I think it makes sense to create a first base on a martian moon rather than on the planet.
Firstly, and ironically, the moon is a good place to go to because it's an easy place to get off. It isn't a giant gravity well like a planet is, so it is a great launch pad for further explorations, whether to the planet, back to Earth, or to other locations.
Secondly, as Phobos and Deimos are tiny, construction should be easier in the near zero G environment(once we learn how to do it), though finding the right materials might be more difficult.
Thirdly, it'll give us experience living off of and mining asteroids, which in many ways are preferable to planets, for the reasons above and because we'll be able to fly on them.
I guess the only (swallowable) solution would be a pill which contains a machine that regenerates the proteins and carbohydrates in your body. The pill would need to have a compact power source, and a chemical source probably just couldn't do it(sugar is pretty power packed as it is). Therefore, a nuclear battery might be needed.
Obviously, many people will hesitate to swallow a nuclear device, but I'm sure many geeks could be persuaded with targetted advertising promoting the benefits of becoming an "Atomic Powered Superman!"
Alternatively, the devices could use some form of broadcast energy.
How much is Microsoft really giving?
on
Big Company on Campus
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Each year, Microsoft gives away about $100 million of that to universities
How much of that $100 million is in the form of MS software, which is free for Microsoft to give away?
was order by his doctor to start eating some kind of meat (beef or chicken).
Unfortunately, many doctors are clueless about things outside there experience. Had the doctor done a bit of research, he would have found easy way's of getting proper nutrition from vegetable sources.
Vegans are a group of new-age diet gurus who tell everyone who will listen that they are evil for eating meat
This is as silly as saying all computer scientists are socially inept geeks who tell everyone who will listen that they are stupid for using any Microsoft products.
Every vegan and vegetarian I've met has considered their diet a personal choice, and not everyone does it for ethical reasons, many do it for health.
Which brings me to my next point: the myth that vegan/vegetarian diets are inherently unhealthy. Fact of the matter is, it's not overly difficult to eat a healthy diet as a vegan, and even easier to do so as a vegetarian. In fact, there are numerous health benefits, like reduced chances of diabetes and coronary disease. Also, you aren't ingesting all the antibiotics and hormones they pump farm animals full of.
Is it possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet? Of course, just as it's possible to eat an unhealthy omnivore diet(as many north americans do).
Why don't you quit with your FUD, and actually do some research first.
until they come up with a digital uplink to pipe the movies right into our brains
I can't wait till we go one step further than that: directly encoding the memory of the movie into my brain, so that I can save the time it would have taken me to watch it. That'll be sweet!
But when I found a string of bytes I didn't understand, the working assumption that usually went better for me was that "I don't know what this stuff does", not "these bytes are random".
And with assembly code generated by a compiler(or a human), that makes sense. Why? Because the compiler/human is supposed to generate only code which is necessary and sufficient to perform the tasks outlines in the source code.
DNA code, to the contrary, is (in many respects) a living substance. In addition to having millions of years of evolutionary baggage, and no well defined clean up/optimization system, it also contains sequences of "selfish" DNA which do nothing but copy themselves and insert themselves randomly into other places in the genome.
So the analogy between human/compiler generated computer code and evolved, living DNA is not very good. A better experiment, IMHO, would be to compare real DNA sequences with computer code generated by a genetic algorithm for solving a particular task.
the power consumption and size [of 802.15.3] would be about 50% greater than a Bluetooth solution. However, on the flip-side 802.15.3 would allow for data rates [of 55 Mbps,] considerably in excess of current sub-1 Mbps Bluetooth solutions.
So if it takes 50% more power, but is 5500% faster, isn't it still a cost savings over bluetooth? or does that "50% more power" imply "50% more power per bit of information transfered".
Um, never took a course in population genetics, have you?
Because if you had, you would surely know about the neurtal theory of molecular evolution, which "proposes that the majority of nucleotide substitutions and polymorphisms are the result of selectively neutral mutants" ie, most changes in the gene pool are selectively neutral. This theory revolutionized genetics, and led to the development of many useful techniques like "molecular clocks" to determine when two bloodlines split off from each other.
