXCEPT toll brigdes and highways. Those keep up to snuff pretty well.
So yes make the internet public infrastructure with a toll on it's use. NOT taxes alone. That doesn't work (see above statement), but use a toll booth model where the funds go directly to maintain the specific infrastructure.
Note however that as a result, the infrastructure will NEVER be cutting edge. It will ALWAYS lag technology and if the wrong decisions are made, it may become too inflexible to adapt to future technologies (like our power grids).
Just as there is a push for greater transparency in research (Google, "transparency in academia"), this ruling comes along.
Just so we're clear: if your research is pretty benign, fine, keep your work secret. If however, your research promises great change to your field OR WORSE motivates changes to public policy and the spending of public money, then it is your duty to practice transparency until it hurts.
Fame (esp. academic fame) has a price, scrutiny. It is a measure of the character of Mann that law is being used to defend against proper scrutiny of his work. A prideful man, but a poor academic.
Can't put nuke plants in the ocean... threatens to many colorful pretty things like coral, 'free willy' whales, and 'Flipper'.
No the solution is BLIMP MOUNTED NUKE PLANTS. 100% immune to the effects of earthquakes and tsunamis. And we can reclaim the land for useful things like corn fields and stuff. And the air is cold up there, so cooling is easy, right? And if there's a problem, cut the cord and they drift off safely in to space.
Remember you heard it here first, so that's like a patent or something.
Really? You think the public will accept the idea of putting nuclear power plants directly on/in the ocean?
Uh, no way in heck. Could be the best engineering and design in the world, not going to happen untile our collective human backs are against the wall facing a calamity that only this idea can solve.
Besides, there is no problem with well designed land-based nuclear power plants... only with poorly designed ones. So the solution to that is obvious.
I would think that actually, US voters have a considerable amount of power. The systems to exercise that power are in place. BUT it takes effort to exercise that power. The effort required means:
paying attention to what is going on understanding what is going on (including sifting through the bullshit) acting for change when required
A look at the media (in so far as _it_ can be trusted), suggests that the public fails spectacularly at the first two. People have lives and pursue a greedy algorithm that is good for the immediate circumstances of those lives... and that doesn't usually involve paying much attention to what government is doing.
It says, ``... most of which isn't easily archivable by normal Linux end-users. Abnormal Linux end-users easily archive the text. If you have to use QR codes... maybe you aren't the right kind of Linux end-user. Just saying.
If you are questioning your religion, the Internet, and any other media presenting information on the topic, make a difference.
But it's not like whenever you open a random page there's a pop-up telling you to lose your religion.
Maybe there is another reason for losing religion ie. the breathtaking progress of technology that just happens to be coincident with the growth of the Internet. Why should a person have to believe in a quasi-magical deity when time and again, technology shows us how to make 'magic' happen?
How could you not doubt religion in a world where technology makes us gods?
Intolerance is intolerance. And it will always exist. Mr Eich did not beat up gays, he simply exercised his right to an opinion. He exercised that right within the bounds of the law, as a proper citizen should. He was subsequently bullied out of a job.
Way back when, while a corrupt Cuban government was allowing US companies to rape the island and it's people, there was a "Cuban Spring". The people were spurred to overthrow a malignant regime and seek freedom. Didn't work out so great because at the time Communism was deemed a viable political model for a free people, but that's life.
So now it's many years later, win hearts instead of continuing the antagonism. Right now the little subversions and embargoes mean innocent people get hurt say: participating in the subversions and getting caught, dying in the ocean in a bid for freedom, or suffering from a lack of goods. Instead, establish diplomatic bridges that will in time yield exactly what you want, another Cuban Spring, only this time without bloodshed because you will have swayed the Cuban leaders not just the masses.
Exactly the right question: why frikkin' trees? It's not like there's an overabundance of poplar (or any other tree). If you have to use a challenging material, why not bamboo?
... would mean that we could achieve that state of independence where everyone could 3D print. There would be an abundance of the necessary resource for printing, and the act of printing would be good for the environment. There would be fewer shoe manufaturers but people who were drawn to that field, would become designers or consultants. Not everyone of course. Some would become involved in the new industries that grew up around 3D printing e.g. cobblers might disappear but 3D printer repair people would rise in prominence.
Extrapolate to any other industry 'threatened' by 3D printing.
