My understanding, at least from IBM, of the "On Demand" vision, is that companies will begin to view computing as they would a utility. Electricity from a power company for example. You only get billed the electricity that you use, and you don't have to do anything other than "tap the supply" to get more electricity. If you want to run all of the lights, fine. If you don't want to run all of the lights, you don't have to and you won't pay for the electricity that you don't use.
IBM's view is that you would pay for IBM to be your "computing" provider (power company). If you need a whole lot of computing, then you simply perform a whole lot of computing and you don't have to buy the systems to do the computing. If you don't need a whole lot of computing, then you don't perform a whole lot of computing. You only pay for what you used. This is a nice feature in that your computing infrastructure is now scalable "real-time" both directions. You get a better return on your computing investment in that you aren't paying for computing cycles you aren't using (servers you only need during "peak" times of the year).
Apparently, they've been successful in selling the "on demand" concept as, Proctor & Gamble, Twinlab, Telestra, and Nextra have signed deals for on-demand, and there are apparently others.
There is no such thing as zero chance. Would you believe that nuclear powered space probes have already left the planet? There is Pioneer 10, Voyager 1 and 2, Viking, and I believe the Surveyors were nuclear powered as well. Depending on where the CATO occurred, it would probably break up and disintegrate upon re-entry. The disintegration of the fuel would preclude exposure, as there wouldn't be anything left. If it occurred prior to reaching the outer atmospheres, then the remaining bits (if there were any) would sink to the bottom of the Atlantic or Pacific (depending on who is doing the launching).
I can't debate your first point, as you didn't provide me with any sources. The fact that Gulf War Syndrome is defined as "Gulf War Syndrome" obviously means that the effects aren't deniable, indeed they are observable. We don't name things that have no observable effects. We can't. We wouldn't know they existed. The fact that the soldiers are sent into the Gulf in the first place is akin to sending fire-fighters to put out a fire. We know flames are dangerous. Yet we continue to send fire-fighters to put them out. There are always going to be bad people in positions of power that do bad things. If you don't want to be placed "in harms way" do not sign up to be a soldier. It is your job, necessarily, to die to protect those that cannot or do not fight. I would find it hard to believe that the scientific body of knowledge dealing with radiation's effect on physiology was anything larger than "slim" during the time period of the Bikini Atoll, Manhatten Project, and "Fat Man" and "Little boy" projects.
As to your second point, we can quantify the amount of damage to a biological system. We can use either rem (roentgen-man-equivalents) or Sieverts. One Sievert is the equivalent to 100 rem ( 1 Sv = 100 rem). A Sievert is the amount of energy delivered per unit mass ( measured in Grays ) multiplied by relative biological effectiveness ( RBE or some quality factor ). A gray is a measure of Joule/Kg. The quality factor you use depends upon the type of radiation you are exposed to (i.e. Gamma, Beta, Alpha, etc...). Different types of radiation are more "reactive", or more energetic than others. Cancer is typically a broad term that describes a malfunctioning of cells during cellular reproduction. The affected cells reproduce themselves at a rate that is too fast for the bodies natural mechanisms (cell "suicide switch") to keep up with (or when the natural mechanism fails altogether.). Radiation causes the genetic mutations within the cell that eventually lead to the generation of cancer. We do not know that it takes "ONE unlucky mutation" to lead to cancer. It may take several to overwhelm the bodies defenses. Please visit this website for more information. I would counter that it is the public that is ill informed with regards to nuclear power, nuclear safety, and nuclear regulation. The pro-nuclear lobby, the ones that truly "have a dog in the fight" are well versed in radiation and its affects. They have to be, it is their jobs.
Why not simply adapt the UNSPSC codes to work with RFID technologies? UNSPSC codes are already used around the world for working with material goods. In addition, all of the world's ERP systems including the market leading SAP R/3 support UNSPSC codes. So, instead of receiving a UNSPSC code through a Purchase Order, Invoice, or Purchase Requisition, the software would receive the RFID transmission of its UNSPSC code.
Wouldn't it be possible for companies to buy their own custom coded or blank RFID tags anyway? Who says you would have to subscribe to this format in the first place? Already there are competing standards on how e-commerce should be used. We have ebXML, cXML, and cbML. Sure it would be better if there was a single standard, but there isn't a way to force businesses to use such a standard. Why would RFID and EPC be any different?
Finally, if I use SAP (for example) why would I need my RFID tags or any software to communicate with Verisign? Why wouldn't I want my R/3 system to be "the system of record" as it is for my accounting?
"Students should not be of the opinion that it is acceptable to abuse the privileges that are afforded them by the taxpayers. If they are allowed to experiment and do things on the computers that the teachers have not specifically given them permission to do, we would never get any computer education accomplished.
