no on is waiting because the tech isn't good enough to make it easy. if we had the tech and the economic might to get alpha centauri, even if it took 500 years, we'd have thousands of volunteers to make history like that
petroleum funds ultraconservative wahhabi islam, coal gives us air pollution, fission?: fukushima, etc
yes, fusion will have radioactive byproducts too, but not the 10,000 year half life variety (i believe it is a decade or two for the worst... tritium is it?)
and yes i know the other standard answer: we already have fusion power, it's called the sun (solar panels... petroleum and coal even are fusion energy storage vectors, give or take a couple million years)
theoreticians can not appreciate practical value. all theoreticians will be surprised at some point at what the practical can achieve that completely short circuits months of their work. because what you do in front of a computer at a desk does not adequately replace what the guy out in the field sees and does. all it does is make you think you've mastered all scenarios when you haven't even seen all the scenarios or even have the real world experience to imagine all the scenarios. so indeed heyman has valuable useful experience that the expert on blast propagation does not have. this is not to say he can replace the expert on blast propagation, but he can complement the theoretician in ways the theoretician can not make up for, and visa versa. it is to say your smug vanity of the theoretical over the practical is a blind spot on your part, and is more than useless, it is dangerous hubris
you're quibbling on specifics when his larger point is correct: there's no such thing as bulletproof glass
additionally. take the toughest glass, and a stupid pistol, and if you keep firing in the same spot, you'll break through eventually: all bullets will chip away at any type of glass. they don't bounce off, they keep chipping through. depending on bullet and glass, it could take 600 shots, could take 6 shots
if you meet a gunman who is content to keep shooting in the same spot, such as with an automatic or a machine gun, and has enough time and enough rounds, he's going to get a shot through to you at some point
this doesn't mean bullet proof glass is useless. no one is going to be able to take pot shots at the pope mobile and get a shot inside. if they get one shot off, then that pope mobile is busy squealing away while vatican security is bearing down on you. therefore, bullet proof glass is of immense value: it takes away the scenario where one assassin's bullet is going to take out a dignitary on the street (well, if he has a sniper rifle with a certain kind of round, or he just plants the right bomb, it still can be done). but the austrian archduke franz ferdinand mode of assassination is, indeed, only historical, because of the development of bulletproof glass
the point is, the common man's perception, that neat tidy mental image that glass xyz is impervious to bullets, end of discussion, case close, is obviously false
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
no, assholes, market forces do not solve all problems in the world. you need REGULATIONS, backed up by enforcement, that you WANT to pay for, if you properly understood the costs of no regulations. regulations whose effects are to make the market FREE. no, that's not a contradiction if you understand the fucking subject matter. no intellectual charity for you: figure it the fuck out on your own time, retards
if you don't understand how regulations make the market free and fair STOP YAMMERING ABOUT A SUBJECT MATTER YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
"you have no right to respond to someone and tell them they are wrong. mind your own business"...he said, responding to someone and telling them they are wrong, not minding his business
i am being arrogant, because i am dealing with a moron who can't keep track of the fucking topic at hand. i'm not your fucking father, i'm not here to hold your hand and lead you gently through life. if you can't understand the fucking subject matter in the fucking discussion, you're a moron. am i arrogant for saying that? maybe, but at least i'm not a moron
so you enjoy socializing. so you are a fan of people. so you're still a hypocrite based on what you wrote above
the only person who truly hates socializing and is not a fan of people is the guy i've never heard of. that guy, he's not a hypocrite. because he follows through on his beliefs. its definitely not the guy i'm in a conversation with on a comment board on the internet, who continues responding to me
look, either become a monk or a hermit, or admit that your stated beliefs and your actions are out of sync
but voluntarily going on the internet and socializing with people by announcing you don't like socializing is just a massive logic fail. sorry dude
i don't for a moment doubt anything you've provided me in the link from physorg. i agree, comprehend, and appreciate everything i just read there, and i thank you for the information
nor have i in any way countered the marine biologist you've quoted. i have no reason to. fully appreciate his quote
because you are confusing "most complex in the animal kingdom" with "anywhere remotely as complex as in homo sapiens"
i stand upon this mountain called the complexity and richness of human communication, and i look down at the largest tiny foothill down below, called whalesong, and i smile in appreciation of it
and i'll be waiting for your apology for your inability to keep proper track of the topic at hand
congratulations, you're the first person whose article of faith i've challenged is that whale song is as complex as human speech
watched a little too much star trek iv have you?
