We need to have someone up in space, collecting all this crap and recycling it. Even if it is just Sanford & Son style recycling, it costs way too much money to get mass up there for us to just throw it out and leave it there.
If something weighs 3 tons and is in orbit, someone should be able to take it up to the space station, bolt it down, and start wielding the holes shut.
Forgot the "people that own two can combine them into one car" side by side.
Instead go with length wise connections and "People on the highway for long trips that want to save money on gasoline can connect multiple vehicles into a train."
This would reduce gas/energy consumption by at least 28% (as per Mythbusters 2007 , episode 80, drafting 2 ft behind a big rig reduced gas consumption by 28% Connecting ).
No it won't work in the cities where people get off the the highway often, but out west where people ride for miles, a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains, saving gas.
Or rather a rough equilevent of Moore's Law for CCD chip resolution, predicts that the resolution problem will vanish by next decade.
Welcome Geordi, your visor will be ready before you are born.
Scientists best, most productive years are those in their twenties. As someone that is 40, I understand that issue. I find I don't get "tweeting". It seems an insane activity to do or listen to. I am sure that there must be a reason for it, but I, a computer programmer, just don't understand why people want to tell the world their random, un-edited short thoughts. These are the things I am ashamed of.
The better the idea the longer and more involved I wish to write about it.
But I am 40, so I guess I am just too old to get it.
How slowly do you read? I typically can go through a book on a single plane ride. that means I take 3 books on vacation. One to go, one for at the beach, one for the return trip. I still run out on long trips (2 weeks or more). The value of the ereader is the ability to take MANY books in that one book spot.
Note, I am one of those people who attract mosquitoes. You put me at a pond and I get bit and no one else does.
I would pay $500 for a personal mosquito zapper, that works, let alone $50.
You are demonstratively wrong. Even the most moronic creationist admits that evolution has been proven to work at the microscopic level. That is why they refuse to take penicillin when they get sick with a bacteria that has evolved to be immune to penicillin. Evolution has been repeatedly proven at the bacterial level. Intelligent Design has never been proven at ANY level.
Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. More than 99 of biologist believes in it. Anything that gets that level of acceptance is considered a FACT by scientists.
They may also believe in a God, but that does NOT mean they believe in Intelligent design. If in fact they do believe in Intelligent Design, that still does NOT mean they think it is science. They are all more than smart enough to recognize Intelligent Design is a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.
Your problem is that you ignorantly believe several blatantly false theories:
1. Only science counts. No. You can have a belief that is not science without it being invalidated. My religion is not invalidated merely because it is not science.
2. Science does not have rules. No. Science is based on the idea of testability. If something can not be falsified, then it is not science. Period. If it can be proven false, then only then is it science. You must propose a test, then do the test and then ABIDE by the test.
Intelligent design is inherently unfalsifiable. People that believe in it will never disbelieve it no matter what you say or do. The very power of God means he can do things that we can't do. He can ineffect CHEAT at any test he wants to. (I.E. He can plant dinosaur bones and make them look like they are million years old. He can create a whole set of fake dead bones that illustrate man's evolution from ape to man. Etc. etc.) That means it is NOT science. It can't ever be science.
Yes, people can believe in Intelligent Design, but that is never science, that is RELIGION.
The problem is a bunch of lieing shmucks that want to teach their personal religion and pretend it is science.
That is against the highest laws of the United States of America.
I always love when they ask a hard science guy about a soft science field, they get arrogant.
They seriously underestimate the capabilities of a real brain.
If you replace the word "Intelligence" with "Stupidity", then their estimates for Artificial Stupidity become much more likely. (A.S. is what you get when you assume a deterministic model for intelligence instead of realizing that the human mind is more than just a machine.)
It is a rather simple military rule that you create your own information networks. You don't let your enemy or even your ally.
Using Chinese made equipment for any military equipment is a bad idea.
This is a no-brainer.
As an amatuer author, I understand some of where he is coming from. Stories have a beginning, middle and end. The end generally signifies the part where writing about it any more would be boring. Which little girl truly wants to hear about how Snow White had to change dirty diapers for her children? Or who really wants to hear about how Wendy and the lost buys grows old while Peter Pan is all alone with tinkerbell?
Yes, sequels are instant money makers, because we all want to read/see MORE from a good writer, but the truth is if you have said all you had to say, then there is no more.
It's kind of like going to the Grand Canyon and tring to dig it deeper with a shovel. Yeah, it's 'more', but it's not the same thing, and quite frankly, the quality of workmanship goes down.