The technology of blimps is fraught with challenges not least of which are helium's availability, ground interaction (including launch, landing, and tethering/shelter on ground) and a sensitivity to weather. I've worked with a stream-lined tethered blimp 20' long with a camera and radar payload. In 20 knots of wind, the bugger had to be brought down... not trivial. The whole operation worked best, and safest, in NO WIND. So, the idea of using a tetheredhigh air resistance blimp to supply very little power (~ a dozen homes?!) is... intellectually challenged. Awesome engineering challenge... but just dumb.
Plus, what is the BS about 'clean air'. A common wind turbine, on the ground, is just as efficient... more so, if you account for the demanding infrastructure to support a blimp.
Afterthought: This has to be a military project and the whole Alaska thing is just to give it palatable civilian visibility. You could maybe make a use case for disaster relief or remote military ops... no you can't even do that 'cause if you could get this dumbass set up in to a location then you could get a generator and fuel in as well, that any idiot could operate and run with minimal supervision. Oh and any enemy wanting to take out your power or know where you are would just find and shoot down the flippin' blimp and then you... crap!... who the hell came up with such a seriously flawed concept???? Not MIT, it must be TIM as in a couple of yahoos at TIM Horton's doughnut shop. Is this an early April 1st post?
IPCC: doom gloom and the seas will rise by 'x' by 2100
Counter argument: given the complexity of the system and the shallow understanding of many processes, is it not likely that some small perturbation will greatly alter the predicted outcomes of your model... especially over the time frames you are talking about?
IPCC: then we shall assume that if nothing changes, our outcomes will be proven valid
Counter argument: when in all history has 'nothing changed'? Ergo your models are so brittle as to be utterly unrealistic.
Also when the IPCC starts adding qualifiers that highlight the _accuracy_ of their models, then maybe they will have some credibility. But right now, where are the caveats and cautions clearly stating the assumptions of the models and the sensitivity of the model outcomes to those assumptions? That's right, there are none ever shown to the public.
Maverick's don't get hired. When they do, it's because their ideas maybe aren't so maverick-ish. Maverick's work at MacDo's to make ends meet, which means they must do research on their own time and dime.
Stupid suggestion by the scientists. Basically egging others to 'take one for the team'... before they're allowed on the team.
Say someone was wrongly convicted, are the effects reversible? All discussion of crime and punishment seems to assume a certain infallibility in the system of conviction. That is an incorrect assumption as has been proven time and again and again and again.
The most chilling part however is that the technology is likely here and now. It's use in the justice system is unlikely in the near-term. HOWEVER, that doesn't prevent it's use in more covert systems of punishment and persuasion.
Now a suspect can undergo torture for what seems like... eternity.
How about if copyright protected the rights of the creator... not his estate or corporate sell out 70+ years later. So when the creator dies (including a corporation being dissolved), then the art becomes open source. But right now the copyrights seem to extend in to perpetuity and even in the shorter term, userous prices on the art simply mean a person may never have a hope of ownership and so encourages theft where the risk of punishment is low.
... determines how you define 'not doing evil'. Google is just a big powerful corporation like Microsoft, Apple, etc. They do not care about anything but the 'bottom line'.
In the corporate 'hierarchy of needs', 'profit' is the base need that _must_ be satisfied above all else.
Slashdot Mirror
... oh, you meant for feed them for profit? Ah, then you're right. It's cheaper to throw away the food if we can't sell it for profit.
What's wrong with this: measuring "% pain" in an animal that cannot give meaningful feedback (mouse grimace? don't even want to think how they correlated that to pain as I'm sure they tried to) and the defacto assumption that all the experiment's subjects feel pain to the same degree (hint: humans don't all feel pain to the same degree and it is very hard to measure in us even though we can provide very clear feedback to people inflicting pain on us)
Bah! Biology and related fields are not science any more than astrology is.
There are no "first principles' in biology from which to theorize, it's practioners almost uniformly have a poor grasp of basic math and statistics, and their typically, poorly designed 'experiments', usually involve the discomfort, torture, mutilation, or murder of another creature.
Make it so biologists and their ilk are only allowed to experiment on each other. That way the results will be more relevant to humans and the experiments will be fewer and much more carefully designed. Well maybe. Biologists seem to be a sadistic bunch.
