Re:Digital Data - The end of Dark Ages?
on
Digital Dark Ages?
·
· Score: 1
I personally would like to see off-planet massive storage
Off planet huh? I'm not sure what the practical purpose of this would be. Okay so our planet burns or floods or is swept away by a massive tsunami, I think we have lots bigger problems (like survival) than our data storage. I don't think that that is "reasonable" means for backup.
Firstly this mummy is of an "overseer of workers who built the pyramids" not a king. They know this because of the hieroglyphics found in his tomb. So, even though it may be a splendid specimen of a mummy and scientifically important, it is not a very culturally significant mummy compared to the king tut mummy or any other mummy for that matter really.
The mummy is 4,600 years old, and although it may be the "oldest intact sarcophagus ever found" it isn't the oldest mummy ever found.
That said, it is still cool to find an intact sarcophagus. Shows that there are still important things to be found in Egypt and that their efforts to research that area are not misspent.
So I don't think that that would be a practical application. Probably a better application would be for people with abnormalities or defects of the thymus.
I may get flamed for this but, I don't know if I trust a source that cant even get the first sentence of their article right. I would tend to believe the organic peoples results over a guy who cant write an english sentence. Just a thought.
Not necessarily any. It doesn't have to be electromagnetic. There are magnets that don't consume any electricity you know. But who knows how this would effect other instruments or things on the ship.
An alternative approach might be to punch through in one explosive event
I'd like to know how using a encapsulated radioactive material that creates one explosive even would take place with exposing radiation and/or radioactive material? Kay, thanks.
I don't exactly think that would be a wise idea. Think about it. Life on earth isn't exactly immune to radiation and plunging a ball of nuclear waste into a pristine ocean wouldn't exactly be a good idea. Hypothetically speaking lets say there is life there. Would you really want to plunge a ball of nuclear waste into their environment and risk killing the only other life ever known beyond our own planet? There are fresh water lakes in Antarctica that have been covered in ice for a millennia and scientists have debated on whether or not to send sterile equipment there for risk of contaminating those lakes with even a little bit of oil or other materials that might be on the machinery used to dig the holes. In short blasting a crater in the ice and then plunging in after it wouldn't be the best idea anyone has ever had, to say the least.
Also, the Shuttle wouldn't be much help at all for a Moon shot (it's an orbital vehicle).
Firstly I wasn't implying that you would land the space shuttle on the moon. I was implying that it is the workhorse for lifting just about everything into space. Including materials to build a habitable space station.
The technology for living on the Moon has been around for decades.
I also wasn't implying that the technology wasn't around. I was implying that it would be a venture that the Chinese weren't prepared to make on their own. When the United States made their moon shot in the 60's we didn't do much besides land there and bring some rocks back. What they are talking about is establishing a moon base. Something that has never before been attempted by ANYONE let along a communist country who's space program, technology, and resources (monetarily and intellectually), pales in comparison to ours. Given our space budget has been rather anemic lately but China's budget would have to be colossal to tackle such a project alone.
Take the ISS for example. Their budget is extremely high (most of it burdened by the US) but at least some of it is deferred to other countries. And that is just to build an orbital space station. It would be interesting to see China do it. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Frankly, I would be amazed if China had a chance at making it to the moon without at least some form of US involvement. Compared to the US the Chinese government is still in its infancy as far as space travel and exploration go. They might be able to make it to the moon but without our space shuttle there is no way that they are going to be able to get the kind of resources necessary, to be able to set up any kind or reliable, permanent, inhabitable base on the moon. They might as well be aiming to set up a base on Pluto. "Get real" IMO.
Is it just me or does all of this theory sound like groping at some sort of explanation on how the universe works? I mean "dark matter", "dark energy" and the like are just ways of explaining what we really don't understand. IMHO it sounds to me like the theories on how the universe works are pretty shoddy at best. Logic would tell me that "dark matter" couldn't exist. And that the reason it does "exist" is because we made it up so that our current view of the universe would make sense when it is fundamentally flawed. I am definitely no astrophysicist and I don't make any claims at being one. I know that when we think about things on such a grand scale certain things don't apply anymore, but intuition and logic tell me that the simplest and most logical answer is typically the right one. Case in point would be the extinction of the dinosaurs. For years scientists speculated on the reasoning behind the extinction of the dinosaurs, until one day it occurred to someone somewhere that maybe an asteroid hit the planet and wiped pretty much everything out. That seems logical and reasonable. But if someone told me that some "dark apocalypse thing" came and wiped out all the dinosaurs I would be a little more hard pressed to believe it. I am sure that there are plenty of people that are going to try to explain why I am wrong and why "dark matter" or whatever must exist but the logic of it defies me. Thoughts?
The problem with the dependence of oil isn't an alternative means. Someone has pointed/will point out that we have many alternative energy sources. Instead oil as a means of energy is dominant because it is cheap.
You can bite, but I'll chew a little.