Nah, the kill signal is an example of too much effort. If you are good enough to crack the OnStar system, you are good enough to crack a bank. Trust me, I've worked at banks, their software is not particularly strong. Cracking the bank will offer much much more bang for your buck than risking picking a car whose owner belongs to the NRA.
If they don't crash (or other damage), they can simply replace the electronics. It should be no more than a couple grand, not a total out. But I do agree about liability.
1. It will kill the car, not merely create a carefully programmed disabling like the Onstar system. Most likely this leads to a car crash and quite likely require complete replacement of all electronics.
2. As others stated, pacemakers, watches, cellphones, laptops, etc. will also be affected.
3. This will get into the hands of criminals. I am quite frankly they don't already have it. Here are some of the things I think people might use it on:
ATM's If there is a 1 in 100 chance of it malfunctioning and spitting out the money, then ATM's will be hit 100 times.
The body has multiple mechanism of disposing of heat. It is FULL of temperature differences. That is not the problem. Ever go out in the cold? Notice your hands get cold but your chest does not? You can easily get more than 3 degrees celsius.
The problem as someone else mentioned is that this converts heat to kinetic, not electrical.
It's damn expensive, using CURRENT technology. This is new technology. I.E. you have no idea if this is going to be expensive or not using it.
But you are right about my mistaking physical for electrical.
No. You have made a critical error in thinking. You need to think relativity wise. Scale changes how much power we need.
As of yet we don't have many small things that need small amounts of power because we have NOT had the engine.
Now that we have the small heat engine, it will allow us to develop small devices that use it.
Assuming we had micro engines, we can take full advantege of many things that are better smaller than bigger.
For example, a small device that turns heat into power could power an IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE using the bodies own heating/cooling systems? No more changing the battery for the pacemaker every
Then there are small flying devices. I am sure the military would love a flying camera the size of a real fly that uses the solar heat of the sun to power it.
Then there are phones and musical devices. Want one that uses half of its' own waste heat to recharge itself, perhaps doubling battery life?
1. The music industry has become a leach. They started out as doing three things - producing, marketing and distributing. Distributing was the hard work and where the customers were willing to pay big money for (transporting delicate wax tubes was very dificult, vinyl was slightly better but breakage was still a big problem. Tapes and CDs were lighter and sturdier, but still heavy.) But a better producer and marketer made more money, so they THOUGHT they were being paid for producing and marketing. No. They were being paid for distributing, and that market has vanished the way the buggy whip and the horse drawn carriage market has. They still try to charge as if they are distributing, but they are not.
2. Musicians still need Producing and Marketing, but those are worth only about 20% or MAYBE 30% of sales, not 80% that the big labels have. But the existing monoplies (that grew up charging 80% for distribution) make it hard to break in to the Producing + Marketing (no distribution). This problem will eventually go away, but it will take time.
3. The old distrubution system was so big and powerfull that it evolved into THE methods of transferring money to the musicians as well as the way to transfer music out. The ease of distrubtion has created a ton of tiny producers and removed the old 'gateways' that funnelled money and goods to the succesfull ones. We need a new SYSTEM, not of distrubtion, but of funneling money.
What we need is a breakthrough in marketing. Something that lets low level musicians earn a living wage, and gradually increases as they gain more fans. Note there may never be a band as big as the Beatles or Elvis or M. Jackson, ever again because of the greater range of music that should be available without the gateways. Also, musicians will likely never again be able to make money without performing live. People will always pay more to see live music than they will for a recording because honestly, recordings are commodities.
Perhaps music clubs could form in large cities where people pay a set fee, similar to a gym membership. Each night the club offers live music performed. Membership lets you in for free AND lets you download the music for free whenever you want from any oif the club's bands.
Or maybe somethign far better than what I can think of.
That not what I read.
"The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling, the spokesman said. The student violated school policies, but there was no criminal intent, Luque said."
They accused the student of violating school policies in the same paragraph that they mentioned counseling.
This looks like a bunch of moronic, paranoid asswipes trying to blame the kid, not a bunch of kind school administrators apologizing for over-reacting.
Everything you said makes sense... if the moron did not suggest the kid seek counseling.
Once you realize that YOU over-reacted, the correct action is to accept the fact that YOU acted like a fool. It is not to shift blame to the kid.
While it is true that most charities waste a lot of cash 50% is high. It is ALSO true that it is fairly easy to get a report on charities and figure out how much money they waste. Check the internet, and I see a Forbes report.
As per Forbes, the average charity wastes 16% of it's cash on overhead. The redcross wastes 9%.
It is easier to get 4 million people to give $10 then it is to get 4,000 people to give $10,000. But it takes a wide spread publicity campaign, which the networks are giving away for free.
