The difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, but nonetheless notable: unlike religion, science is in the limit PAC (probably approximately correct).
If you believe in block time, then you cannot believe in causality, since the latter becomes meaningless. Disbelieving causality does not imply disbelieving order in the universe--causality gets replaced by correlation.
Most of the images on the site suffer from aliasing which is quite nasty in some areas and makes them lose some of the beauty. He needs to supersample the rendering and apply a decent filter.
It means, obviously, that it takes up too much space. Take all the land area we have. Now subtract land that is (1) currently beind lived upon by humans, (2) protected as nature reserves and parks, and (3) used to support populations, i.e. mainly farms, and to a lesser extend, industry. Now extrapolate that a couple hundred years.
There's simply not enough space for solar (and wind) to meet the increasing energy use as described in my previous post. It's that simple. Exponential growth of wind/solar is a ludicrous proposition, since you'll run out of space far faster than you seem to realize.
Saying "We also need fewer people" shows how much value you place on human life--regardless of whether it is future human life. The only non-misanthropic attitude would be to say "We must expand into space in order to allow unrestricted growth in the number of human lives in the universe."
Actually, neither space-based nor ground-based solar make sense. Solar (and wind) is simply too low density. People conveniently forget in their estimates that (1) as population grows, and the supporting land use (farms etc.) also grow, land becomes at a premium; and (2) most of the world's population is in undeveloped and developing countries and their energy use per capita will grow 10x as full industrialized stage is reached over a couple centuries. Wind and solar are a joke. As it stands, nuclear energy is the only sustainable source. There are seven million tons of mineable uranium, a whole lot more in seawater, and a ton of thorium. Combined with breeder reactor use, we have guaranteed source of energy for growing demand for centuries. And by then, one of the fusion projects will have born fruit: we have already three promising heads: ITER's improved Tokamak design, General Fusion's magnetized target fusion, and the Polywell project. Why waste development funds on silly projects like wind and solar?
Wind energy is simply too low density (as is solar) to fully satisfy the world's growing energy needs over even the next couple of centuries. And you're forgetting that most of the world's population is in developing and undeveloped nations whose energy demand will grow 10x per capita as they become fully industrialized. Wind and solar are toy projects pushed by rabid environmentalists' infectious propaganda; they very much realize how adoption of these power sources will force severe limits on human progress by suppressing energy availability. And I've no doubt that's exactly what they want--less technology, back to nature Ludditism and, especially, enabling a socialist reworking of human civilization.
Vote nuclear, kids; save mankind.
You'd have to cover much of the land area that is neither used nor immediately planned for development with solar panels to meet the growing demand for electricity for even the next couple hundred years. Developing and undeveloped countries will easily see their usage per capita grow tenfold as they become fully industrialized nations. The real advantage of space solar is significant additional real estate.
Or, you can just ignore green group anti-nuclear propaganda and forget about toy energy sources like wind and solar. Mineable uranium is quite limited, but there's a lot more in seawater, not to mention that thorium reserves are significant, and breeder reactors extend by several times the use of available fission fuels. And by the time that runs out, at least one of ITER, General Fusion's magnetized target fusion, or the Polywell project, will have practical, working offspring that will easily satisfy our energy needs for thousands of years (assuming linear growth in usage).
This password seems too short. For AES256 much longer passwords are recommended by security-specific programs; for example, Truecrypt complains if the password has anything less than 20 characters.
You're an idiot and should have read the fucking paper. This is not discussing propulsion that is part of the spacecraft, but gravitational repulsion by an external large relativistic mass (and the implication that such are to be found out there, though not specific as to the type). Indeed, the mass needs to be larger than the spacecraft itself and moving over a 3rd of c for this to work (the benefit is that the spacecraft will accelerate to much higher speed than the driver mass and those onboard will feel no acceleration, just tidal forces).
You believe wrong. If you had read the damn paper, you'd have seen that the idea is that a mass much larger than the spaceship moving at relativistic speed can repel the spaceship, accelerating it to a speed much higher than its own, while the spaceship itself will not feel the acceleration (it will be in free-fall condition), with the exception of tidal forces.
That doesn't make sense. A 64-bit address space has only 100x less bytes than there are grains of sand on the planet. We won't be anywhere near exhausting that for many decades.
I'm wondering to what extent Bullet lets you run simulation tasks in your own threads; PhysX lets the user do that by providing a simple scheduler class interface, and I can get better performance by explicitly managing tasks scheduling myself as I integrate rendering and other tasks together with the PhysX ones in the same system--rather than relying on the default threading model provided in the physics library.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, preferably, just don't do "these sorts of things". *rolleyes*
Spacetime isn't infinitely differentiable, so there are no point particles and it's meaningless to talk about thing smaller than a Plank length.
The difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, but nonetheless notable: unlike religion, science is in the limit PAC (probably approximately correct).
If you believe in block time, then you cannot believe in causality, since the latter becomes meaningless. Disbelieving causality does not imply disbelieving order in the universe--causality gets replaced by correlation.
