Hehe, no I wasn't suggesting it was, or that there was anything to fear from it. What I was suggesting is that DNA Origami and other techniques are the "primer" that will lead to real molecular manufacturing.. and once the first assembler is built there will be an explosion of activity due to the massive amounts of design-ahead research that has been done. Of course, that assumes that design-ahead has been done remotely accurately, which quite simply is most likely not the case:)
DNA Origami was given a comical name for a reason. This is just a curiosity. Maybe some day the technique will be used for something practical.. but more likely DNA synthesis technology will catch up and there will no longer be any need to "fold" an existing long single strand of DNA like a virus. It's actually more like "stapling" and that's how it is described in the literature, maybe they should have called it Milton Manipulation, but I guess few biologists would get the joke.
It's truly frightening that the vast majority of military spending that has gone into "nanotechnology" has been directed towards the Design-Ahead-ists, those who follow the wisdom of K. Eric Drexler. It's the new cold war, and its even colder than the last. Technology like DNA Origami and Ralph Merkle's continuing pursuit of STM/AFM techniques are literally the sparks that could ignite a Gray Goo Armageddon - or the abundant life.
The crash rate, i.e. the number of crashes or casualties per kilometre ridden, is relatively high for motorcyclists. The number of deaths per kilometre travelled was almost 25 times higher for motorcyclists than for car occupants in the period 2003-2006. The number of in-patients per kilometre was 20 times higher for motorcyclists than for car users.
meh, that's not typically the way it works. Typically what happens is that someone observes a phenomena. Like, say, that when they put a particular kind of magnet near a superconductor it starts spinning. After some experimentation they figure out how to get it to happen repeatably and what variables seem to be the most important to increase the speed of rotation, or whatever is being observed. Then they start to posit a hypothesis for why this may be occurring.. and devise experiments that would result in observations that, if seen, will imply the hypothesis is incorrect. They try these experiments because they care more about knowing why than being right, and the only way to come up with a good theory is to try to bust it. After many iterations they get a good working theory of why the phenomena occurs and they publish. Other scientists criticize it and they defend it. For example, another scientist might say "well that's overly complicated, why would it not just be [something simpler]" and the defense will be something like "if that were true then we wouldn't see X and I have seen X, and here's the steps to reproduce so that you too can see X." And after all this workable experimentation has been done someone says "hey, ya know, spinning magnets like that is a good way to generate [something useful] and I need that for this thing I'm working on" and they reproduce the experiments described in the literature and show that the technique has practical application and then they do the engineering work to figure out how to produce the effect in a real world situation.
On the other hand, what most people seem to think is the way towards warp drive or any of these other magical far off technologies is that you do a whole lot of theory and then one day someone sits down with a pen and paper and designs a machine that will use this newly developed theory. They go and apply for patents and grant money and build it and it just works! Amazing! I gotta wonder if this ever has worked.
Ironically, for the exact opposite reasons that warp drive is considered impossible.
Many many people had tried and failed to make flying machines. It appeared self evident that flying machines were impossible, so long as they were heavier than air. It seemed perfectly clear what was needed to fly.. just look at birds.. but when one tried to do it, there was no success.
On the other hand, exactly zero people have tried to make warp drives. Just thinking of a way that it could possibly be done is hard, let alone trying it. Also, the only evidence we have that something exotic is needed is indirect.. no-one has actually tried to break the light barrier by accelerating up to it, because that too is hard.
Seems to me the only way you're going to get a warp drive any time soon is to seriously investigate all hype bouncing around superconductors, etc. And even then, the likely result is "nope, no effect found." By "seriously" I mean "with the budget of fusion research" and yeah, that just aint gunna happen:)
Yeah, he's talking about this thing called "history" that you may not be aware of. Ya see, people actually did say that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. The fact that birds can fly is irrelevant. They obviously were created by God, not man, so they didn't count.
Summary of the previous article: Here's a technical problem, which no-one will ever figure out how to solve, therefore it's impossible. Summary of the current article: Here's a tiny shred of scientific evidence that it may have happened before, therefore it is not impossible.
Note that the previous article was just a logical fallacy. The fact that you've identified a potential problem in a technology that doesn't even exist does not rule it out as a possibility.. it just shows that it is hard, duh, we knew that already.