First of all not everything is economic in this situation. Granted that the most important factor determining our dependence on oil is economic it is definitely not the only one.
There are other factors too. Firstly and most importantly is POLITICAL. Lots of time in life things are done not because they are cheaper, but because they are BETTER and make more sense to do in the long run. Anyone who as ever worked in an office environment will understand the importance of politics. If the American people decide that hydrogen is a better solution then undoubtedly that will be a determining factor on whether or not we continue to use oil.
We are already passing laws that are weighing heavily against oil as a long term solution and those are ENVIRONMENTAL. Oil is dirty, hazardous to your (and mine) health, and to every other living thing on the planet (baring a few species of bacteria).
Well I won't go on but you get my point. Economics are definitely NOT the only factor in our collective push toward hydrogen.
This isn't news. Back in my highschool days the lunch ladys dished these up every Wednesday. Oh sure it had different names but I think we all knew what it was.
how a lot of the new technology will pan out. I have been reading a lot about new drug developments and future cures to this that and the other thing (Aids, Cancer, Alzheimer's, etc etc...) but hardly ever see anything beyond just a preliminary story. I wonder if a pill like this or some other technology (nanotech?) will ever bring around cosmetic changes. I think probably more likely we will settle for quick fixes like plastic surgery and the like for many years to come. Comments?
The article also said that the reactor would be used to "To relieve peak loads in the near future" and not as the sole power source for the apartment block. I would think that they would use these things when it was CHEAPER than pulling it of the main power grid. You have to figure in the cost of using this thing as opposed to getting power from another source. Plus I think it would be more than likely that you could use more than one of these things in conjunction with each other. You wouldn't have to have just one.
This is a great idea. I just had one thought. How long do these things last? After they die what do you do with the radio active waste? You can't just dump it down the drain and go to the store to pick up some new plutonium.
What is the deal? You would think that with Blizzard's boatloads of cash that if they wanted to get a game out by it's advertised release date that they could just hire on some more programmers and get the job done. But, I guess that would be logical and sometimes big companies don't seem to follow the logic standards.
But, on the other hand, I guess pushing back the release date is better than releasing a crappy/buggy game.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally would like to see off-planet massive storage
Off planet huh? I'm not sure what the practical purpose of this would be. Okay so our planet burns or floods or is swept away by a massive tsunami, I think we have lots bigger problems (like survival) than our data storage. I don't think that that is "reasonable" means for backup.
We all know what is REALLY under the earth's surface. Why do you think fossils are coming from underground? Duh.
Firstly this mummy is of an "overseer of workers who built the pyramids" not a king. They know this because of the hieroglyphics found in his tomb. So, even though it may be a splendid specimen of a mummy and scientifically important, it is not a very culturally significant mummy compared to the king tut mummy or any other mummy for that matter really.
The mummy is 4,600 years old, and although it may be the "oldest intact sarcophagus ever found" it isn't the oldest mummy ever found.
That said, it is still cool to find an intact sarcophagus. Shows that there are still important things to be found in Egypt and that their efforts to research that area are not misspent.
They already fixed the bubble boy.
So I don't think that that would be a practical application. Probably a better application would be for people with abnormalities or defects of the thymus.
I may get flamed for this but, I don't know if I trust a source that cant even get the first sentence of their article right. I would tend to believe the organic peoples results over a guy who cant write an english sentence. Just a thought.
I should have clarified. I seem to have to do that a lot in my posts. Significant, obtainable amounts of water.
Not necessarily any. It doesn't have to be electromagnetic. There are magnets that don't consume any electricity you know. But who knows how this would effect other instruments or things on the ship.
Three little letters can sum this up.
h
2
o
Living on mars can be quite a bit easier (long term) with water already there.
An alternative approach might be to punch through in one explosive event
I'd like to know how using a encapsulated radioactive material that creates one explosive even would take place with exposing radiation and/or radioactive material? Kay, thanks.
I don't exactly think that would be a wise idea. Think about it. Life on earth isn't exactly immune to radiation and plunging a ball of nuclear waste into a pristine ocean wouldn't exactly be a good idea. Hypothetically speaking lets say there is life there. Would you really want to plunge a ball of nuclear waste into their environment and risk killing the only other life ever known beyond our own planet? There are fresh water lakes in Antarctica that have been covered in ice for a millennia and scientists have debated on whether or not to send sterile equipment there for risk of contaminating those lakes with even a little bit of oil or other materials that might be on the machinery used to dig the holes. In short blasting a crater in the ice and then plunging in after it wouldn't be the best idea anyone has ever had, to say the least.
Screw that, I want to see the Pamela Anderson mod. That was classic. Boobs that shot Austin Powers style. Very nice.
Also, the Shuttle wouldn't be much help at all for a Moon shot (it's an orbital vehicle).
Firstly I wasn't implying that you would land the space shuttle on the moon. I was implying that it is the workhorse for lifting just about everything into space. Including materials to build a habitable space station.