it's really silly to ask someone to cite what should be as plain as day obvious to anyone with functional senses. do you want me to offer citations on the sky being blue or water being wet as well?
i am offering you no citations because it's silly and laughable for you to expect them. i probably could easily find some if i tried. but i'm not trying, because the argument is not worth having, because i'm not in the habit of arguing in defense of obvious reality. if someone is delusional and cannot see the obvious for themselves, they are not worth the time to communicate with
i'm not sure why you resist the obvious. does it pierce some sort of mythology of yours? whale song is nowhere near as complex as human speech, not even remotely. this should be blindingly obvious to you if you aren't deaf
yeah, it sings. big deal. so does a mockingbird. it is many orders of magnitude less complex than homo sapiens' communication
in terms of bandwidth, a honking goose or a hooting monkey might be a 300 bps modem, and a humpback whale or a parrot might be a 28.8kbps modem. but homo sapiens is a fiber optic trunk, far beyond any other creature on earth by many orders of magnitude in terms of richness and complexity of communication
no, not entirely. many species communicate, all sorts of ways. so you are right, voicebox is not entirely the description to go for. so howabout RICHNESS and COMPLEXITY of communication is what makes us special, whether by hand or voicebox
i don't think it is trollish to point out when someone is a giant hypocrite. yes, i do take delight in tweaking people's blind egos. that's being a troll?
since when did speaking the truth become only the domain of the troll? are we supposed to suffer someone as blind as the guy i called a hypocrite in silence? why?
so, if it means being called a troll for calling someone out for being a smug self-serving idiot like i did, then so be it, i will be a troll, and i will wear the label with pride
they go extinct. however, plenty of species are strictly asocial, and they make time to get laid, so its not that big of a deal to socialize to procreate... unless of course, you are a member of homo sapiens
that which makes homo sapiens compelling is not our gray matter, its our voicebox. a genius with an amazing idea and no way to communicate it is useless: his idea is future skull dust. meanwhile, an average intelligence person who communicates his idea well changes the world. socializing, socializing more than intellect, is the most important thing about our species. alone, we mean nothing. in an organized group, we are gods. civilization is the product of millions socializing, not a few isolated geniuses, no matter how much we celebrate the cult of the iq, iq is actually not that big of a deal, just a fetish
oh yeah, not just voicebox: fine motor control, handwriting. then mechanical printing. then radio. television
it might be neato to work on a spreadsheet, but most anything that can be programmed that is a compelling reason for a computer in your life has a network component. so if it doesn't work in a train tunnel, its probably not worth programming
everything that happened with computers before say 1991 was just a tiny dent on the surface about what makes computers compelling and useful. we still haven't scratched the surface really, we're just in the dawn of this internet age. computers without a communication component are still useful, yes, but combine computers with communication, and you are at a many orders of magnitude increase in possibilities and usefulness
facebook is just the tool which makes the most sense to manage your social network now. will that be the case in 10 years? if you say definitely "yes" (or definitely "no") you definitely don't know what you are talking about. maybe it will be, it could be, it has the network effect on its side, that's for sure
tools have always been used in war. when we have autonomous decision making mechanisms engaging enemies, then we can talk about robotic warfare. otherwise, the bar is being set too low for what constitutes robotic warfare
usually its the "evil socialist" left that says there are costs the community incurs for bad behavior
its usually the right that says "my bad behavior has no effect on society! this is just fascist attempt to take away freedom!" blah blah blah: ignorant and blind. if your idea of "freedom" means the "right" to incur costs on others without any consequence to you, you don't know what freedom is, you just have a 2 year old's mindset: whine with whatever words sound good, be damned logic and reason, until you get what you want and you don't have to pay for the obvious inevitable consequences you avoid seeing out of your blind selfishness
so thank you, jan brewer, for showing to this cynical liberal that there is still the capacity for critical thinking from the right
Slashdot Mirror
no on is waiting because the tech isn't good enough to make it easy. if we had the tech and the economic might to get alpha centauri, even if it took 500 years, we'd have thousands of volunteers to make history like that
priorities people
petroleum funds ultraconservative wahhabi islam, coal gives us air pollution, fission?: fukushima, etc
yes, fusion will have radioactive byproducts too, but not the 10,000 year half life variety (i believe it is a decade or two for the worst... tritium is it?)
