Well, do you think there's anyone who completely understands a modern warship?
No, but human engineering projects are all divided up into neat subsystems with small interfaces that one person can understand. Biological systems tend to be very messy in comparison.
The brain is only hardware. There is no software. And we do know where to start. Look at the Deepmind projects for instance. The trick is self learning, evolved networks and genetic algorithms. We're still behind the real brain in terms of learning efficiency and robustness, but we can improve that by studying small pieces of our brain that exhibit those behaviors, and then simply scaling up the hardware. That's how our own brain evolved. We're never going to understand the whole brain, simply because it's too big, so it would be stupid to try to achieve that first.
I think we're a little bit further than "absolutely no idea", at least at the low level interaction between neurons. And once you understand the basics, it's quite feasible that you can start to replicate the results, even without understanding the whole thing. Our brains evolved from rodent-sized brains in a few million generations, without any planning or understanding. We could do something similar for artificial brains.
Actually, something from ~1uW upwards would be just fine for some IoT/sensor applications
We're talking about solar panels here. There's already plenty of energy coming from the sun, so there's no need to add fancy extras to capture a miniscule amount of energy from the rain. And even on a rainy day, you'll get a lot more than 1uW from a solar panel.
The problem is that only scientists are interested in the carefully worded science. The rest of the world wants short and dramatic headlines, and the journalist will keep asking the scientists for juicy quotes, or will just reword the original themselves. Even in this case where the scientist is talking about a 40 year period and a doubling of CO2, and I showed a link where this is all explained, you still come back with the idea that he claimed that the West Side Highway would be underwater by now. If you're interested in rational science, you should read popular press with suspicion. Always. And before you argue about it, you should find the original source, and read that.
altering the meaning of a text message, leading to a tragic misunderstanding, which resulted in a group attack on the sender who then murdered the recipient and subsequently committed suicide.
Seems to me that it's not the fault of the phone, but rather the hot tempered reaction of the people involved.
Even if Joe Average doesn't touch it, Joe McTerrorist sure will---thus defeating the entire purpose of this bill.
Not necessarily. The terrorists behind the recent Paris attacked sent plain text messages. Also, doing encryption right is hard. Joe McTerrorist might easily make a mistake, or he may run the software on a compromised device that intercepts plain text traffic.
changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount
But CO2 isn't near doubling yet. Also, we don't know what exactly was meant by that. Are we talking about a doubling near the beginning, during, or near the end of the 40 year time span ?
Instead of looking at percentages, which look rather small and innocent, there's a better way to interpret the data. Imagine we put all the CO2 of the atmosphere in a solid layer of CO2 at standard atmospheric pressure. Pre-industrial age, that layer would be about 3 meters thick. Since then, we've added an extra meter, which has a pretty significant effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Well, at least you accept the data. That's a start. However if your plan is to kill billions of people, we don't have to do anything except sit and wait.
Also worth pointing out that those first-stage engines will have a limited number of flights they're good for. So on it's last flight, you stick the engine in a second stage
The second stage engine has a different design, because it's optimized for operating in vacuum. I think a better plan would be to launch the first stage as disposable when the engines are getting near the end of their life, and use that disposable launch for a heavy payload.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of those use rocket motors that are purchased from Russia.
Besides ULA's ATLAS V rocket, who uses Russian engines ?
Well, do you think there's anyone who completely understands a modern warship?
No, but human engineering projects are all divided up into neat subsystems with small interfaces that one person can understand. Biological systems tend to be very messy in comparison.
Because people want to see that Watson is really smarter, rather than faster. We already know computers are faster.
It's as stupid as the morons on motorcycles that ride without helmets.
Don't call them morons. They are organ donors on wheels, and they deserve our appreciation for their sacrifice.
The brain is only hardware. There is no software. And we do know where to start. Look at the Deepmind projects for instance. The trick is self learning, evolved networks and genetic algorithms. We're still behind the real brain in terms of learning efficiency and robustness, but we can improve that by studying small pieces of our brain that exhibit those behaviors, and then simply scaling up the hardware. That's how our own brain evolved. We're never going to understand the whole brain, simply because it's too big, so it would be stupid to try to achieve that first.
