Cool. So a slow, expensive router that needs additional hardware if you want to use more than one wired device, and a bunch of Google spyware built in?
Actually, yes, it does. There's also a web page written by a fusion researcher featuring that graph and it gives a good, accessible rundown on the progress that's been made to date and a good projection of what still needs to be done.
Keep in mind, IIRC, those projections were made in 1976. It wasn't "we need more money" it was a set of recommendations for the US to decide how aggressively to pursue fusion research, from Manhattan project level to "you might as well not even bother."
D + D -> 3He + n + 3.27 MeV D + 3He -> 4He + H + 18.3 MeV
That gives us 21.57 MeV = 3.5e-12 J per 3He atom. World energy usage is 6.0e20 J.
To supply that, assuming we have a 100% efficient reaction, we'd need to produce 1.6e32 4He atoms, which is 2.7e8 mole, or 1.0e6 kg
A standard 11" balloon apparently requires.015 m^3 of helium, which is about 2.7 g. So we could inflate about 400 million balloons. Incidentally, they could lift about 4000 tonnes.
That analysis is done as an example of the folly of expecting exponential growth to continue forever. It's highly unlikely we'll end up in that sort of situation any time soon. If we did, any sort of solar power wouldn't be enough to provide our energy needs.
You use heat pumps to collect the excess heat, generate electricity, then feed the electricity into giant lasers. Which you use to accelerate spacecraft, or write your name on the moon.
He did say "like a Mr. Fusion." You shovelled random garbage into a Mr. Fusion, most of which ended up being organic: food waste, plastics, etc. That's mostly hydrogen and carbon.
You get helium 3 from tritium decay. If you really wanted to do He3 fusion, which has some advantages and a lot of disadvantages, you could just make lots of tritium and wait for it to decay.
It's good to have options. As you say, wind and solar are doing just fine. They're today's technologies. Fusion is looking promising. It's the technology of tomorrow. The power density, self containment and controllability of a practical fusion reactor lets you do things that wind and solar can't.
You're mixing up generally irreproducible results and a situation where a proportion of reported results are not replicated.
Modern psychology is very much a science, using the scientific method. However, due to the difficulty of studying it, the requirements for publishing a result are low enough that many of them turn out to be incorrect (not reproducible). That these results are eventually found to be incorrect is a validation of the scientific nature of psychology.
ANY subject involving a complex, difficult-to-study subject is going to have the same problem. Most fields like that, psychology, medical science, ecology, systems biology, etc., prefer allowing reasonable sized studies (usually less than a few million dollars) to be published, knowing that they may be incorrect, then replicating the interesting ones. Particle physics has tended to go the opposite way, where high profile results are not published until the confidence is very high, but those results also cost billions to achieve. Lots of less high profile results are, of course, held to lower standards.
The real lesson to take from the problem of replicability is not snide "psychology isn't a science" but rather that being published in a journal (hopefully) means that the study was done in a scientific way, but is no guarantee that it's true.
Your "underlying state" seems equivalent to a "hidden variables" theory. Note that the Bell inequality says that if the universe is local (no action at a distance, special relativity, etc.) then hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the observations of quantum mechanics.
It's possible the universe really does have a deterministic nature that is hidden from us, but if that's true then the laws of physics are not local. We tend to shy away from that option because of the success of special relativity, and prefer the other: that the universe really doesn't have a deterministic underlying reality.
I think the answer is "we don't really know." One of the criticisms of the standard model is that, although it has fantastic predictive ability, it doesn't have much explanatory ability. It can't even tell you something as seemingly simple as why an electron has the rest mass that it does.
However, you might find the phase/state/configuration space formulation of quantum mechanics more intuitively satisfying. You can imagine a quantum system as being a particular state space with rules restricting how you can move.
Maybe some new developments, such as the holographic hypothesis, will provide more explanatory power.
It doesn't have to be something as large as that. Much smaller impacts throw up material from rocky planets that can seed the solar system. Escaping the sun would be a bit harder, but it could happen via occasional very large impacts, or comets being seeded by small impacts and then ejected from the solar system.
There's no persuasive evidence to indicate that Ashely Madison didn't fake female profiles. There IS evidence they faked profiles. Assuming they were only female seems a bit biased, no?
Note that your objection about fake profiles not chatting doesn't really hold up. Fake female profiles also don't chat. The idea is to keep presenting pictures and profiles that you like, to keep the hope alive.
Panspermia doesn't involve a bunch of Oregon Trail style settlers heading out and populating an empty world. You fire microbes, or possibly even just the precursors of life out and they start multiplying and evolving if they land somewhere they like.
I'm currently receiving the alarm monitoring notifications for some woman in the northeastern US. Address, name, time, date, and what action (alarm on, alarm off, gone to bed, etc.). The messages are no reply and the alarm company doesn't appear to have any kind of e-mail address I can contact. I checked to see if it was the same person who signed me up for the mailing list for her kids' school, but apparently not.
