One slight difference. Your ability to drive those 'old' vehicles to your points of business contacts to not change so long as it is operable.
A perfectly serviceable version of office 97 is essentially non-funcioning if the people you interoperate with use a newer version of office. This isn't because it is impossible to exchange information between most versions, but because for the average office drone the concept of saving in a reverse compatible format is to much of a hassel. Not to mention M$ seems to delight in causing problems with maintaining formating information when trying to do reverse compatibility.
Thus in a very real way they DO force people to upgrade in a way GM has wet dreams about regarding fleet vehicles.
The only real alternative I have seen to date is open office because it generally can adapt to new versions as they come on the scene. But breaking the M$ hold is not easy when you average drone thinks a different name on the app means they suddenly don't know how to use a Word Processor or spread sheet application.
Perhaps in round one when there is something sieze. but prolonged agricultural displacement does not favor such tactics.
It favors survivors that can live off the land in ways that simply cannot sustain a large concentrated populations.
If you kill the high yield crop centers you kill modern civilization.
Odds are in the event of a true shift you would see a mad scramble to move agricultural production capacity to where the new sweetspots for agriculture occured due to new weather patterns. Additionally you would see a massive attempt to increase agricultural independence from weather in the less severely affected areas. For example massive greenhouse structures and hydrofarms which suddenly become viable because the alternative is starvation. WWII levels of population effort might for the first time be marshalled for something other than war. We went from fabric covered wood planes to jet fighters in about 8 years for WWII, one wonders what 8 years of similar effort could do to our food production process given the right motivation.
I think it would be unwise to dismiss the ability to technology to adapat a solution that would preserve alot even in the face of significant climate changes. Remember we are talking very small average changes here except perhaps for Europe if the Gulfstream died. The changes will be real and in time dissatrous for current agricultural centers but they will not be on the ridiculousely short time scale of "Day After Tommorrow". Adapting could be more like moving out of the way of a slow flow of lava than a surprise tsunami.
It is dangerous. But only if we don't adapt fast enough. Folks we are pretty adaptable. Have faith. Short of a super crater erruption, or asteroid impact I doubt climate change is going to get us any time soon. Just the same I doubt investing in beach front property would be the wisest thing if the more serious ocean rising predictions begin to pan out.
But there is some serious change in the wind from this kind of tech.
Just printing tissue could be huge. Not just for medicine. But how about you start printing Big macs. No more raising a cow. Just harvest some cells and start a culture farm that in turn prints out big mac patties based on muscle tissue of the approprite parts.
Print any kind of meat. Or other food matter. No mass salughter of animals any more or having to raise them on a massive scale.
Not against animals beint eaten.. Trust me I come from the
"I love animals. try to eat at least one a day"
School of thought. But this would be a boon for a country like Japan where they don't have room to raise large herds of livestock and have to import.
This would also alleviate alot the fears of things like Mad Cow disease. You could also print any kind of cellular matter. Print a healthy microwave dinner in animal shapes for kids in their favorit colors.
Food supplies no longer linked to harvest and weather but linked to energy and the ability to induce cell growth.
That is just one possibility in addition to the cloning and organ possibilities. There was a bit in Pop Sci this month where someone has rigged a supply of cement as an 'ink' to a massive 'ink jet' head on a three D motion scaffolding to print buildings. Imagine a house complete with plumbing and electricity printed in a day or two.
Star Trek hypo sprays. Ink Jet Technology. Already asthma style inhalers with injet dispersal are being eyed as a medicine delivery method over shots and even the possibility of direct atomization in to the blood stream ala hypo spray.
Plastic fast prototyping technology. Print a cell phone cover, Comb, Toothbrush, ziplock bags and any number of other household common items. Slightly more complex would actually be able to print circut boards and buttons. Remote Controls, calculators. Even if the tech never made it to the home it can easily revolutionize manufacturing to an extent not seen since the industrial revolution. "Grandpa did people really used to sit on a assembly line all day long putting widgets together ???" The question there is only speed and economy of scale.
and not only that but the ability to alter the design on the fly without any major retooling. Man it is exciting. Course there is the issue of what the masses of factory workers would do if their jobs were largely eliminated.
I wonder how possible it would be to absorb heat generated by friction on shuttle re-entry and store it as electricity. Essentially you could turn banks of capacitors/battaries into heat sinks. Then with some way to bleed it off you could capture the heat energy as a controlable form and then re-direct it.
Thats interesting. Doubt this tech is anywhere near what would be needed but that is a damned interesting notion.
though even if it is possible. That is a hell of a lot of energy to store. You would essentially be recapturing a large percentage of the energy released by the SRBs and SSMEs during liftoff.
Your right but you also forget to factor the loss of energy through losses in coversion efficiencies.
Don't forget that electrolysis is not 100% efficient. ballards fuel cells get about 40% and you won't see much higher than 60 even for large scale plants. And you go through both steps to turn a source energy into hydrogen... once to store and once to recover.
Certainly what you say is true.. we could be better. But that will always be the case. Perfect use of all skills is not realistic. Perfect conversion efficeincies are theoretical but not practical.
Can we be better ? Always. Can we be worse ? Certainly. In the end all I was saying before is we are who we are and that is not a bad thing. Some seem to think being who we are and not being our own perfect ideal is sufficient reason not to go forth and 'spoil' the rest of the universe. Something I think is absurd. Yes we have potential to be better than we are, and if we don't seek to ensure our survival there is no chance we will ever get to that point.... or that if we do there is no chance that it will survive.
I think the day we look in the mirror collectively and don't think we can be better is the day we should consider staying at home. Seeking to improove is a healthy attitude. Obsessing over failure to meet the highest standards is not.
You think humans are so bad that you hate yourself enough to think its a good thing for us to be wiped out ? Well lead the way, end your pain and lead by example.
I never understand this concept that we are so bad. So bad compared to what? How many civilizations do we have to compare to? Martians? Moon Folk? Sheesh folks every comparison we have is a figment of our own imaginations. Our deficiencies viewed as lackings in our own self examination.
Not to argue with most of what you have to say but NASA is not the only organization with the ability to put people into Orbit. Especially ironic considering that the only way currently people are regularly getting to orbit is the Russian Soyuz platform. China also recently joined this rather elete brotherhood.