Look at our bridges and infrastructure ... potholes, rusting out, replaced/repaired on an irregular basis, usually years after they should have been EXCEPT toll brigdes and highways. Those keep up to snuff pretty well.
So yes make the internet public infrastructure with a toll on it's use. NOT taxes alone. That doesn't work (see above statement), but use a toll booth model where the funds go directly to maintain the specific infrastructure.
Note however that as a result, the infrastructure will NEVER be cutting edge. It will ALWAYS lag technology and if the wrong decisions are made, it may become too inflexible to adapt to future technologies (like our power grids).
Hmm .... doesn't sound so appealing does it?
If this is correct, then why not.
Just as there is a push for greater transparency in research (Google, "transparency in academia"), this ruling comes along.
Just so we're clear: if your research is pretty benign, fine, keep your work secret. If however, your research promises great change to your field OR WORSE motivates changes to public policy and the spending of public money, then it is your duty to practice transparency until it hurts.
Fame (esp. academic fame) has a price, scrutiny. It is a measure of the character of Mann that law is being used to defend against proper scrutiny of his work. A prideful man, but a poor academic.
Can't put nuke plants in the ocean ... threatens to many colorful pretty things like coral, 'free willy' whales, and 'Flipper'.
No the solution is BLIMP MOUNTED NUKE PLANTS. 100% immune to the effects of earthquakes and tsunamis. And we can reclaim the land for useful things like corn fields and stuff. And the air is cold up there, so cooling is easy, right? And if there's a problem, cut the cord and they drift off safely in to space.
Remember you heard it here first, so that's like a patent or something.
Really? You think the public will accept the idea of putting nuclear power plants directly on/in the ocean?
Uh, no way in heck. Could be the best engineering and design in the world, not going to happen untile our collective human backs are against the wall facing a calamity that only this idea can solve.
Besides, there is no problem with well designed land-based nuclear power plants ... only with poorly designed ones. So the solution to that is obvious.
I would think that actually, US voters have a considerable amount of power. The systems to exercise that power are in place. BUT it takes effort to exercise that power. The effort required means:
paying attention to what is going on
understanding what is going on (including sifting through the bullshit)
acting for change when required
A look at the media (in so far as _it_ can be trusted), suggests that the public fails spectacularly at the first two. People have lives and pursue a greedy algorithm that is good for the immediate circumstances of those lives ... and that doesn't usually involve paying much attention to what government is doing.
Shannon died after a long bout with alzheimers. That brilliant mind had died long before its body.
It says, `` ... most of which isn't easily archivable by normal Linux end-users. Abnormal Linux end-users easily archive the text. If you have to use QR codes ... maybe you aren't the right kind of Linux end-user. Just saying.
If you are questioning your religion, the Internet, and any other media presenting information on the topic, make a difference.
But it's not like whenever you open a random page there's a pop-up telling you to lose your religion.
Maybe there is another reason for losing religion ie. the breathtaking progress of technology that just happens to be coincident with the growth of the Internet. Why should a person have to believe in a quasi-magical deity when time and again, technology shows us how to make 'magic' happen?
How could you not doubt religion in a world where technology makes us gods?
Intolerance is intolerance. And it will always exist. Mr Eich did not beat up gays, he simply exercised his right to an opinion. He exercised that right within the bounds of the law, as a proper citizen should. He was subsequently bullied out of a job.
Here is how it should be:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
... they are simply misidentified and called ghosts, magic, etc. depending on the manifestation. They are also called pseudoscience.
So the challenge is: identify clearly what macroscopic superpositions would/should look like and how can we experimentally create/detect them.
TFA contains links to Wired articles. Couldn't find a link to a NASA catalogue so TFA is a 'heads up' of what is to come, yes?
Here's the link to the DARPA catalogue: http://www.darpa.mil/OpenCatal...
Way back when, while a corrupt Cuban government was allowing US companies to rape the island and it's people, there was a "Cuban Spring". The people were spurred to overthrow a malignant regime and seek freedom. Didn't work out so great because at the time Communism was deemed a viable political model for a free people, but that's life.
So now it's many years later, win hearts instead of continuing the antagonism. Right now the little subversions and embargoes mean innocent people get hurt say: participating in the subversions and getting caught, dying in the ocean in a bid for freedom, or suffering from a lack of goods. Instead, establish diplomatic bridges that will in time yield exactly what you want, another Cuban Spring, only this time without bloodshed because you will have swayed the Cuban leaders not just the masses.