and yes i know the other standard answer: we already have fusion power, it's called the sun (solar panels... petroleum and coal even are fusion energy storage vectors, give or take a couple million years)
and please don't give me the boutique sources
we need fusion plants, on terra firma, asap
theoreticians can not appreciate practical value. all theoreticians will be surprised at some point at what the practical can achieve that completely short circuits months of their work. because what you do in front of a computer at a desk does not adequately replace what the guy out in the field sees and does. all it does is make you think you've mastered all scenarios when you haven't even seen all the scenarios or even have the real world experience to imagine all the scenarios. so indeed heyman has valuable useful experience that the expert on blast propagation does not have. this is not to say he can replace the expert on blast propagation, but he can complement the theoretician in ways the theoretician can not make up for, and visa versa. it is to say your smug vanity of the theoretical over the practical is a blind spot on your part, and is more than useless, it is dangerous hubris
you're quibbling on specifics when his larger point is correct: there's no such thing as bulletproof glass
additionally. take the toughest glass, and a stupid pistol, and if you keep firing in the same spot, you'll break through eventually: all bullets will chip away at any type of glass. they don't bounce off, they keep chipping through. depending on bullet and glass, it could take 600 shots, could take 6 shots
if you meet a gunman who is content to keep shooting in the same spot, such as with an automatic or a machine gun, and has enough time and enough rounds, he's going to get a shot through to you at some point
this doesn't mean bullet proof glass is useless. no one is going to be able to take pot shots at the pope mobile and get a shot inside. if they get one shot off, then that pope mobile is busy squealing away while vatican security is bearing down on you. therefore, bullet proof glass is of immense value: it takes away the scenario where one assassin's bullet is going to take out a dignitary on the street (well, if he has a sniper rifle with a certain kind of round, or he just plants the right bomb, it still can be done). but the austrian archduke franz ferdinand mode of assassination is, indeed, only historical, because of the development of bulletproof glass
the point is, the common man's perception, that neat tidy mental image that glass xyz is impervious to bullets, end of discussion, case close, is obviously false
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
no, assholes, market forces do not solve all problems in the world. you need REGULATIONS, backed up by enforcement, that you WANT to pay for, if you properly understood the costs of no regulations. regulations whose effects are to make the market FREE. no, that's not a contradiction if you understand the fucking subject matter. no intellectual charity for you: figure it the fuck out on your own time, retards
if you don't understand how regulations make the market free and fair STOP YAMMERING ABOUT A SUBJECT MATTER YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
dude!
you're so cool!
uh... another hypocrite
"you have no right to respond to someone and tell them they are wrong. mind your own business" ...he said, responding to someone and telling them they are wrong, not minding his business
i am being arrogant, because i am dealing with a moron who can't keep track of the fucking topic at hand. i'm not your fucking father, i'm not here to hold your hand and lead you gently through life. if you can't understand the fucking subject matter in the fucking discussion, you're a moron. am i arrogant for saying that? maybe, but at least i'm not a moron
so you enjoy socializing. so you are a fan of people. so you're still a hypocrite based on what you wrote above
the only person who truly hates socializing and is not a fan of people is the guy i've never heard of. that guy, he's not a hypocrite. because he follows through on his beliefs. its definitely not the guy i'm in a conversation with on a comment board on the internet, who continues responding to me
look, either become a monk or a hermit, or admit that your stated beliefs and your actions are out of sync
but voluntarily going on the internet and socializing with people by announcing you don't like socializing is just a massive logic fail. sorry dude
i don't for a moment doubt anything you've provided me in the link from physorg. i agree, comprehend, and appreciate everything i just read there, and i thank you for the information
nor have i in any way countered the marine biologist you've quoted. i have no reason to. fully appreciate his quote
because you are confusing "most complex in the animal kingdom" with "anywhere remotely as complex as in homo sapiens"
i stand upon this mountain called the complexity and richness of human communication, and i look down at the largest tiny foothill down below, called whalesong, and i smile in appreciation of it
and i'll be waiting for your apology for your inability to keep proper track of the topic at hand
i've argued with creationists, ufo believers, ayn rand free market fundamentalists...
congratulations, you're the first person whose article of faith i've challenged is that whale song is as complex as human speech
watched a little too much star trek iv have you?