Don't know that orbital is the next logical step for a private venture. Sub Orbital though could be quite interesting if you stretched out the legs a little. Would get right interesting if you could get a passenger vehicle to follow the flight profile of something like an ICBM. Anywhere in the world in a couple of hours. If you can do it with a plane that can land conventionally you can use already existing airports.
Say a recreation of the New York to Paris challenge. Only this time it is for a sub orbital hop from New York to Paris with the ability to turn around and do it again the same day.
An animal ? A child ? Grow up. Two consenting adults choosing to spend their lives together are not in the same category. As for your inference that allowing same sex unions is a lowering of moral standards please at least admit it is only a lowering of YOUR moral standards.
Allowing same sex unions to enjoy the same legal righs as mix gender unions is not asking you to accept their moral values. It is asking you to respect their right to choose what THEY want for themselves and not what YOU want for them. It is not asking for a special right. It is asking for EQUAL rights. I agree that in other circumstances organizations like the Rainbow coalition are indeed seeking special rights ( such as specific job security laws protecting homosexuals ). However, the request that Homosexual unions be allowed the same legal recognition as traditional unions is about equality.
As for your insistence that equal legal rights for same sex unions will raise health care costs I ask how the hell you come to that conclusion ? Same sex unions cannot in general generate offspring. While they might adopt, that is not the common result of such a partnership. Health care costs due to dependents, spouses and CHILDREN certainly play a role in the rise of health care costs. However, same sex unions would actually have a smaller effect than the typical family. This is due to the simple reason that they will by their non-productive nature produce fewer dependents from which to generate costs. Not to mention that when you get down to it you are not exactly talking about a huge portion of the population.
The docklands are neat.. have actually traveled a good bit on that line recently. However Rail travel and road travel are very differnt when it comes to automation. Technology is quite capable of automating a closed systems as the Docklands amply shows.
interesting... didn't think I used economics to explain the law. I used it to explain why there is rampant piracy. Big difference. Of course I would say that another area of economics is what has led to the law being so out of step with reality. The money and power that has come from the media industries control of a highly lucrative market has led to an out of whack level of influence on the system of law. Capitalisim and free markets are good things but they are not without their problems. The tendency for power to accumulate into less hands over time and the ability to squeeze the little guy out is one of its dirty secrets. Walmart is the poster child of this issue.
No not realistic or not. If the system has no ability to make inteligent judgements about road conditions then unrealisticly high speed limits for foul conditions could make a very unsafe system where the speed limit was never broken. More unsafe than human drivers because humans inherrently have more capacity to adjust to the unknown than does a machine. Where the machine is capable of making judgements it can do it faster. However differences that are trivial to a person can be a serious problem for the computer. For example what if you have a good speed limit set for a road in good repair only now the road no longer is in good repair and there is a mud track onto the road from a construction zone. How soon can the car pick up the traction difference ? I have a decent chance of seeing it and adjusting before I reach the potentially slick zone. The car is not necesarrily so capable. Especially with systems as they exist now. Aside from changing road conditions there is also the issue of differing car capabilities. A Viper is more capable of safely maintaining more speed in most road situations than an SUV. If the system has no capacity of judging road suitability for the vehicle again speed limits set for 'average' could have adverse results for less capable vehicles.
Realistic speed limits are very important for an automated system.
This is not to say a safe auto drive system cannot be safe. Simply to say that thinking something like a system that rigidly adhered to a speed limit would posses any greater inherent safety. It is possible that such a system would be safer, but there are many other factors at play than just the speed limit.
Yet copy right law at heart is not about the protection of the creator. it is about protecting an environment in which people will seek to create. The protection of money making rights is simply the carrot that makes this viable.
Music industries are recording record profits, by direct implication the artists tied to those records should also be seeing record profits. Smaller indy lables in particular are seeing much greater gains in profits.
In the end the letter of the law with regards to digital piracy is indeed being broken no ifs ands or buts. However the spirit of copyright protection is not, in fact it is very very far from being broken. There is no lack of incentive for people who make music to produce it which is the creative value in the process. However there is a direct threat to the distribution mechanisim which has grown up around that process. It is not the function of copyright protection to protect the record industries business model.
If the only way you view a situation is that the law says it is illegal in a very strict constructionist view then it is a circular argument where because the law exists it is right and to break it is wrong.
In order for laws to change there must be conflict. This conflict either comes from as yet unregulated/unacounted for areas or from the failure to follow the law as it is laid down. We are now seeing a situation where current law simply does not deal in a reasonable way with the reality of digital communications. It will sort itself in time. So long as the law and enforcement remains so out of step with reality black markets will exist. Pretty simple Economics when you get down to it.
Well I have never questioned the helping of the unfortunate. In fact before all else I accept attempts at genetic manipulation in the hopes of preventing some tragedies from ever happening. Of course there is always a line between compassion and reality. Thankfully today the line is way down in the extreme cases. However, where you draw the line on compassion vrs survival can change rapidly.
Yeah the mono culture thing in agriculture is damn scary and not something I am much in favor of. On the other hand that situation is a bit of a catch 22 because our increased agricultural yields can also be traced to the same efforts. Heres hoping science stays one step ahead of chaos on that front. Some guys who read some bad shit in the teas leaves regarding populations a while back might have looked like phophets if it were not for those 'advances'.
You and I seem to differ on what constitutes imagination. I do not think it is my imagination saying that things that have happend in the past can and most likely will happen again in the future. Granted it is impossible to tell just how when or if it will come about. I am certainly not suggesting we bet the farm on any one vision of the future. Thus ressiliancy with regards to a range of past events and the ability to adapt to other possibilities would seem a reasonable approach. You seem to be down in the guts of how you go about putting such a plan into action if indeed there is any kind of plan at all. Doubt it would ever be decided on that level. Hell who would you leave that decision up to?
More or less agree about the possibilities reagarding self inflicted mutation.