There are reasons to fake male profiles. Having lots of male profiles with nice pictures and soothing, non psychopathic text helps with recruiting females and maybe getting them to stick around.
Those are great examples of buzzwords. Nonspecific to the point of meaningless.
Now give examples of the rest of your point. Someone else used "wavelet", "Hadoop" and "Scala" as CS/EE jargon-buzzwords. Except those are all specific, well defined things. Two of them are even proper nouns, and the other is a common abbreviation of a proper noun.
Jargon is used to speak more precisely to colleagues. Buzzwords are used to obscure meaning. Sure, both can be used to try and impress people. One of them has only that purpose.
That's silly. You can download Hadoop. Scala is a programming language; it has to be precisely specified otherwise it couldn't be compiled. The wavelet transform is an equation (with lots of related proofs) that you can write down. These things are all proper nouns.
Can you direct me to the technical specification or provide the equation for "actualization of a tribe's core concepts?"
I bet the actual instructors at those universities throw up in their mouths a little bit whenever they read the marketing speak on the uni web site.
You've mistaken university PR for higher education. Somebody had the brilliant idea a while ago to run universities like businesses, so now they have all the managers, marketers and associated fluff that corporations do. The people doing the actual educating are rightfully suspicious of both the external AND internal marketing bullspeak.
"The other part of my dismay is free and otherwise government-supported independent access to college education is the greatest tool to institute broad serfdom I can think of."
And yet, places where free or heavily subsidized higher education has been the norm for decades look a lot less like serfdoms than places where it hasn't.
You're referring to jargon. Jargon is a set of specialized terms that people familiar with a field use to talk about it. Jargon terms have more specific meanings than regular terms. Using them with outsiders is bad.
The article is talking about buzzwords. Buzzwords are terms that have less specific meaning than plain language. They're designed to be general, nonspecific and impressive sounding. You use them to mislead, obscure, or impress.
I might agree that most of the problem isn't buzzwords, but it's also not lack of understanding. It's skepticism. These "new teaching methods" are unproven, and lots of them are starting to show the cracks in their shiny. Just yesterday we had a story about Udacity not living up to expectations.
There's an interesting statistic that shows computer science professors are the least likely to use learning software like Blackboard. Why? It's not because they don't understand the technology. It's because they've already integrated web pages, email and other technology into their teaching, and are justifiably skeptical about the push-button "solutions" like Blackboard.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool. So a slow, expensive router that needs additional hardware if you want to use more than one wired device, and a bunch of Google spyware built in?
So it's a slow, expensive router with no available wired ports and a bunch of Google spyware built in?
Actually, yes, it does. There's also a web page written by a fusion researcher featuring that graph and it gives a good, accessible rundown on the progress that's been made to date and a good projection of what still needs to be done.
Keep in mind, IIRC, those projections were made in 1976. It wasn't "we need more money" it was a set of recommendations for the US to decide how aggressively to pursue fusion research, from Manhattan project level to "you might as well not even bother."
Ten minutes. I think it's actually closer to 15. Either way, that's LOADS of time for the neutron to participate in a reaction.
Suppose we're using a two stage reaction:
D + D -> 3He + n + 3.27 MeV
D + 3He -> 4He + H + 18.3 MeV
That gives us 21.57 MeV = 3.5e-12 J per 3He atom. World energy usage is 6.0e20 J.
To supply that, assuming we have a 100% efficient reaction, we'd need to produce 1.6e32 4He atoms, which is 2.7e8 mole, or 1.0e6 kg
A standard 11" balloon apparently requires .015 m^3 of helium, which is about 2.7 g. So we could inflate about 400 million balloons. Incidentally, they could lift about 4000 tonnes.
Unless I made a mistake.
That analysis is done as an example of the folly of expecting exponential growth to continue forever. It's highly unlikely we'll end up in that sort of situation any time soon. If we did, any sort of solar power wouldn't be enough to provide our energy needs.
You use heat pumps to collect the excess heat, generate electricity, then feed the electricity into giant lasers. Which you use to accelerate spacecraft, or write your name on the moon.
He did say "like a Mr. Fusion." You shovelled random garbage into a Mr. Fusion, most of which ended up being organic: food waste, plastics, etc. That's mostly hydrogen and carbon.
You get helium 3 from tritium decay. If you really wanted to do He3 fusion, which has some advantages and a lot of disadvantages, you could just make lots of tritium and wait for it to decay.
It's good to have options. As you say, wind and solar are doing just fine. They're today's technologies. Fusion is looking promising. It's the technology of tomorrow. The power density, self containment and controllability of a practical fusion reactor lets you do things that wind and solar can't.
You're mixing up generally irreproducible results and a situation where a proportion of reported results are not replicated.
Modern psychology is very much a science, using the scientific method. However, due to the difficulty of studying it, the requirements for publishing a result are low enough that many of them turn out to be incorrect (not reproducible). That these results are eventually found to be incorrect is a validation of the scientific nature of psychology.