The technology for living on the Moon has been around for decades.
I also wasn't implying that the technology wasn't around. I was implying that it would be a venture that the Chinese weren't prepared to make on their own. When the United States made their moon shot in the 60's we didn't do much besides land there and bring some rocks back. What they are talking about is establishing a moon base. Something that has never before been attempted by ANYONE let along a communist country who's space program, technology, and resources (monetarily and intellectually), pales in comparison to ours. Given our space budget has been rather anemic lately but China's budget would have to be colossal to tackle such a project alone.
Take the ISS for example. Their budget is extremely high (most of it burdened by the US) but at least some of it is deferred to other countries. And that is just to build an orbital space station. It would be interesting to see China do it. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.
My 2cents
Frankly, I would be amazed if China had a chance at making it to the moon without at least some form of US involvement. Compared to the US the Chinese government is still in its infancy as far as space travel and exploration go. They might be able to make it to the moon but without our space shuttle there is no way that they are going to be able to get the kind of resources necessary, to be able to set up any kind or reliable, permanent, inhabitable base on the moon. They might as well be aiming to set up a base on Pluto. "Get real" IMO.
Is it just me or does all of this theory sound like groping at some sort of explanation on how the universe works? I mean "dark matter", "dark energy" and the like are just ways of explaining what we really don't understand. IMHO it sounds to me like the theories on how the universe works are pretty shoddy at best. Logic would tell me that "dark matter" couldn't exist. And that the reason it does "exist" is because we made it up so that our current view of the universe would make sense when it is fundamentally flawed. I am definitely no astrophysicist and I don't make any claims at being one. I know that when we think about things on such a grand scale certain things don't apply anymore, but intuition and logic tell me that the simplest and most logical answer is typically the right one. Case in point would be the extinction of the dinosaurs. For years scientists speculated on the reasoning behind the extinction of the dinosaurs, until one day it occurred to someone somewhere that maybe an asteroid hit the planet and wiped pretty much everything out. That seems logical and reasonable. But if someone told me that some "dark apocalypse thing" came and wiped out all the dinosaurs I would be a little more hard pressed to believe it. I am sure that there are plenty of people that are going to try to explain why I am wrong and why "dark matter" or whatever must exist but the logic of it defies me. Thoughts?
Offtopic I know but...
Slap me silly and call me T-Rex. I want to eat Rachel Welch too!
Offtopic I know but I thought I'd digress anyway.
Global warming isn't real?
I guess I'll bite.
The problem with the dependence of oil isn't an alternative means. Someone has pointed/will point out that we have many alternative energy sources. Instead oil as a means of energy is dominant because it is cheap.
You can bite, but I'll chew a little.
First of all not everything is economic in this situation. Granted that the most important factor determining our dependence on oil is economic it is definitely not the only one.
There are other factors too. Firstly and most importantly is POLITICAL. Lots of time in life things are done not because they are cheaper, but because they are BETTER and make more sense to do in the long run. Anyone who as ever worked in an office environment will understand the importance of politics. If the American people decide that hydrogen is a better solution then undoubtedly that will be a determining factor on whether or not we continue to use oil.
We are already passing laws that are weighing heavily against oil as a long term solution and those are ENVIRONMENTAL. Oil is dirty, hazardous to your (and mine) health, and to every other living thing on the planet (baring a few species of bacteria).
Well I won't go on but you get my point. Economics are definitely NOT the only factor in our collective push toward hydrogen.
This isn't news. Back in my highschool days the lunch ladys dished these up every Wednesday. Oh sure it had different names but I think we all knew what it was.
how a lot of the new technology will pan out. I have been reading a lot about new drug developments and future cures to this that and the other thing (Aids, Cancer, Alzheimer's, etc etc...) but hardly ever see anything beyond just a preliminary story. I wonder if a pill like this or some other technology (nanotech?) will ever bring around cosmetic changes. I think probably more likely we will settle for quick fixes like plastic surgery and the like for many years to come. Comments?
I love these guys! *sob sob sob*
The article also said that the reactor would be used to "To relieve peak loads in the near future" and not as the sole power source for the apartment block. I would think that they would use these things when it was CHEAPER than pulling it of the main power grid. You have to figure in the cost of using this thing as opposed to getting power from another source. Plus I think it would be more than likely that you could use more than one of these things in conjunction with each other. You wouldn't have to have just one.
This is a great idea. I just had one thought. How long do these things last? After they die what do you do with the radio active waste? You can't just dump it down the drain and go to the store to pick up some new plutonium.
Just a thought...
What is the deal? You would think that with Blizzard's boatloads of cash that if they wanted to get a game out by it's advertised release date that they could just hire on some more programmers and get the job done. But, I guess that would be logical and sometimes big companies don't seem to follow the logic standards.
But, on the other hand, I guess pushing back the release date is better than releasing a crappy/buggy game.