You question my examples by saying we cannot tell the future and that I might be wrong. Yet the same applies to you. The one thing it seems you did not respond to was directly realted to that fact. Given that we cannot tell the future would you choose a path where the population is less dependent on Mecial assistance for good health or one in which it is more dependent? If you really think that is an oversimplistic view I would love to hear what you have to say about why. No joke, no sarcasam. You obviously are far better versed in the subject matter than I am. Off hand it sounds like statistically what started this discussion its just not an issue. However that decision to me seems the logical place to start when factoring risk vrs reward calculations.
Theories are theories. I do not just sit and think that we will all go to some post appocalyptic society after some new catastrophe. I do consider the other possibilities. That medical improovements provide the edge to survive. Essentially I was arguing that an increased genetic manipulation capacity would lead to a more ressiliant population. More ressiliant in view of what we know to have happend. I chose to bring up the appocalyptic example because you said something I took to mean the past is irrelevant. Obviously you cannot predict the future but are you saying it is blue sky thinking to consider past events when making decisions about the future? that is all I suggested.
We both agree that genetic cures thouroughly tested and eyeballed from every angle are a good thing. Some people talk the risk reward game but are just masking the line of 'risk is always to great'. I tend to be over cautious when trying to pin peoples views down and give them every oppourtunity to lay that out in their own words. No matter how well tested and no matter how well thought out any gentic manipulation will entail risk.
Out of curiosity what is your take on the idea of not just trying to right defficiencies but going the next step to self determined mutation. Super vision, higher percentage of fast twitch musculature for certain athelets, slow twtich for others. Etc ???
Well I was speaking to generalities here because you made some pretty sweeping statements regarding fitness and surviving in the environment that exists. Primarily I was speaking to that bit about " we don't live then " and the idea that ANY genetic diversity was a good thing. Those are not arguments which need specifics to discuss. I was saying that generally allowing medical treatment to allow the prolliferation of undesireable genes has the potential to lead to a very sick population if all you can do is treat and not cure. While there will be no particular selection for the undesired genes, effective treatment means there is no selection against them either. THAT plays a major role in the event of a catastrophe. True enough, a catastrophe by deffinition means bad things happen and lots of people die. The health of a population involved in a catastrophe has a bearing on its ability to survive the catastrophe.
Also what constitutes a catastrophe is determined by what is catastrophic to a population. What hurts one may benefit another. Reliance on high tech medicine is relying on a trait much less hardened to survive events which means the threshhold of what is catastrophic is lowered. IE we are capable of reproducing so long as we can live. We are only capable of providing advanced medical treatment so long as technological society is present. Now which is easier to take away ? Technologically advanced society ? Or the ability for Mamalian life including humans to survive ? What happens to a population with weakend genetic structure when the aiding trait maskign the weakness is removed? Would it be more or less likely to survive than one which was not weakend?
As regards vaccines I did not say individual cases are not disputed but that few argue that vaccines on the whole are bad. Specifics are good man but occasionally you have to step back from the trees to see the damn forrest.
If you take arguement with the above then no need to read the rest of the comment except the last paragraph.
In the end I was just saying a society dependent on medical treatment is less healthy than one that does not or is less so. Is that a statement you would disagree with? That is really all I was saying. Further more, people who are more self sufficient in their health are more likely to deal with a wider range of conditions than those who rely on advanced medical treatment. Genetics has the ability not only to create cures but allows for the possibility to pass them on. At its most extremem Genetics presents the possibility of eliminating genetic ailments just as vaccines have all but eliminated Smallpox, Polio and other diseases.
Falls from relatively advanced states of technology have happend in history... you may be familiar with a term called 'dark ages'. Those are man made catastrophes. They are the reason some people worry about the economy and wars and oil and... hmmm disease. True our current environment is important, but it does not exist unto itself. Our environment can and WILL change and while we cannot tell the furture we can gleen some possibilities from what has happened in the past.
As for fantastic ideas of catastrophes ? Other than smaller scale problems man has faced I just mentioned there is also the geologic record and it is full of them. Why do you say they are fantastical ? Just because none have happend in the relatively short time of historical man ( geologic ) or in the past few decades ? That view has always seemed rather short sighted and not cognizant of the environment in which we exist to me. Its all about the perspective you choose to look at it from. I think your stuck in the leaves rather than thinkin about the forrest. Not inherrently a bad thing mind you but without acceptance that we are making points from different perspective causes problems. I would be glad for you to point out where my generalities are wrong at a more specific level.
From my perspective your not looking at the big picture, especially when you are discount
"I am aware of many genetic diseases. What is your point? If we have treatments that allow people with them to survive and reproduce, what is the problem? Sure, there are many people alive today who would not have survived 100 years ago or 1000 years ago. To point out the obvious, we do not live then.
We need "eradication" to remain at the same level. What are these levels? I am not aware of any levels. If they exist, is there any reason that a particular level is better or worse? From a population genetics standpoint, having a more diverse gene pool can allow survival of at least a few individuals through a tough time. "
I get what your saying but you seem to be missing a rather key element here. If survival is based on technologically advanced medical practices then any survival event as regards the human race is then likely to wipe out a diproportionate portion of the poulation becasue much of it will be sustained by what will be an unvailable mechanisim in the event of a collapse of the civil structure that has evolved.
Further more if the survival of your few is essentially random and pulled from a largely flawed pool the likely hood of a long term viable genetic pairings is less not more. IE if 90% of the population are carriers of delterious genes then most survivors will also carry them and be that more likely to compound them ( incest isn't the only way to compound undesireable genes, just the most consistent ). If on the other hand 90% were genetically clean then survivors would be much more likely to have healthy children.
Anyway at the heart of the matter I think genetics is the logical next step of medicine. We are fighting the symptoms of so many desieases we now understand to be genetic at their source. The most effective medicine with very few exceptions is and always has been fighting the cause when possible. Also our health industry as is today is costly and only getting worse as we continue to find more ways to combat these succsfully at the symptom level. Healthy people that do not need medical assitance cause less parasitic cost on society. Some demented folks in the past have sought to lessen this dead weight by killing undesireables. Now the technology is withen our grasps not to be weighted down with the care of the unfortunates but to be able to give them health. Not propped up. Not dependent on expensive medicines. Plain old good Health and all the freedom that goes with it.