Note that the current article is just wild speculation.. they're trying to say that if space warping happened slightly after the big bang then that might actually mean it is possible to do it now. And people tend to read what they want to read, namely, they confuse "possible" with "practical".
Meh, if you sign a waiver you can pay a doctor to do anything to you.. short of deliberately killing you.. the legality of that varies from state to state.
hehe.. I knew it wasn't for me when I failed the color blindness test.
Recruiter: ok, look into this little hole here and tell me what color you see. Me: red
Me: red
Me: red Recruiter: you're looking into the hole where the light is coming out right? Me: yeeeessss..
Me: red
Me: red Recruiter: yeah, ok, we can skip the rest of the test, go into that room there. Officer in charge: army and airforce don't want you.. you can join the navy, but you will never be promoted past Steward. Me: this is because of the colorblindness? Officer: yes. Me: I couldn't even be a cook? Officer: hell no. Me: So if there was a draft.. Officer: you'd be at home doing paperwork. Me: Heh, I guess that's some consolation.
That is probably true, if you live in the land of the anally retentives, who are incapable of understanding the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law.
With domain ux, each bot uses a domain generation algorithm (DGA) to com- pute a list of domain names. This list is computed independently by each bot and is regenerated periodically. Then, the bot attempts to contact the hosts in the domain list in order until one succeeds, i.e., the domain resolves to an IP address and the corresponding server provides a response that is valid in the botnet's protocol. If a domain is blocked (for example, the registrar suspends it to comply with a take-down request), the bot simply rolls over to the follow- ing domain in the list.
Slashdot Mirror
http://heybryan.org/books/papers/Self-assembly%20of%20a%20nanoscale%20DNA%20box%20with%20a%20controllable%20lid.pdf
Thanks kanzure, you rock.
Hehe, no I wasn't suggesting it was, or that there was anything to fear from it. What I was suggesting is that DNA Origami and other techniques are the "primer" that will lead to real molecular manufacturing.. and once the first assembler is built there will be an explosion of activity due to the massive amounts of design-ahead research that has been done. Of course, that assumes that design-ahead has been done remotely accurately, which quite simply is most likely not the case :)
Sigh.
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~nikhil/.fnano09/u34bu3r/Self-AssembledDNANanostructures/PDF/For%20Review/E00-668912817.pdf
Yeah, fuck you Nature.
DNA Origami was given a comical name for a reason. This is just a curiosity. Maybe some day the technique will be used for something practical.. but more likely DNA synthesis technology will catch up and there will no longer be any need to "fold" an existing long single strand of DNA like a virus. It's actually more like "stapling" and that's how it is described in the literature, maybe they should have called it Milton Manipulation, but I guess few biologists would get the joke.
It's truly frightening that the vast majority of military spending that has gone into "nanotechnology" has been directed towards the Design-Ahead-ists, those who follow the wisdom of K. Eric Drexler. It's the new cold war, and its even colder than the last. Technology like DNA Origami and Ralph Merkle's continuing pursuit of STM/AFM techniques are literally the sparks that could ignite a Gray Goo Armageddon - or the abundant life.
Well, it depends on where you live, but I believe the actuarial tables do say that it is a 10x greater risk of serious injury or death over a car.
A study in the Netherlands puts it at 25x greater.
The crash rate, i.e. the number of crashes or casualties per kilometre ridden, is relatively high for motorcyclists. The number of deaths per kilometre travelled was almost 25 times higher for motorcyclists than for car occupants in the period 2003-2006. The number of in-patients per kilometre was 20 times higher for motorcyclists than for car users.
I just found a new use for "adblock image". Assholes.
And you pay for it with a 10x risk of serious injury or death.
meh, that's not typically the way it works. Typically what happens is that someone observes a phenomena. Like, say, that when they put a particular kind of magnet near a superconductor it starts spinning. After some experimentation they figure out how to get it to happen repeatably and what variables seem to be the most important to increase the speed of rotation, or whatever is being observed. Then they start to posit a hypothesis for why this may be occurring.. and devise experiments that would result in observations that, if seen, will imply the hypothesis is incorrect. They try these experiments because they care more about knowing why than being right, and the only way to come up with a good theory is to try to bust it. After many iterations they get a good working theory of why the phenomena occurs and they publish. Other scientists criticize it and they defend it. For example, another scientist might say "well that's overly complicated, why would it not just be [something simpler]" and the defense will be something like "if that were true then we wouldn't see X and I have seen X, and here's the steps to reproduce so that you too can see X." And after all this workable experimentation has been done someone says "hey, ya know, spinning magnets like that is a good way to generate [something useful] and I need that for this thing I'm working on" and they reproduce the experiments described in the literature and show that the technique has practical application and then they do the engineering work to figure out how to produce the effect in a real world situation.