By the way, if every person in the world sends me 1 penny (just ONE penny) via paypal to me at gurps_npc (at) hotmail.com, then I will be very happy.
Slashdot Mirror
If something weighs 3 tons and is in orbit, someone should be able to take it up to the space station, bolt it down, and start wielding the holes shut.
Instead go with length wise connections and "People on the highway for long trips that want to save money on gasoline can connect multiple vehicles into a train."
This would reduce gas/energy consumption by at least 28% (as per Mythbusters 2007 , episode 80, drafting 2 ft behind a big rig reduced gas consumption by 28% Connecting ).
No it won't work in the cities where people get off the the highway often, but out west where people ride for miles, a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains, saving gas.
Or rather a rough equilevent of Moore's Law for CCD chip resolution, predicts that the resolution problem will vanish by next decade. Welcome Geordi, your visor will be ready before you are born.
Scientists best, most productive years are those in their twenties. As someone that is 40, I understand that issue. I find I don't get "tweeting". It seems an insane activity to do or listen to. I am sure that there must be a reason for it, but I, a computer programmer, just don't understand why people want to tell the world their random, un-edited short thoughts. These are the things I am ashamed of. The better the idea the longer and more involved I wish to write about it. But I am 40, so I guess I am just too old to get it.
How slowly do you read? I typically can go through a book on a single plane ride. that means I take 3 books on vacation. One to go, one for at the beach, one for the return trip. I still run out on long trips (2 weeks or more). The value of the ereader is the ability to take MANY books in that one book spot.
Note, I am one of those people who attract mosquitoes. You put me at a pond and I get bit and no one else does. I would pay $500 for a personal mosquito zapper, that works, let alone $50.
Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. More than 99 of biologist believes in it. Anything that gets that level of acceptance is considered a FACT by scientists.
They may also believe in a God, but that does NOT mean they believe in Intelligent design. If in fact they do believe in Intelligent Design, that still does NOT mean they think it is science. They are all more than smart enough to recognize Intelligent Design is a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.
Your problem is that you ignorantly believe several blatantly false theories:
1. Only science counts. No. You can have a belief that is not science without it being invalidated. My religion is not invalidated merely because it is not science.
2. Science does not have rules. No. Science is based on the idea of testability. If something can not be falsified, then it is not science. Period. If it can be proven false, then only then is it science. You must propose a test, then do the test and then ABIDE by the test.
Intelligent design is inherently unfalsifiable. People that believe in it will never disbelieve it no matter what you say or do. The very power of God means he can do things that we can't do. He can ineffect CHEAT at any test he wants to. (I.E. He can plant dinosaur bones and make them look like they are million years old. He can create a whole set of fake dead bones that illustrate man's evolution from ape to man. Etc. etc.) That means it is NOT science. It can't ever be science.
Yes, people can believe in Intelligent Design, but that is never science, that is RELIGION.
The problem is a bunch of lieing shmucks that want to teach their personal religion and pretend it is science. That is against the highest laws of the United States of America.
...is currently planning on overthrowing the existing government of the United States. Have they registered?
I always love when they ask a hard science guy about a soft science field, they get arrogant. They seriously underestimate the capabilities of a real brain. If you replace the word "Intelligence" with "Stupidity", then their estimates for Artificial Stupidity become much more likely. (A.S. is what you get when you assume a deterministic model for intelligence instead of realizing that the human mind is more than just a machine.)
It is a rather simple military rule that you create your own information networks. You don't let your enemy or even your ally. Using Chinese made equipment for any military equipment is a bad idea. This is a no-brainer.
People that are happy go out, see friends, and do things.
As an amatuer author, I understand some of where he is coming from. Stories have a beginning, middle and end. The end generally signifies the part where writing about it any more would be boring. Which little girl truly wants to hear about how Snow White had to change dirty diapers for her children? Or who really wants to hear about how Wendy and the lost buys grows old while Peter Pan is all alone with tinkerbell?
Yes, sequels are instant money makers, because we all want to read/see MORE from a good writer, but the truth is if you have said all you had to say, then there is no more.
It's kind of like going to the Grand Canyon and tring to dig it deeper with a shovel. Yeah, it's 'more', but it's not the same thing, and quite frankly, the quality of workmanship goes down.
Nah, the kill signal is an example of too much effort. If you are good enough to crack the OnStar system, you are good enough to crack a bank. Trust me, I've worked at banks, their software is not particularly strong. Cracking the bank will offer much much more bang for your buck than risking picking a car whose owner belongs to the NRA.