I do not see this as a bad thing. To prevent Lukemia. To prevent Sickle Cell. To prevent genetic blindness, MS, CP, Parkinsons, Diabetes and countless others. Not treat them, but to cure or prevent them from ever happening.
Is there risk ??? Absolutely, but hell there are risks in vaccines but you don't see many people arguing that they are a bad thing on the whole.
I would say your right to an extent... but no matter how you slice it the 4 grand plus price tag seems to be the biggest barrier to acceptance for the segway.
If they could reach down to the level of the higher end micro bikes that are selling like hotcakes they would probably find that people would actually buy them.
In the end I think segway is facing the same limitation that all electrical transport is facing and has faced since its inception... the inability to package enough power in a lightweight compact form on the level of a gas tank . Hell if they could just reach a quarter or half the capacity at the same weight as a 15-20 gallon tank of gas witha reasonable re-fuling time they could relegate the internal combustion engine to history for personal cars.
You know as much as they are for environmentaly friendly I wonder what could be done with this bad boy if instead of a battery pack you utilized a small generator like
While it would add to the weight it would make for a usefull range and solve the recharge problem... would also be a hybrid vehicle. While it polluted it would still be more friendly than an ATV and would likely have a comperable range.
Have to pick a couple of nits. The first is that bit about the US 'haroboring' the 9/11 terrorists. There is a major difference between state harboring and people who happen to live in a state while preparing for terrorist activities.
The FBI had suspicions but our protections of their FREEDOM (which you so snidely disparage America as no longer championing) prevented the FBI from taking any action. In my mind should still be the case to this day unless enough proper evidence can be gathered. Hopefully in the future our intelligence agencies will have the ability to compile the needed information to connect all the dots on such suspects before they have a chance to complete their plans as happend with 9/11.
Regarding Saddam and Iraq in general
Are you really stating that Iraq would have been better off with Saddam? In the short run I would have to agree. It was a relatively stable government but that is not to say he was a good long term solution. While everything you say about the regime is true in that it had little ties to Islam you forget that perhaps the largest reason for that is that Saddam would not share power with the Muhllahs. It was certainly not out of any altruistic desire to improove the fate of the Iraqi people. You paint the guy in a far nicer light than he deservs.
As regards the likely formation of an Islamic regieme in general... you do realize that everything else aside that the population of Iraq is largely Muslim. It is quite possible that in making their own choices by a democratic process they would CHOOSE an islamic regime of their own free will and all that comes with it. If you know history you will find that during the Womens Sufferage movement there were many women that did not belive in their right to vote. Not that I agree with such views but frankly if people choose their fate I have little problem with it. The goal of elections in Iraq is not that they have a government exactly like ours but that they have a system in place which allows the people to make changes if they so desire. Remember that our system allowed for the emmergence of womens rights among other changes in its history.
As far as the WMD shit goes you fail to account for the entire history of the issue of Iraq dating back to the end of the Gulf war. The sanctions levied by the UN had a great deal to do with suspicions of Iraqi WMD. The debate over the invasion of Iraq was not about should something be done but about how it should be done. The UN waffled over sanctions and enforcement for a decade. Bush called them on the carpet and they continued to waffle and no good evidence was presented one way or the other at the time regarding WMD. On the other hand the Brutality of the Baath regime was well documented and further more its willingness to use WMD was also well established. There was and to this day is little argument about whether or not they would have started creating WMD once they could get away with it. The argument was about whether that point had already come of if it was still in the future.
In the end would you rather we invaded as we did only to find out there were no WMD or waited and let the UN waffle and let the only leader of a nation in power with actual use of WMD on his resume remain in power in tight control of a known brutal regime and an industrial base capable of returning to production of WMD the second the oversight was removed ? While the existence of WMD is now known to have been overblown that is hindsight. The ability to produce chemicle weapons is not now nor never was in doubt. The only 'lie' I know of in that regards were the fantastical mobile chemicle weapons production platforms and at the time it was presented it was belived.
Now there is and always has been a very large problem of hypocracy regarding the issue of disarmament of nations developing WMD while we and a few other nations currently possess and even actively create new ones. However I just don't think Iraq falls into an area of delima. Wether he had them or not was imma
In many places it is unrealistic to take an alternate route due to cul-de sac neighborhoods and traffic choke points. These realities can force cyclists to have to contend with major arteries and major intersections if they want to commute to work on a bike.
For example in the relatively small city I live now ( Huntsville Al. ) I would love to ride to work but having to cross a 6-8 lanes of highway on 4 lane overpasses with entrance and exit ramps posted at 55mph makes it a very dangerous proposition. There are no alternative routes except one underpass which is several miles out of the way. Not a big deal when driving but a time consuming one when atempting to bike.
So while the point I need to get to is about 3 miles away by car, in order to take a low traffic route and not have to contend with a high speed merging traffic overpass I would have to travle almost 8-10 ( depending on the route ) to get to it. Then I would still have about 3 miles more to go since the key point I have to get to is the entrance to an army base.
Course its all academic since there is no such thing as a safe street to ride a bike on around here.... people think anyone on a bike without at least 1000cc's of displacement are mentally unbalanced and should be removed from the gene pool immediately.
Read Zubrin's "the case for mars". He deals with alot of your fears. The fact that Mars has an atmosphere and larger gravity well can actually be viewed as a good thing. An atmosphere to break against and gravity well to make a free return from. Atmosphere also alows much easier propellant production for a mission so that it is not necesarry to carry all your fuel in your initial launch mass.
Its a three part mission at heart. You launch a robotic fuel production facitlity, when it is safely down and producing fuel on the surface you launch the manned expidetion and a second robotic fuel making system. You have a 1000 mile landing zone bullseyed by the fuel station and if you miss you land the other one with the manned mission as the bullseye. ( Apollo and Soyuz regularly land withen a mile or two of designated landing zones ). Mars rover missions landed withen yards of their targets.
The Nasa mars refference mission currently on the books is a version of Mars Direct where you carry your return fuel on the first missions until fuel production is succesfully demonstrated... means tighter payload issues though.
Slashdot Mirror
One slight difference. Your ability to drive those 'old' vehicles to your points of business contacts to not change so long as it is operable.