Furthermore, the neutral theory does not require selection on an allele to be totally absent (s = 0), but only that it is small with respect to the effects of random genetic drift ( 4*Ne*s less than 1, where Ne is the effective population size, and s is the selection coefficient).
Which means that even genes which are HARMFUL to the individual sometimes become fixed in all members of the species, becoming more frequent than the less harmful versions.
Over time, this leads to movement of the genepool away from it initial state, even if the environment favours the initial state.
The question is whether or not this is a problem - to a lot of people, the state you have described is all they want or need. Most of the world sees thinking as a means to an end, not an end in itself.
I think that life has to be dynamic to be meaningful. So while a stagnant world where everyone is happy is preferable to a stagnant world where everyone is unhappy, neither is preferable to a world with change, where new ideas and things can be created and appreciated, where each day is different from the last.
The question is, since people are happy, should they be made "unhappy" in the interests of advancement?
We already have this. They are called drug laws. If we wanted, everyone could be blitzed out of their mind on a steady heroine drip 24/7 (or at least the majority of the time, with rotating on shifts where you have to man the machinery for the other people). But instead we have laws which prevent this practice.
I don't think it's right to deny someone happiness if they're means of getting happiness doesn't hurt anyone else, so my answer to your question is no. However, I would not opt for the heroine drip.
Your first point is irrelevant, because even using no genetic engineering technology, our species will continue to mutate and eventually be no longer recognizably human.
Your second point assumes that we will only use genetic engineering to select genes out of the gene pool. Contrary to the beliefs of early eugenicists, this is both undesirable and unlikely, as modern genetics realizes the inherent benefits from having a diverse gene pool(such as the ability to resist killer diseases), and genetic engineering will allow us to further diversify our gene pool by extending it with genes from other species(I wouldn't mind a cow's ability to digest cellulose), and even with artificial genes.
For those don't understand, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
The problem with that world wasn't that people were too happy.
The problem was that the whole world was stagnant, nothing new was ever done, and books that prescribed independant thinking were banned. There was also the mandatory religious participation, and the uninformed administration of drugs which, while making you healthy while alive, caused you to die around 60.
The "too intelligent" people weren't "given" their own island, they were exiled to particular islands, where they couldn't influence their brain-washed brethren.
genetic engineering and other technologies are going to divide human beings into classes that may one day try to destroy one another
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of species and of what advanced genetic engineering technologies allow.
The biological species concept defines a species as a set of organisms which can breed among themselves, but not with members of other species
Genetic engineering, particularly trangenics, makes this concept obselete, because it is possible to transfer genes from any species to any other, pretty much eliminating any species boundaries.
Yes, different people will have different sets of genes, but with gen-eng, it will be possible to move from any one type to any other, ie "upward mobility" will be possible for everyone, which is infinitely preferable to what we have now where people are stuck with the gene's they're born with.
Maybe readers who go to schools that use such a system can expand on how that system is used.
At my school, the recently mentionedMcMaster University, our residence meal plan could be used at local restaurants which had a deal with the Univerisity, like East Side Marios, Pizza Hut, and equivalent places.
Thing was, while they were mainly restaurants, some of these restaurants had bars in them, and we found early on that the system did not discriminate between what one ordered from these places.
So basically, one could use mommy and daddy's meal plan money. I think they eliminated this loophole since my first year, but it was good(by which I mean very very bad) while it lasted:)
How long until high school teachers fire real rockets to demonstrate Newton's third law?
We did this in my highschool geometry class using model rockets. We had several observers at known distances from the launch site who measured the angle of the rocket when it reached it's highest point. We then used the data to calculate the altitude of the rocket.
Model rockets are very widely available toys, and a lot of fun for junior and senior geeks alike. Me and my brothers built and played with them all the time.
IMHO and experience, the field is too broad, and its participants too diverse for any gross generalization to be helpful.
That being said, their are definitely features with a higher probability of being found in software developers than in the population at large.