MOD UP PARENT!
Exactly the right question: why frikkin' trees? It's not like there's an overabundance of poplar (or any other tree). If you have to use a challenging material, why not bamboo ?
Lord knows there are tons of those buggers in this god-forsaken neighbourhood !! If only they were useful for something more than wine.
... would mean that we could achieve that state of independence where everyone could 3D print. There would be an abundance of the necessary resource for printing, and the act of printing would be good for the environment. There would be fewer shoe manufaturers but people who were drawn to that field, would become designers or consultants. Not everyone of course. Some would become involved in the new industries that grew up around 3D printing e.g. cobblers might disappear but 3D printer repair people would rise in prominence.
Extrapolate to any other industry 'threatened' by 3D printing.
In which the victim's are cut and hacked until almost dead ... then suspended ... repaired ... and the fun begins again.
Combine this with the seriously chilling 'time dilation' drug and the future just seems a little darker.
The technology of blimps is fraught with challenges not least of which are helium's availability, ground interaction (including launch, landing, and tethering/shelter on ground) and a sensitivity to weather. I've worked with a stream-lined tethered blimp 20' long with a camera and radar payload. In 20 knots of wind, the bugger had to be brought down ... not trivial. The whole operation worked best, and safest, in NO WIND. So, the idea of using a tethered high air resistance blimp to supply very little power (~ a dozen homes?!) is ... intellectually challenged. Awesome engineering challenge ... but just dumb.
Plus, what is the BS about 'clean air'. A common wind turbine, on the ground, is just as efficient ... more so, if you account for the demanding infrastructure to support a blimp.
Afterthought: This has to be a military project and the whole Alaska thing is just to give it palatable civilian visibility. You could maybe make a use case for disaster relief or remote military ops ... no you can't even do that 'cause if you could get this dumbass set up in to a location then you could get a generator and fuel in as well, that any idiot could operate and run with minimal supervision. Oh and any enemy wanting to take out your power or know where you are would just find and shoot down the flippin' blimp and then you ... crap! ... who the hell came up with such a seriously flawed concept???? Not MIT, it must be TIM as in a couple of yahoos at TIM Horton's doughnut shop. Is this an early April 1st post?
IPCC: doom gloom and the seas will rise by 'x' by 2100
Counter argument: given the complexity of the system and the shallow understanding of many processes, is it not likely that some small perturbation will greatly alter the predicted outcomes of your model ... especially over the time frames you are talking about?
IPCC: then we shall assume that if nothing changes, our outcomes will be proven valid
Counter argument: when in all history has 'nothing changed'? Ergo your models are so brittle as to be utterly unrealistic.
Also when the IPCC starts adding qualifiers that highlight the _accuracy_ of their models, then maybe they will have some credibility. But right now, where are the caveats and cautions clearly stating the assumptions of the models and the sensitivity of the model outcomes to those assumptions? That's right, there are none ever shown to the public.
Bunk.
Maverick's don't get hired.
When they do, it's because their ideas maybe aren't so maverick-ish.
Maverick's work at MacDo's to make ends meet, which means they must do research on their own time and dime.
Stupid suggestion by the scientists. Basically egging others to 'take one for the team' ... before they're allowed on the team.
Say someone was wrongly convicted, are the effects reversible?
All discussion of crime and punishment seems to assume a certain infallibility in the system of conviction. That is an incorrect assumption as has been proven time and again and again and again.
The most chilling part however is that the technology is likely here and now. It's use in the justice system is unlikely in the near-term. HOWEVER, that doesn't prevent it's use in more covert systems of punishment and persuasion.
Now a suspect can undergo torture for what seems like ... eternity.
How about if copyright protected the rights of the creator ... not his estate or corporate sell out 70+ years later. So when the creator dies (including a corporation being dissolved), then the art becomes open source. But right now the copyrights seem to extend in to perpetuity and even in the shorter term, userous prices on the art simply mean a person may never have a hope of ownership and so encourages theft where the risk of punishment is low.
... determines how you define 'not doing evil'. Google is just a big powerful corporation like Microsoft, Apple, etc. They do not care about anything but the 'bottom line'.
In the corporate 'hierarchy of needs', 'profit' is the base need that _must_ be satisfied above all else.