A perfectly serviceable version of office 97 is essentially non-funcioning if the people you interoperate with use a newer version of office. This isn't because it is impossible to exchange information between most versions, but because for the average office drone the concept of saving in a reverse compatible format is to much of a hassel. Not to mention M$ seems to delight in causing problems with maintaining formating information when trying to do reverse compatibility.
Thus in a very real way they DO force people to upgrade in a way GM has wet dreams about regarding fleet vehicles.
The only real alternative I have seen to date is open office because it generally can adapt to new versions as they come on the scene. But breaking the M$ hold is not easy when you average drone thinks a different name on the app means they suddenly don't know how to use a Word Processor or spread sheet application.
Perhaps in round one when there is something sieze. but prolonged agricultural displacement does not favor such tactics.
It favors survivors that can live off the land in ways that simply cannot sustain a large concentrated populations.
If you kill the high yield crop centers you kill modern civilization.
Odds are in the event of a true shift you would see a mad scramble to move agricultural production capacity to where the new sweetspots for agriculture occured due to new weather patterns. Additionally you would see a massive attempt to increase agricultural independence from weather in the less severely affected areas. For example massive greenhouse structures and hydrofarms which suddenly become viable because the alternative is starvation. WWII levels of population effort might for the first time be marshalled for something other than war. We went from fabric covered wood planes to jet fighters in about 8 years for WWII, one wonders what 8 years of similar effort could do to our food production process given the right motivation.
I think it would be unwise to dismiss the ability to technology to adapat a solution that would preserve alot even in the face of significant climate changes. Remember we are talking very small average changes here except perhaps for Europe if the Gulfstream died. The changes will be real and in time dissatrous for current agricultural centers but they will not be on the ridiculousely short time scale of "Day After Tommorrow". Adapting could be more like moving out of the way of a slow flow of lava than a surprise tsunami.
It is dangerous. But only if we don't adapt fast enough. Folks we are pretty adaptable. Have faith. Short of a super crater erruption, or asteroid impact I doubt climate change is going to get us any time soon. Just the same I doubt investing in beach front property would be the wisest thing if the more serious ocean rising predictions begin to pan out.
But there is some serious change in the wind from this kind of tech.
Just printing tissue could be huge. Not just for medicine. But how about you start printing Big macs. No more raising a cow. Just harvest some cells and start a culture farm that in turn prints out big mac patties based on muscle tissue of the approprite parts.
Print any kind of meat. Or other food matter. No mass salughter of animals any more or having to raise them on a massive scale.
Not against animals beint eaten.. Trust me I come from the
"I love animals. try to eat at least one a day"
School of thought. But this would be a boon for a country like Japan where they don't have room to raise large herds of livestock and have to import.
This would also alleviate alot the fears of things like Mad Cow disease. You could also print any kind of cellular matter. Print a healthy microwave dinner in animal shapes for kids in their favorit colors.
Food supplies no longer linked to harvest and weather but linked to energy and the ability to induce cell growth.
That is just one possibility in addition to the cloning and organ possibilities. There was a bit in Pop Sci this month where someone has rigged a supply of cement as an 'ink' to a massive 'ink jet' head on a three D motion scaffolding to print buildings. Imagine a house complete with plumbing and electricity printed in a day or two.
Star Trek hypo sprays. Ink Jet Technology. Already asthma style inhalers with injet dispersal are being eyed as a medicine delivery method over shots and even the possibility of direct atomization in to the blood stream ala hypo spray.
Plastic fast prototyping technology. Print a cell phone cover, Comb, Toothbrush, ziplock bags and any number of other household common items. Slightly more complex would actually be able to print circut boards and buttons. Remote Controls, calculators. Even if the tech never made it to the home it can easily revolutionize manufacturing to an extent not seen since the industrial revolution. "Grandpa did people really used to sit on a assembly line all day long putting widgets together ???" The question there is only speed and economy of scale.
and not only that but the ability to alter the design on the fly without any major retooling. Man it is exciting. Course there is the issue of what the masses of factory workers would do if their jobs were largely eliminated.
I wonder how possible it would be to absorb heat generated by friction on shuttle re-entry and store it as electricity. Essentially you could turn banks of capacitors/battaries into heat sinks. Then with some way to bleed it off you could capture the heat energy as a controlable form and then re-direct it.
Thats interesting. Doubt this tech is anywhere near what would be needed but that is a damned interesting notion.
though even if it is possible. That is a hell of a lot of energy to store. You would essentially be recapturing a large percentage of the energy released by the SRBs and SSMEs during liftoff.
Your right but you also forget to factor the loss of energy through losses in coversion efficiencies.
Don't forget that electrolysis is not 100% efficient. ballards fuel cells get about 40% and you won't see much higher than 60 even for large scale plants. And you go through both steps to turn a source energy into hydrogen... once to store and once to recover.
Certainly what you say is true.. we could be better. But that will always be the case. Perfect use of all skills is not realistic. Perfect conversion efficeincies are theoretical but not practical.
Can we be better ? Always. Can we be worse ? Certainly. In the end all I was saying before is we are who we are and that is not a bad thing. Some seem to think being who we are and not being our own perfect ideal is sufficient reason not to go forth and 'spoil' the rest of the universe. Something I think is absurd. Yes we have potential to be better than we are, and if we don't seek to ensure our survival there is no chance we will ever get to that point.... or that if we do there is no chance that it will survive.
I think the day we look in the mirror collectively and don't think we can be better is the day we should consider staying at home. Seeking to improove is a healthy attitude. Obsessing over failure to meet the highest standards is not.
You think humans are so bad that you hate yourself enough to think its a good thing for us to be wiped out ? Well lead the way, end your pain and lead by example.
I never understand this concept that we are so bad. So bad compared to what? How many civilizations do we have to compare to? Martians? Moon Folk? Sheesh folks every comparison we have is a figment of our own imaginations. Our deficiencies viewed as lackings in our own self examination.
Dought, so it does. My bad.
Not to argue with most of what you have to say but NASA is not the only organization with the ability to put people into Orbit. Especially ironic considering that the only way currently people are regularly getting to orbit is the Russian Soyuz platform. China also recently joined this rather elete brotherhood.