Instead of a movie which just should a simplistic "prototypical" developer, It would be better to have one which showed a sample of the different types of people found in the software developer community.
I invite any repliers to suggest candidate subclasses:)
You mean to tell me they resurrect Duncan again! I mean, once I can buy, but twice? Death loses all dramatic significance if everyone is resurected! Is Paul back too!?! How about the old duke Leto?
Slashdot Mirror
It's called an anarchy, and I personally don't think it is the best form of goverment.
Firstly, and ironically, the moon is a good place to go to because it's an easy place to get off. It isn't a giant gravity well like a planet is, so it is a great launch pad for further explorations, whether to the planet, back to Earth, or to other locations.
Secondly, as Phobos and Deimos are tiny, construction should be easier in the near zero G environment(once we learn how to do it), though finding the right materials might be more difficult.
Thirdly, it'll give us experience living off of and mining asteroids, which in many ways are preferable to planets, for the reasons above and because we'll be able to fly on them.
Fourthly, no pesky Martians.
Obviously, many people will hesitate to swallow a nuclear device, but I'm sure many geeks could be persuaded with targetted advertising promoting the benefits of becoming an "Atomic Powered Superman!"
Alternatively, the devices could use some form of broadcast energy.
How much of that $100 million is in the form of MS software, which is free for Microsoft to give away?
Unfortunately, many doctors are clueless about things outside there experience. Had the doctor done a bit of research, he would have found easy way's of getting proper nutrition from vegetable sources.
This is as silly as saying all computer scientists are socially inept geeks who tell everyone who will listen that they are stupid for using any Microsoft products.
Every vegan and vegetarian I've met has considered their diet a personal choice, and not everyone does it for ethical reasons, many do it for health.
Which brings me to my next point: the myth that vegan/vegetarian diets are inherently unhealthy. Fact of the matter is, it's not overly difficult to eat a healthy diet as a vegan, and even easier to do so as a vegetarian. In fact, there are numerous health benefits, like reduced chances of diabetes and coronary disease. Also, you aren't ingesting all the antibiotics and hormones they pump farm animals full of.
Is it possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet? Of course, just as it's possible to eat an unhealthy omnivore diet(as many north americans do).
Why don't you quit with your FUD, and actually do some research first.
I can't wait till we go one step further than that: directly encoding the memory of the movie into my brain, so that I can save the time it would have taken me to watch it. That'll be sweet!
And with assembly code generated by a compiler(or a human), that makes sense. Why? Because the compiler/human is supposed to generate only code which is necessary and sufficient to perform the tasks outlines in the source code.
DNA code, to the contrary, is (in many respects) a living substance. In addition to having millions of years of evolutionary baggage, and no well defined clean up/optimization system, it also contains sequences of "selfish" DNA which do nothing but copy themselves and insert themselves randomly into other places in the genome.
So the analogy between human/compiler generated computer code and evolved, living DNA is not very good. A better experiment, IMHO, would be to compare real DNA sequences with computer code generated by a genetic algorithm for solving a particular task.
the power consumption and size [of 802.15.3] would be about 50% greater than a Bluetooth solution. However, on the flip-side 802.15.3 would allow for data rates [of 55 Mbps,] considerably in excess of current sub-1 Mbps Bluetooth solutions.
So if it takes 50% more power, but is 5500% faster, isn't it still a cost savings over bluetooth? or does that "50% more power" imply "50% more power per bit of information transfered".
An aerospace industry commissioner recommends investing in developing aerospace technologies. Surprise surprise.
sorry, that should have read "neutral"
Actually scienticians are quickly narrowing down the location of the motivation gene :)
Um, never took a course in population genetics, have you?
Because if you had, you would surely know about the neurtal theory of molecular evolution, which "proposes that the majority of nucleotide substitutions and polymorphisms are the result of selectively neutral mutants" ie, most changes in the gene pool are selectively neutral. This theory revolutionized genetics, and led to the development of many useful techniques like "molecular clocks" to determine when two bloodlines split off from each other.