I think we're a little bit further than "absolutely no idea", at least at the low level interaction between neurons. And once you understand the basics, it's quite feasible that you can start to replicate the results, even without understanding the whole thing. Our brains evolved from rodent-sized brains in a few million generations, without any planning or understanding. We could do something similar for artificial brains.
flowing down to rivers which could be dammed for hydroelectric power.
You need other conditions for hydro. A sufficient gradient, for example.
Actually, something from ~1uW upwards would be just fine for some IoT/sensor applications
We're talking about solar panels here. There's already plenty of energy coming from the sun, so there's no need to add fancy extras to capture a miniscule amount of energy from the rain. And even on a rainy day, you'll get a lot more than 1uW from a solar panel.
But not with current technology
Tomorrow we'll have something better.
But it's one of the duties of a good engineer to quickly reject stupid ideas with a back-of-the-envelope argument.
True, as long the argument is valid.
If all contestants knew the answers, they should run it again with more difficult questions.
The problem is that only scientists are interested in the carefully worded science. The rest of the world wants short and dramatic headlines, and the journalist will keep asking the scientists for juicy quotes, or will just reword the original themselves. Even in this case where the scientist is talking about a 40 year period and a doubling of CO2, and I showed a link where this is all explained, you still come back with the idea that he claimed that the West Side Highway would be underwater by now. If you're interested in rational science, you should read popular press with suspicion. Always. And before you argue about it, you should find the original source, and read that.
altering the meaning of a text message, leading to a tragic misunderstanding, which resulted in a group attack on the sender who then murdered the recipient and subsequently committed suicide.
Seems to me that it's not the fault of the phone, but rather the hot tempered reaction of the people involved.
Even if Joe Average doesn't touch it, Joe McTerrorist sure will---thus defeating the entire purpose of this bill.
Not necessarily. The terrorists behind the recent Paris attacked sent plain text messages. Also, doing encryption right is hard. Joe McTerrorist might easily make a mistake, or he may run the software on a compromised device that intercepts plain text traffic.
changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount
But CO2 isn't near doubling yet. Also, we don't know what exactly was meant by that. Are we talking about a doubling near the beginning, during, or near the end of the 40 year time span ?
I need an emoji to represent rending my shirt and falling to my knees, wracked with pain and guilt!
Spare us the lengthy description. Just give us the hex code.
Apple is a piss pot of everything doing everything THEY want and not giving one flying fuck about how anyone else might like it:
Instead of looking at percentages, which look rather small and innocent, there's a better way to interpret the data. Imagine we put all the CO2 of the atmosphere in a solid layer of CO2 at standard atmospheric pressure. Pre-industrial age, that layer would be about 3 meters thick. Since then, we've added an extra meter, which has a pretty significant effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I see why you like this system... its very efficient.
Yes, it's efficient, and it's been proven to work very well. That's why we all do it, except for a few people with mental disorders.
Is anyone still using BSD ? It was dying years ago. Netcraft even confirmed it.
Well, at least you accept the data. That's a start. However if your plan is to kill billions of people, we don't have to do anything except sit and wait.
once you get an effective armor you then create better projectiles that nullify any advantages given by that armor .
Effective armor already existed, so people have been trying to create better projectiles for a long time.
it was Dr. James Hansen who, in 1988, claimed the NY West Side Highway would be underwater by now
No, he didn't. https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Wow, what sort of disaster exactly are you expecting to happen?
You don't need a huge disaster. Look at what happened after the draught in Syria. Millions of people are now trying to invade Europe.
Also worth pointing out that those first-stage engines will have a limited number of flights they're good for. So on it's last flight, you stick the engine in a second stage
The second stage engine has a different design, because it's optimized for operating in vacuum. I think a better plan would be to launch the first stage as disposable when the engines are getting near the end of their life, and use that disposable launch for a heavy payload.