Don't know that orbital is the next logical step for a private venture. Sub Orbital though could be quite interesting if you stretched out the legs a little. Would get right interesting if you could get a passenger vehicle to follow the flight profile of something like an ICBM. Anywhere in the world in a couple of hours. If you can do it with a plane that can land conventionally you can use already existing airports.
Say a recreation of the New York to Paris challenge. Only this time it is for a sub orbital hop from New York to Paris with the ability to turn around and do it again the same day.
An animal ? A child ? Grow up. Two consenting adults choosing to spend their lives together are not in the same category. As for your inference that allowing same sex unions is a lowering of moral standards please at least admit it is only a lowering of YOUR moral standards.
Allowing same sex unions to enjoy the same legal righs as mix gender unions is not asking you to accept their moral values. It is asking you to respect their right to choose what THEY want for themselves and not what YOU want for them. It is not asking for a special right. It is asking for EQUAL rights. I agree that in other circumstances organizations like the Rainbow coalition are indeed seeking special rights ( such as specific job security laws protecting homosexuals ). However, the request that Homosexual unions be allowed the same legal recognition as traditional unions is about equality.
As for your insistence that equal legal rights for same sex unions will raise health care costs I ask how the hell you come to that conclusion ? Same sex unions cannot in general generate offspring. While they might adopt, that is not the common result of such a partnership. Health care costs due to dependents, spouses and CHILDREN certainly play a role in the rise of health care costs. However, same sex unions would actually have a smaller effect than the typical family. This is due to the simple reason that they will by their non-productive nature produce fewer dependents from which to generate costs. Not to mention that when you get down to it you are not exactly talking about a huge portion of the population.
The docklands are neat.. have actually traveled a good bit on that line recently. However Rail travel and road travel are very differnt when it comes to automation. Technology is quite capable of automating a closed systems as the Docklands amply shows.
interesting... didn't think I used economics to explain the law. I used it to explain why there is rampant piracy. Big difference. Of course I would say that another area of economics is what has led to the law being so out of step with reality. The money and power that has come from the media industries control of a highly lucrative market has led to an out of whack level of influence on the system of law. Capitalisim and free markets are good things but they are not without their problems. The tendency for power to accumulate into less hands over time and the ability to squeeze the little guy out is one of its dirty secrets. Walmart is the poster child of this issue.
No not realistic or not. If the system has no ability to make inteligent judgements about road conditions then unrealisticly high speed limits for foul conditions could make a very unsafe system where the speed limit was never broken. More unsafe than human drivers because humans inherrently have more capacity to adjust to the unknown than does a machine. Where the machine is capable of making judgements it can do it faster. However differences that are trivial to a person can be a serious problem for the computer. For example what if you have a good speed limit set for a road in good repair only now the road no longer is in good repair and there is a mud track onto the road from a construction zone. How soon can the car pick up the traction difference ? I have a decent chance of seeing it and adjusting before I reach the potentially slick zone. The car is not necesarrily so capable. Especially with systems as they exist now. Aside from changing road conditions there is also the issue of differing car capabilities. A Viper is more capable of safely maintaining more speed in most road situations than an SUV. If the system has no capacity of judging road suitability for the vehicle again speed limits set for 'average' could have adverse results for less capable vehicles.
Realistic speed limits are very important for an automated system.
This is not to say a safe auto drive system cannot be safe. Simply to say that thinking something like a system that rigidly adhered to a speed limit would posses any greater inherent safety. It is possible that such a system would be safer, but there are many other factors at play than just the speed limit.
Yet copy right law at heart is not about the protection of the creator. it is about protecting an environment in which people will seek to create. The protection of money making rights is simply the carrot that makes this viable.
Music industries are recording record profits, by direct implication the artists tied to those records should also be seeing record profits. Smaller indy lables in particular are seeing much greater gains in profits.
In the end the letter of the law with regards to digital piracy is indeed being broken no ifs ands or buts. However the spirit of copyright protection is not, in fact it is very very far from being broken. There is no lack of incentive for people who make music to produce it which is the creative value in the process. However there is a direct threat to the distribution mechanisim which has grown up around that process. It is not the function of copyright protection to protect the record industries business model.
If the only way you view a situation is that the law says it is illegal in a very strict constructionist view then it is a circular argument where because the law exists it is right and to break it is wrong.
In order for laws to change there must be conflict. This conflict either comes from as yet unregulated/unacounted for areas or from the failure to follow the law as it is laid down. We are now seeing a situation where current law simply does not deal in a reasonable way with the reality of digital communications. It will sort itself in time. So long as the law and enforcement remains so out of step with reality black markets will exist. Pretty simple Economics when you get down to it.
Well I have never questioned the helping of the unfortunate. In fact before all else I accept attempts at genetic manipulation in the hopes of preventing some tragedies from ever happening. Of course there is always a line between compassion and reality. Thankfully today the line is way down in the extreme cases. However, where you draw the line on compassion vrs survival can change rapidly.
Yeah the mono culture thing in agriculture is damn scary and not something I am much in favor of. On the other hand that situation is a bit of a catch 22 because our increased agricultural yields can also be traced to the same efforts. Heres hoping science stays one step ahead of chaos on that front. Some guys who read some bad shit in the teas leaves regarding populations a while back might have looked like phophets if it were not for those 'advances'.
You and I seem to differ on what constitutes imagination. I do not think it is my imagination saying that things that have happend in the past can and most likely will happen again in the future. Granted it is impossible to tell just how when or if it will come about. I am certainly not suggesting we bet the farm on any one vision of the future. Thus ressiliancy with regards to a range of past events and the ability to adapt to other possibilities would seem a reasonable approach. You seem to be down in the guts of how you go about putting such a plan into action if indeed there is any kind of plan at all. Doubt it would ever be decided on that level. Hell who would you leave that decision up to?
More or less agree about the possibilities reagarding self inflicted mutation.
You question my examples by saying we cannot tell the future and that I might be wrong. Yet the same applies to you. The one thing it seems you did not respond to was directly realted to that fact. Given that we cannot tell the future would you choose a path where the population is less dependent on Mecial assistance for good health or one in which it is more dependent? If you really think that is an oversimplistic view I would love to hear what you have to say about why. No joke, no sarcasam. You obviously are far better versed in the subject matter than I am. Off hand it sounds like statistically what started this discussion its just not an issue. However that decision to me seems the logical place to start when factoring risk vrs reward calculations.