I don't see how causality is compatible with block time. Causality seems to be more of a psychological illusion than anything else.
Mod parent up. Best BS-call-out-despite-everyone-else's-blindfolds post I've seen on /. in a year. Bravo!
I don't get it.
Most of the images on the site suffer from aliasing which is quite nasty in some areas and makes them lose some of the beauty. He needs to supersample the rendering and apply a decent filter.
Just the expression of the guy in the background struck me.
It means, obviously, that it takes up too much space. Take all the land area we have. Now subtract land that is (1) currently beind lived upon by humans, (2) protected as nature reserves and parks, and (3) used to support populations, i.e. mainly farms, and to a lesser extend, industry. Now extrapolate that a couple hundred years.
There's simply not enough space for solar (and wind) to meet the increasing energy use as described in my previous post. It's that simple. Exponential growth of wind/solar is a ludicrous proposition, since you'll run out of space far faster than you seem to realize.
Saying "We also need fewer people" shows how much value you place on human life--regardless of whether it is future human life. The only non-misanthropic attitude would be to say "We must expand into space in order to allow unrestricted growth in the number of human lives in the universe."
Actually, neither space-based nor ground-based solar make sense. Solar (and wind) is simply too low density. People conveniently forget in their estimates that (1) as population grows, and the supporting land use (farms etc.) also grow, land becomes at a premium; and (2) most of the world's population is in undeveloped and developing countries and their energy use per capita will grow 10x as full industrialized stage is reached over a couple centuries. Wind and solar are a joke. As it stands, nuclear energy is the only sustainable source. There are seven million tons of mineable uranium, a whole lot more in seawater, and a ton of thorium. Combined with breeder reactor use, we have guaranteed source of energy for growing demand for centuries. And by then, one of the fusion projects will have born fruit: we have already three promising heads: ITER's improved Tokamak design, General Fusion's magnetized target fusion, and the Polywell project. Why waste development funds on silly projects like wind and solar?
Or, you can just use nuclear energy. It's much cheaper and has enormously higher energy density. Wind and solar are toys.
Wind energy is simply too low density (as is solar) to fully satisfy the world's growing energy needs over even the next couple of centuries. And you're forgetting that most of the world's population is in developing and undeveloped nations whose energy demand will grow 10x per capita as they become fully industrialized. Wind and solar are toy projects pushed by rabid environmentalists' infectious propaganda; they very much realize how adoption of these power sources will force severe limits on human progress by suppressing energy availability. And I've no doubt that's exactly what they want--less technology, back to nature Ludditism and, especially, enabling a socialist reworking of human civilization.
Vote nuclear, kids; save mankind.
No. Also, see my post here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436662&cid=30035516
You'd have to cover much of the land area that is neither used nor immediately planned for development with solar panels to meet the growing demand for electricity for even the next couple hundred years. Developing and undeveloped countries will easily see their usage per capita grow tenfold as they become fully industrialized nations. The real advantage of space solar is significant additional real estate.
Or, you can just ignore green group anti-nuclear propaganda and forget about toy energy sources like wind and solar. Mineable uranium is quite limited, but there's a lot more in seawater, not to mention that thorium reserves are significant, and breeder reactors extend by several times the use of available fission fuels. And by the time that runs out, at least one of ITER, General Fusion's magnetized target fusion, or the Polywell project, will have practical, working offspring that will easily satisfy our energy needs for thousands of years (assuming linear growth in usage).
Great, another PUA-wannabe that is but a keyboard-jockey. *rolleyes*
This password seems too short. For AES256 much longer passwords are recommended by security-specific programs; for example, Truecrypt complains if the password has anything less than 20 characters.
SSID hiding is NOT security.
I meant sqrt(3)*c for the threshold speed
You're an idiot and should have read the fucking paper. This is not discussing propulsion that is part of the spacecraft, but gravitational repulsion by an external large relativistic mass (and the implication that such are to be found out there, though not specific as to the type). Indeed, the mass needs to be larger than the spacecraft itself and moving over a 3rd of c for this to work (the benefit is that the spacecraft will accelerate to much higher speed than the driver mass and those onboard will feel no acceleration, just tidal forces).
You believe wrong. If you had read the damn paper, you'd have seen that the idea is that a mass much larger than the spaceship moving at relativistic speed can repel the spaceship, accelerating it to a speed much higher than its own, while the spaceship itself will not feel the acceleration (it will be in free-fall condition), with the exception of tidal forces.
That doesn't make sense. A 64-bit address space has only 100x less bytes than there are grains of sand on the planet. We won't be anywhere near exhausting that for many decades.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16550-why-sustainable-power-is-unsustainable.html
I'm wondering to what extent Bullet lets you run simulation tasks in your own threads; PhysX lets the user do that by providing a simple scheduler class interface, and I can get better performance by explicitly managing tasks scheduling myself as I integrate rendering and other tasks together with the PhysX ones in the same system--rather than relying on the default threading model provided in the physics library.