On the other hand, what most people seem to think is the way towards warp drive or any of these other magical far off technologies is that you do a whole lot of theory and then one day someone sits down with a pen and paper and designs a machine that will use this newly developed theory. They go and apply for patents and grant money and build it and it just works! Amazing! I gotta wonder if this ever has worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_drive
Ya. Most likely a fraud. Create a device that produces more easily measurable propulsion and he might get some more attention :)
Ironically, for the exact opposite reasons that warp drive is considered impossible.
Many many people had tried and failed to make flying machines. It appeared self evident that flying machines were impossible, so long as they were heavier than air. It seemed perfectly clear what was needed to fly.. just look at birds.. but when one tried to do it, there was no success.
On the other hand, exactly zero people have tried to make warp drives. Just thinking of a way that it could possibly be done is hard, let alone trying it. Also, the only evidence we have that something exotic is needed is indirect.. no-one has actually tried to break the light barrier by accelerating up to it, because that too is hard.
Sigh. "Warp" is defined as asymmetrical distortion of space. And no, that hasn't been observed.
Seems to me the only way you're going to get a warp drive any time soon is to seriously investigate all hype bouncing around superconductors, etc. And even then, the likely result is "nope, no effect found." By "seriously" I mean "with the budget of fusion research" and yeah, that just aint gunna happen :)
Yeah, he's talking about this thing called "history" that you may not be aware of. Ya see, people actually did say that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. The fact that birds can fly is irrelevant. They obviously were created by God, not man, so they didn't count.
Summary of the previous article: Here's a technical problem, which no-one will ever figure out how to solve, therefore it's impossible.
Summary of the current article: Here's a tiny shred of scientific evidence that it may have happened before, therefore it is not impossible.
Note that the previous article was just a logical fallacy. The fact that you've identified a potential problem in a technology that doesn't even exist does not rule it out as a possibility.. it just shows that it is hard, duh, we knew that already.
Note that the current article is just wild speculation.. they're trying to say that if space warping happened slightly after the big bang then that might actually mean it is possible to do it now. And people tend to read what they want to read, namely, they confuse "possible" with "practical".
do not listen to these podcasts while driving. You will fall asleep. You will kill someone.
Ya, that makes sense.
Meh, if you sign a waiver you can pay a doctor to do anything to you.. short of deliberately killing you.. the legality of that varies from state to state.
1. you're replying to a sig, that's a faux pas around here.
2. are you incapable of ruling out irrelevant situations?
3. this is why no-one likes you.
hehe.. I knew it wasn't for me when I failed the color blindness test.
Recruiter: ok, look into this little hole here and tell me what color you see.
Me: red
Me: red
Me: red
Recruiter: you're looking into the hole where the light is coming out right?
Me: yeeeessss..
Me: red
Me: red
Recruiter: yeah, ok, we can skip the rest of the test, go into that room there.
Officer in charge: army and airforce don't want you.. you can join the navy, but you will never be promoted past Steward.
Me: this is because of the colorblindness?
Officer: yes.
Me: I couldn't even be a cook?
Officer: hell no.
Me: So if there was a draft..
Officer: you'd be at home doing paperwork.
Me: Heh, I guess that's some consolation.
If they were "lunatics" (or, ya know, just had balls) they would have fire bombed the mall for kicking them out.
Pussies.
and nothing of value will be lost.
That is probably true, if you live in the land of the anally retentives, who are incapable of understanding the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law.
Like, say, the USA?
hehe, just cause you can't read..
With domain ux, each bot uses a domain generation algorithm (DGA) to com-
pute a list of domain names. This list is computed independently
by each bot and is regenerated periodically. Then, the bot attempts
to contact the hosts in the domain list in order until one succeeds,
i.e., the domain resolves to an IP address and the corresponding
server provides a response that is valid in the botnet's protocol. If a
domain is blocked (for example, the registrar suspends it to comply
with a take-down request), the bot simply rolls over to the follow-
ing domain in the list.