Theories are theories. I do not just sit and think that we will all go to some post appocalyptic society after some new catastrophe. I do consider the other possibilities. That medical improovements provide the edge to survive. Essentially I was arguing that an increased genetic manipulation capacity would lead to a more ressiliant population. More ressiliant in view of what we know to have happend. I chose to bring up the appocalyptic example because you said something I took to mean the past is irrelevant. Obviously you cannot predict the future but are you saying it is blue sky thinking to consider past events when making decisions about the future? that is all I suggested.
We both agree that genetic cures thouroughly tested and eyeballed from every angle are a good thing. Some people talk the risk reward game but are just masking the line of 'risk is always to great'. I tend to be over cautious when trying to pin peoples views down and give them every oppourtunity to lay that out in their own words. No matter how well tested and no matter how well thought out any gentic manipulation will entail risk.
Out of curiosity what is your take on the idea of not just trying to right defficiencies but going the next step to self determined mutation. Super vision, higher percentage of fast twitch musculature for certain athelets, slow twtich for others. Etc ???
Well I was speaking to generalities here because you made some pretty sweeping statements regarding fitness and surviving in the environment that exists. Primarily I was speaking to that bit about " we don't live then " and the idea that ANY genetic diversity was a good thing. Those are not arguments which need specifics to discuss. I was saying that generally allowing medical treatment to allow the prolliferation of undesireable genes has the potential to lead to a very sick population if all you can do is treat and not cure. While there will be no particular selection for the undesired genes, effective treatment means there is no selection against them either. THAT plays a major role in the event of a catastrophe. True enough, a catastrophe by deffinition means bad things happen and lots of people die. The health of a population involved in a catastrophe has a bearing on its ability to survive the catastrophe.
... hmmm disease. True our current environment is important, but it does not exist unto itself. Our environment can and WILL change and while we cannot tell the furture we can gleen some possibilities from what has happened in the past.
Also what constitutes a catastrophe is determined by what is catastrophic to a population. What hurts one may benefit another. Reliance on high tech medicine is relying on a trait much less hardened to survive events which means the threshhold of what is catastrophic is lowered. IE we are capable of reproducing so long as we can live. We are only capable of providing advanced medical treatment so long as technological society is present. Now which is easier to take away ? Technologically advanced society ? Or the ability for Mamalian life including humans to survive ? What happens to a population with weakend genetic structure when the aiding trait maskign the weakness is removed? Would it be more or less likely to survive than one which was not weakend?
As regards vaccines I did not say individual cases are not disputed but that few argue that vaccines on the whole are bad. Specifics are good man but occasionally you have to step back from the trees to see the damn forrest.
If you take arguement with the above then no need to read the rest of the comment except the last paragraph.
In the end I was just saying a society dependent on medical treatment is less healthy than one that does not or is less so. Is that a statement you would disagree with? That is really all I was saying. Further more, people who are more self sufficient in their health are more likely to deal with a wider range of conditions than those who rely on advanced medical treatment. Genetics has the ability not only to create cures but allows for the possibility to pass them on. At its most extremem Genetics presents the possibility of eliminating genetic ailments just as vaccines have all but eliminated Smallpox, Polio and other diseases.
Falls from relatively advanced states of technology have happend in history... you may be familiar with a term called 'dark ages'. Those are man made catastrophes. They are the reason some people worry about the economy and wars and oil and
As for fantastic ideas of catastrophes ? Other than smaller scale problems man has faced I just mentioned there is also the geologic record and it is full of them. Why do you say they are fantastical ? Just because none have happend in the relatively short time of historical man ( geologic ) or in the past few decades ? That view has always seemed rather short sighted and not cognizant of the environment in which we exist to me. Its all about the perspective you choose to look at it from. I think your stuck in the leaves rather than thinkin about the forrest. Not inherrently a bad thing mind you but without acceptance that we are making points from different perspective causes problems. I would be glad for you to point out where my generalities are wrong at a more specific level.
From my perspective your not looking at the big picture, especially when you are discount
"I am aware of many genetic diseases. What is your point? If we have treatments that allow people with them to survive and reproduce, what is the problem? Sure, there are many people alive today who would not have survived 100 years ago or 1000 years ago. To point out the obvious, we do not live then.
We need "eradication" to remain at the same level. What are these levels? I am not aware of any levels. If they exist, is there any reason that a particular level is better or worse? From a population genetics standpoint, having a more diverse gene pool can allow survival of at least a few individuals through a tough time. "
I get what your saying but you seem to be missing a rather key element here. If survival is based on technologically advanced medical practices then any survival event as regards the human race is then likely to wipe out a diproportionate portion of the poulation becasue much of it will be sustained by what will be an unvailable mechanisim in the event of a collapse of the civil structure that has evolved.
Further more if the survival of your few is essentially random and pulled from a largely flawed pool the likely hood of a long term viable genetic pairings is less not more. IE if 90% of the population are carriers of delterious genes then most survivors will also carry them and be that more likely to compound them ( incest isn't the only way to compound undesireable genes, just the most consistent ). If on the other hand 90% were genetically clean then survivors would be much more likely to have healthy children.
Anyway at the heart of the matter I think genetics is the logical next step of medicine. We are fighting the symptoms of so many desieases we now understand to be genetic at their source. The most effective medicine with very few exceptions is and always has been fighting the cause when possible. Also our health industry as is today is costly and only getting worse as we continue to find more ways to combat these succsfully at the symptom level. Healthy people that do not need medical assitance cause less parasitic cost on society. Some demented folks in the past have sought to lessen this dead weight by killing undesireables. Now the technology is withen our grasps not to be weighted down with the care of the unfortunates but to be able to give them health. Not propped up. Not dependent on expensive medicines. Plain old good Health and all the freedom that goes with it.
I do not see this as a bad thing. To prevent Lukemia. To prevent Sickle Cell. To prevent genetic blindness, MS, CP, Parkinsons, Diabetes and countless others. Not treat them, but to cure or prevent them from ever happening.