ANY subject involving a complex, difficult-to-study subject is going to have the same problem. Most fields like that, psychology, medical science, ecology, systems biology, etc., prefer allowing reasonable sized studies (usually less than a few million dollars) to be published, knowing that they may be incorrect, then replicating the interesting ones. Particle physics has tended to go the opposite way, where high profile results are not published until the confidence is very high, but those results also cost billions to achieve. Lots of less high profile results are, of course, held to lower standards.
The real lesson to take from the problem of replicability is not snide "psychology isn't a science" but rather that being published in a journal (hopefully) means that the study was done in a scientific way, but is no guarantee that it's true.
Your "underlying state" seems equivalent to a "hidden variables" theory. Note that the Bell inequality says that if the universe is local (no action at a distance, special relativity, etc.) then hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the observations of quantum mechanics.
It's possible the universe really does have a deterministic nature that is hidden from us, but if that's true then the laws of physics are not local. We tend to shy away from that option because of the success of special relativity, and prefer the other: that the universe really doesn't have a deterministic underlying reality.
I think the answer is "we don't really know." One of the criticisms of the standard model is that, although it has fantastic predictive ability, it doesn't have much explanatory ability. It can't even tell you something as seemingly simple as why an electron has the rest mass that it does.
However, you might find the phase/state/configuration space formulation of quantum mechanics more intuitively satisfying. You can imagine a quantum system as being a particular state space with rules restricting how you can move.
Maybe some new developments, such as the holographic hypothesis, will provide more explanatory power.
It doesn't have to be something as large as that. Much smaller impacts throw up material from rocky planets that can seed the solar system. Escaping the sun would be a bit harder, but it could happen via occasional very large impacts, or comets being seeded by small impacts and then ejected from the solar system.
There's no persuasive evidence to indicate that Ashely Madison didn't fake female profiles. There IS evidence they faked profiles. Assuming they were only female seems a bit biased, no?
Note that your objection about fake profiles not chatting doesn't really hold up. Fake female profiles also don't chat. The idea is to keep presenting pictures and profiles that you like, to keep the hope alive.
Panspermia doesn't involve a bunch of Oregon Trail style settlers heading out and populating an empty world. You fire microbes, or possibly even just the precursors of life out and they start multiplying and evolving if they land somewhere they like.
If you try to divorce your fridged wife you have to answer all sorts of embarrassing questions about how she got in the fridge in the first place.
I'm currently receiving the alarm monitoring notifications for some woman in the northeastern US. Address, name, time, date, and what action (alarm on, alarm off, gone to bed, etc.). The messages are no reply and the alarm company doesn't appear to have any kind of e-mail address I can contact. I checked to see if it was the same person who signed me up for the mailing list for her kids' school, but apparently not.
People really should be more careful.
There are reasons to fake male profiles. Having lots of male profiles with nice pictures and soothing, non psychopathic text helps with recruiting females and maybe getting them to stick around.
Those are great examples of buzzwords. Nonspecific to the point of meaningless.
Now give examples of the rest of your point. Someone else used "wavelet", "Hadoop" and "Scala" as CS/EE jargon-buzzwords. Except those are all specific, well defined things. Two of them are even proper nouns, and the other is a common abbreviation of a proper noun.
Jargon is used to speak more precisely to colleagues. Buzzwords are used to obscure meaning. Sure, both can be used to try and impress people. One of them has only that purpose.
That's silly. You can download Hadoop. Scala is a programming language; it has to be precisely specified otherwise it couldn't be compiled. The wavelet transform is an equation (with lots of related proofs) that you can write down. These things are all proper nouns.
Can you direct me to the technical specification or provide the equation for "actualization of a tribe's core concepts?"
I bet the actual instructors at those universities throw up in their mouths a little bit whenever they read the marketing speak on the uni web site.
You've mistaken university PR for higher education. Somebody had the brilliant idea a while ago to run universities like businesses, so now they have all the managers, marketers and associated fluff that corporations do. The people doing the actual educating are rightfully suspicious of both the external AND internal marketing bullspeak.
"The other part of my dismay is free and otherwise government-supported independent access to college education is the greatest tool to institute broad serfdom I can think of."
And yet, places where free or heavily subsidized higher education has been the norm for decades look a lot less like serfdoms than places where it hasn't.
You're referring to jargon. Jargon is a set of specialized terms that people familiar with a field use to talk about it. Jargon terms have more specific meanings than regular terms. Using them with outsiders is bad.
The article is talking about buzzwords. Buzzwords are terms that have less specific meaning than plain language. They're designed to be general, nonspecific and impressive sounding. You use them to mislead, obscure, or impress.
I might agree that most of the problem isn't buzzwords, but it's also not lack of understanding. It's skepticism. These "new teaching methods" are unproven, and lots of them are starting to show the cracks in their shiny. Just yesterday we had a story about Udacity not living up to expectations.
There's an interesting statistic that shows computer science professors are the least likely to use learning software like Blackboard. Why? It's not because they don't understand the technology. It's because they've already integrated web pages, email and other technology into their teaching, and are justifiably skeptical about the push-button "solutions" like Blackboard.