If they don't crash (or other damage), they can simply replace the electronics. It should be no more than a couple grand, not a total out. But I do agree about liability.
1. It will kill the car, not merely create a carefully programmed disabling like the Onstar system. Most likely this leads to a car crash and quite likely require complete replacement of all electronics.
2. As others stated, pacemakers, watches, cellphones, laptops, etc. will also be affected.
3. This will get into the hands of criminals. I am quite frankly they don't already have it. Here are some of the things I think people might use it on:
ATM's If there is a 1 in 100 chance of it malfunctioning and spitting out the money, then ATM's will be hit 100 times.
Toll machines - obvious
Red lights (and the cameras aimed at them).
cop cars
The body has multiple mechanism of disposing of heat. It is FULL of temperature differences. That is not the problem. Ever go out in the cold? Notice your hands get cold but your chest does not? You can easily get more than 3 degrees celsius. The problem as someone else mentioned is that this converts heat to kinetic, not electrical.
It's damn expensive, using CURRENT technology. This is new technology. I.E. you have no idea if this is going to be expensive or not using it. But you are right about my mistaking physical for electrical.
Assuming we had micro engines, we can take full advantege of many things that are better smaller than bigger.
For example, a small device that turns heat into power could power an IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE using the bodies own heating/cooling systems? No more changing the battery for the pacemaker every
Then there are small flying devices. I am sure the military would love a flying camera the size of a real fly that uses the solar heat of the sun to power it.
Then there are phones and musical devices. Want one that uses half of its' own waste heat to recharge itself, perhaps doubling battery life?
1. The music industry has become a leach. They started out as doing three things - producing, marketing and distributing. Distributing was the hard work and where the customers were willing to pay big money for (transporting delicate wax tubes was very dificult, vinyl was slightly better but breakage was still a big problem. Tapes and CDs were lighter and sturdier, but still heavy.) But a better producer and marketer made more money, so they THOUGHT they were being paid for producing and marketing. No. They were being paid for distributing, and that market has vanished the way the buggy whip and the horse drawn carriage market has. They still try to charge as if they are distributing, but they are not.
2. Musicians still need Producing and Marketing, but those are worth only about 20% or MAYBE 30% of sales, not 80% that the big labels have. But the existing monoplies (that grew up charging 80% for distribution) make it hard to break in to the Producing + Marketing (no distribution). This problem will eventually go away, but it will take time.
3. The old distrubution system was so big and powerfull that it evolved into THE methods of transferring money to the musicians as well as the way to transfer music out. The ease of distrubtion has created a ton of tiny producers and removed the old 'gateways' that funnelled money and goods to the succesfull ones. We need a new SYSTEM, not of distrubtion, but of funneling money.
What we need is a breakthrough in marketing. Something that lets low level musicians earn a living wage, and gradually increases as they gain more fans. Note there may never be a band as big as the Beatles or Elvis or M. Jackson, ever again because of the greater range of music that should be available without the gateways. Also, musicians will likely never again be able to make money without performing live. People will always pay more to see live music than they will for a recording because honestly, recordings are commodities.
Perhaps music clubs could form in large cities where people pay a set fee, similar to a gym membership. Each night the club offers live music performed. Membership lets you in for free AND lets you download the music for free whenever you want from any oif the club's bands.
Or maybe somethign far better than what I can think of.
That not what I read. "The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling, the spokesman said. The student violated school policies, but there was no criminal intent, Luque said." They accused the student of violating school policies in the same paragraph that they mentioned counseling. This looks like a bunch of moronic, paranoid asswipes trying to blame the kid, not a bunch of kind school administrators apologizing for over-reacting.
Everything you said makes sense ... if the moron did not suggest the kid seek counseling.
Once you realize that YOU over-reacted, the correct action is to accept the fact that YOU acted like a fool. It is not to shift blame to the kid.
While it is true that most charities waste a lot of cash 50% is high. It is ALSO true that it is fairly easy to get a report on charities and figure out how much money they waste. Check the internet, and I see a Forbes report. As per Forbes, the average charity wastes 16% of it's cash on overhead. The redcross wastes 9%.
Actually, I would pay off debt. Trust me, I've lived with debt and without, and am MUCH happier without the debt.
It is easier to get 4 million people to give $10 then it is to get 4,000 people to give $10,000. But it takes a wide spread publicity campaign, which the networks are giving away for free. By the way, if every person in the world sends me 1 penny (just ONE penny) via paypal to me at gurps_npc (at) hotmail.com, then I will be very happy.
When you ignore your customer's privacy (like Google), your opponents pick up mommentum.