Is there risk ??? Absolutely, but hell there are risks in vaccines but you don't see many people arguing that they are a bad thing on the whole.
I would say your right to an extent... but no matter how you slice it the 4 grand plus price tag seems to be the biggest barrier to acceptance for the segway.
c t_info.php?cPath=36_139_44&products_id=157&osCsid= e07b54a796f652e8a262a11273cca19d
If they could reach down to the level of the higher end micro bikes that are selling like hotcakes they would probably find that people would actually buy them.
In the end I think segway is facing the same limitation that all electrical transport is facing and has faced since its inception... the inability to package enough power in a lightweight compact form on the level of a gas tank . Hell if they could just reach a quarter or half the capacity at the same weight as a 15-20 gallon tank of gas witha reasonable re-fuling time they could relegate the internal combustion engine to history for personal cars.
You know as much as they are for environmentaly friendly I wonder what could be done with this bad boy if instead of a battery pack you utilized a small generator like
http://electricgeneratorsdirect.com/catalog/produ
While it would add to the weight it would make for a usefull range and solve the recharge problem... would also be a hybrid vehicle. While it polluted it would still be more friendly than an ATV and would likely have a comperable range.
Have to pick a couple of nits. The first is that bit about the US 'haroboring' the 9/11 terrorists. There is a major difference between state harboring and people who happen to live in a state while preparing for terrorist activities.
The FBI had suspicions but our protections of their FREEDOM (which you so snidely disparage America as no longer championing) prevented the FBI from taking any action. In my mind should still be the case to this day unless enough proper evidence can be gathered. Hopefully in the future our intelligence agencies will have the ability to compile the needed information to connect all the dots on such suspects before they have a chance to complete their plans as happend with 9/11.
Regarding Saddam and Iraq in general
Are you really stating that Iraq would have been better off with Saddam? In the short run I would have to agree. It was a relatively stable government but that is not to say he was a good long term solution. While everything you say about the regime is true in that it had little ties to Islam you forget that perhaps the largest reason for that is that Saddam would not share power with the Muhllahs. It was certainly not out of any altruistic desire to improove the fate of the Iraqi people. You paint the guy in a far nicer light than he deservs.
As regards the likely formation of an Islamic regieme in general... you do realize that everything else aside that the population of Iraq is largely Muslim. It is quite possible that in making their own choices by a democratic process they would CHOOSE an islamic regime of their own free will and all that comes with it. If you know history you will find that during the Womens Sufferage movement there were many women that did not belive in their right to vote. Not that I agree with such views but frankly if people choose their fate I have little problem with it. The goal of elections in Iraq is not that they have a government exactly like ours but that they have a system in place which allows the people to make changes if they so desire. Remember that our system allowed for the emmergence of womens rights among other changes in its history.
As far as the WMD shit goes you fail to account for the entire history of the issue of Iraq dating back to the end of the Gulf war. The sanctions levied by the UN had a great deal to do with suspicions of Iraqi WMD. The debate over the invasion of Iraq was not about should something be done but about how it should be done. The UN waffled over sanctions and enforcement for a decade. Bush called them on the carpet and they continued to waffle and no good evidence was presented one way or the other at the time regarding WMD. On the other hand the Brutality of the Baath regime was well documented and further more its willingness to use WMD was also well established. There was and to this day is little argument about whether or not they would have started creating WMD once they could get away with it. The argument was about whether that point had already come of if it was still in the future.
In the end would you rather we invaded as we did only to find out there were no WMD or waited and let the UN waffle and let the only leader of a nation in power with actual use of WMD on his resume remain in power in tight control of a known brutal regime and an industrial base capable of returning to production of WMD the second the oversight was removed ? While the existence of WMD is now known to have been overblown that is hindsight. The ability to produce chemicle weapons is not now nor never was in doubt. The only 'lie' I know of in that regards were the fantastical mobile chemicle weapons production platforms and at the time it was presented it was belived.
Now there is and always has been a very large problem of hypocracy regarding the issue of disarmament of nations developing WMD while we and a few other nations currently possess and even actively create new ones. However I just don't think Iraq falls into an area of delima. Wether he had them or not was imma
depends on where you live... colorado will write you up for a DUI on a bike.
In many places it is unrealistic to take an alternate route due to cul-de sac neighborhoods and traffic choke points. These realities can force cyclists to have to contend with major arteries and major intersections if they want to commute to work on a bike.
For example in the relatively small city I live now ( Huntsville Al. ) I would love to ride to work but having to cross a 6-8 lanes of highway on 4 lane overpasses with entrance and exit ramps posted at 55mph makes it a very dangerous proposition. There are no alternative routes except one underpass which is several miles out of the way. Not a big deal when driving but a time consuming one when atempting to bike.
So while the point I need to get to is about 3 miles away by car, in order to take a low traffic route and not have to contend with a high speed merging traffic overpass I would have to travle almost 8-10 ( depending on the route ) to get to it. Then I would still have about 3 miles more to go since the key point I have to get to is the entrance to an army base.
Course its all academic since there is no such thing as a safe street to ride a bike on around here.... people think anyone on a bike without at least 1000cc's of displacement are mentally unbalanced and should be removed from the gene pool immediately.
and if I was speaking to you I would have to explain that it was brake isntead of break.... geeeze people
Read Zubrin's "the case for mars". He deals with alot of your fears. The fact that Mars has an atmosphere and larger gravity well can actually be viewed as a good thing. An atmosphere to break against and gravity well to make a free return from. Atmosphere also alows much easier propellant production for a mission so that it is not necesarry to carry all your fuel in your initial launch mass.
Its a three part mission at heart. You launch a robotic fuel production facitlity, when it is safely down and producing fuel on the surface you launch the manned expidetion and a second robotic fuel making system. You have a 1000 mile landing zone bullseyed by the fuel station and if you miss you land the other one with the manned mission as the bullseye. ( Apollo and Soyuz regularly land withen a mile or two of designated landing zones ). Mars rover missions landed withen yards of their targets.
The Nasa mars refference mission currently on the books is a version of Mars Direct where you carry your return fuel on the first missions until fuel production is succesfully demonstrated... means tighter payload issues though.