it's really silly to ask someone to cite what should be as plain as day obvious to anyone with functional senses. do you want me to offer citations on the sky being blue or water being wet as well?
i am offering you no citations because it's silly and laughable for you to expect them. i probably could easily find some if i tried. but i'm not trying, because the argument is not worth having, because i'm not in the habit of arguing in defense of obvious reality. if someone is delusional and cannot see the obvious for themselves, they are not worth the time to communicate with
my fucking ear
i'm not sure why you resist the obvious. does it pierce some sort of mythology of yours? whale song is nowhere near as complex as human speech, not even remotely. this should be blindingly obvious to you if you aren't deaf
yeah, it sings. big deal. so does a mockingbird. it is many orders of magnitude less complex than homo sapiens' communication
in terms of bandwidth, a honking goose or a hooting monkey might be a 300 bps modem, and a humpback whale or a parrot might be a 28.8kbps modem. but homo sapiens is a fiber optic trunk, far beyond any other creature on earth by many orders of magnitude in terms of richness and complexity of communication
no, not entirely. many species communicate, all sorts of ways. so you are right, voicebox is not entirely the description to go for. so howabout RICHNESS and COMPLEXITY of communication is what makes us special, whether by hand or voicebox
i don't think it is trollish to point out when someone is a giant hypocrite. yes, i do take delight in tweaking people's blind egos. that's being a troll?
since when did speaking the truth become only the domain of the troll? are we supposed to suffer someone as blind as the guy i called a hypocrite in silence? why?
so, if it means being called a troll for calling someone out for being a smug self-serving idiot like i did, then so be it, i will be a troll, and i will wear the label with pride
they go extinct. however, plenty of species are strictly asocial, and they make time to get laid, so its not that big of a deal to socialize to procreate... unless of course, you are a member of homo sapiens
that which makes homo sapiens compelling is not our gray matter, its our voicebox. a genius with an amazing idea and no way to communicate it is useless: his idea is future skull dust. meanwhile, an average intelligence person who communicates his idea well changes the world. socializing, socializing more than intellect, is the most important thing about our species. alone, we mean nothing. in an organized group, we are gods. civilization is the product of millions socializing, not a few isolated geniuses, no matter how much we celebrate the cult of the iq, iq is actually not that big of a deal, just a fetish
oh yeah, not just voicebox: fine motor control, handwriting. then mechanical printing. then radio. television
and now, in our generation, the internet
it might be neato to work on a spreadsheet, but most anything that can be programmed that is a compelling reason for a computer in your life has a network component. so if it doesn't work in a train tunnel, its probably not worth programming
everything that happened with computers before say 1991 was just a tiny dent on the surface about what makes computers compelling and useful. we still haven't scratched the surface really, we're just in the dawn of this internet age. computers without a communication component are still useful, yes, but combine computers with communication, and you are at a many orders of magnitude increase in possibilities and usefulness
...he said, socializing on a web 2.0 style ajax site
you're a giant hypocrite
we're obsessed with socializing
facebook is just the tool which makes the most sense to manage your social network now. will that be the case in 10 years? if you say definitely "yes" (or definitely "no") you definitely don't know what you are talking about. maybe it will be, it could be, it has the network effect on its side, that's for sure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
ps: i don't have a facebook account and i never will. egads, the tedium
you can program webpages and apps. different paradigm
humans are not implements, moron
tools have always been used in war. when we have autonomous decision making mechanisms engaging enemies, then we can talk about robotic warfare. otherwise, the bar is being set too low for what constitutes robotic warfare
usually its the "evil socialist" left that says there are costs the community incurs for bad behavior
its usually the right that says "my bad behavior has no effect on society! this is just fascist attempt to take away freedom!" blah blah blah: ignorant and blind. if your idea of "freedom" means the "right" to incur costs on others without any consequence to you, you don't know what freedom is, you just have a 2 year old's mindset: whine with whatever words sound good, be damned logic and reason, until you get what you want and you don't have to pay for the obvious inevitable consequences you avoid seeing out of your blind selfishness
so thank you, jan brewer, for showing to this cynical liberal that there is still the capacity for critical thinking from the right
manic-depressive experiencing hypomanic episode
please go back on your pills
no, you're bipolar, and you're entering your excessively talkative manic phase. can't wait for the depressive!