Furthermore, the neutral theory does not require selection on an allele to be totally absent (s = 0), but only that it is small with respect to the effects of random genetic drift ( 4*Ne*s less than 1, where Ne is the effective population size, and s is the selection coefficient).
Which means that even genes which are HARMFUL to the individual sometimes become fixed in all members of the species, becoming more frequent than the less harmful versions.
Over time, this leads to movement of the genepool away from it initial state, even if the environment favours the initial state.
I think that life has to be dynamic to be meaningful. So while a stagnant world where everyone is happy is preferable to a stagnant world where everyone is unhappy, neither is preferable to a world with change, where new ideas and things can be created and appreciated, where each day is different from the last.
The question is, since people are happy, should they be made "unhappy" in the interests of advancement?
We already have this. They are called drug laws. If we wanted, everyone could be blitzed out of their mind on a steady heroine drip 24/7 (or at least the majority of the time, with rotating on shifts where you have to man the machinery for the other people). But instead we have laws which prevent this practice.
I don't think it's right to deny someone happiness if they're means of getting happiness doesn't hurt anyone else, so my answer to your question is no. However, I would not opt for the heroine drip.
Your second point assumes that we will only use genetic engineering to select genes out of the gene pool. Contrary to the beliefs of early eugenicists, this is both undesirable and unlikely, as modern genetics realizes the inherent benefits from having a diverse gene pool(such as the ability to resist killer diseases), and genetic engineering will allow us to further diversify our gene pool by extending it with genes from other species(I wouldn't mind a cow's ability to digest cellulose), and even with artificial genes.
I've never found it hard at all. I just imagine a democracy where every citizen is as reasonable as I am. Utopia follows :)
The problem with that world wasn't that people were too happy.
The problem was that the whole world was stagnant, nothing new was ever done, and books that prescribed independant thinking were banned. There was also the mandatory religious participation, and the uninformed administration of drugs which, while making you healthy while alive, caused you to die around 60.
The "too intelligent" people weren't "given" their own island, they were exiled to particular islands, where they couldn't influence their brain-washed brethren.
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of species and of what advanced genetic engineering technologies allow.
The biological species concept defines a species as a set of organisms which can breed among themselves, but not with members of other species
Genetic engineering, particularly trangenics, makes this concept obselete, because it is possible to transfer genes from any species to any other, pretty much eliminating any species boundaries.
Yes, different people will have different sets of genes, but with gen-eng, it will be possible to move from any one type to any other, ie "upward mobility" will be possible for everyone, which is infinitely preferable to what we have now where people are stuck with the gene's they're born with.
At my school, the recently mentioned McMaster University, our residence meal plan could be used at local restaurants which had a deal with the Univerisity, like East Side Marios, Pizza Hut, and equivalent places.
Thing was, while they were mainly restaurants, some of these restaurants had bars in them, and we found early on that the system did not discriminate between what one ordered from these places.
So basically, one could use mommy and daddy's meal plan money. I think they eliminated this loophole since my first year, but it was good(by which I mean very very bad) while it lasted :)
He said drink. Guiness is a meal.
How about being free?
We did this in my highschool geometry class using model rockets. We had several observers at known distances from the launch site who measured the angle of the rocket when it reached it's highest point. We then used the data to calculate the altitude of the rocket.
Model rockets are very widely available toys, and a lot of fun for junior and senior geeks alike. Me and my brothers built and played with them all the time.
IMHO and experience, the field is too broad, and its participants too diverse for any gross generalization to be helpful.
:)
That being said, their are definitely features with a higher probability of being found in software developers than in the population at large.
Instead of a movie which just should a simplistic "prototypical" developer, It would be better to have one which showed a sample of the different types of people found in the software developer community.
I invite any repliers to suggest candidate subclasses
You mean to tell me they resurrect Duncan again! I mean, once I can buy, but twice? Death loses all dramatic significance if everyone is resurected! Is Paul back too!?! How about the old duke Leto?
It depends how many hundreds. This relates to a concept called minimum viable population size. According to a site about elephant conservation:
Other species seem to be able to get around with much smaller populations, less than a hundred in some cases.