I think that "abuse" is a strong word to use. Did he receive permission to send a communication to other systems? Probably not. This could have been handled by the instructor in the classroom. A simple "Please refrain from messaging all systems on the network." would have sufficed. Definitely, this child is a hacker, though not in the definition espoused by the media. He did not crack any system. Had this Sweeney individual been intelligent enough, she would have isolated the computer lab from all systems on the net to prevent such an occurence. Perhaps she should be supsended for her dereliction in security practice! Furthermore, in this instance, who taught who? I don't believe that this Sweeney character deserves the respect that the moniker "teacher" commands. She may have been a public educator for many years, but that does not make her a "teacher". She isn't "teaching" anyone, she apparently squashes the already difficult-to-encourage motivation for learning that her pupils displayed. I would imagine that she rotely follows her lesson plan making small changes as the "fads" develop. Her "experimentation" that she frowns upon is precisely what drives a child's desire to learn. Not the tedious hum-drum that is today's modern class. I wonder why American education is not where it should be in relation to other industrialized nation, and then I read an article such as this that anwers a lot of my questions. Thank you educator Sweeney for setting the example for poor instructors!
The double-edge sword of innovation. Do you spend the money on R&D or do you go with what works? Do you wait to follow the coat-tails of your competitor or do you lead your competitor by your coat-tails? Not easy questions to ponder when the costs are real and measurable. It's a gamble, not unlike the lottery, but your odds are better with the quality of your research and the theories you build on.
I don't think so. I think the accretion disk would be the point at which matter is being transferred from one object to another. In other words, the point where the matter collects due to a gravitational pull that would not allow for easy escape.
My guess is that the parachute/airbag system allowed the weight that an engine system would have occupied to be used for sensor equipment. It is also a more simple solution. The failure points are reduced (fewer working parts).
Perhaps, after heavily debated research, violent video games are shown to make it "easier" by desensitization to commit acts of violence. What does this mean? Should we seek to rid our society of all violent content that desensitizes us to such actions? Should all simulations of violence either real or fictional be removed from American culture? Would we revert to movies of the quality of action made in the 30's, 40's, and 50's? While certainly there were some good shows made during those time periods, I doubt the public would appreciate the perceived regression. Perhaps we would see literature and music that relied less on the action and thrills of violent content, but I doubt it would be a welcome reversion.
Perhaps the real question should not be "Does video game violence contribute to real life acts of violence?", but "Why are violent video games such as GTA a huge seller in the video game market?". Additionally, we should perform some introspection on why our society creates violent content in the first place? Could it be that we are a society that still finds violence an acceptable method to reach our goals? Perhaps, or pehaps not.
Personally, I think the researchers are barking up the wrong tree. The questions they should be asking are not being asked. If they are, we don't see the media reporting on such research. Rather, we are playing the "blame game" and "pass the buck". It is easier to pass the blame than to address the underlying issues. Why do we play violent video games in the first place? Because they are "fun" is not a sufficient answer. What makes simulated violence fun? Why do we enjoy going to action movies that depict peoples' heads being chopped off, massive explosions resulting in death, etc...? Is it a substitute we seek to fulfill a lack of "excitement" in our own lives? We should be more concerned with how to create a responsble person in today's society. Responsible people do not believe that violence is an acceptable measure to accomplish their goals. Responsible people can be trusted to drive a car sober, parent their kids appropriately, own firearms, and generally "fit in" with society on a level that precludes violence altogether.
The appeals court said one of the arguments by the Recording Industry Association of America "borders upon the silly," rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.
It would appear the argument that the court found silly was, the "perceived" liability the ISP has with regards to music piracy because the pirated music is downloaded over their systems.
I can see how the Court would view this as silly. I would have ruled it as asinine, personally. Some of the counter arguments were (probably):
Are highway departments (states therefore) liable for DUI/DWI because those infractions occur upon their highways?
Are convenience stores, gas stations, and banks liable for robberies because those infractions occur within their place of business?
Are cities/municipalities responsible for drownings because the water used flowed through their waterways?
In all of these cases, unless you can prove the malice, I think the answer is a resounding NO! Why then should ISP's be responsible for the illegal acts of its subscribers, for which they (ISP) have no specific knowledge of even the occurence of such acts? They shouldn't be. If Verizon has reason to believe that you, the subscriber, are using their services to commit crimes; they will cancel your account and turn you over to the authorities. Verizon takes the position that its subscribers are law-abiding and then handles the exceptions. The RIAA would like the ISPs to take the position that all susbsribers are law-breakers, and need to prove otherwise. While this isn't exactly spelled out, it is a reasonable conclustion to draw.
US government cannot, by regulation, outsource any of its internal work to a non-citizen. There are waivers attainable in rare circumstance, but they are very, very limited in duration.
That's already being done in some rental cars, although they don't use RF technology to do it.
It is the future of motor vehicle code enforcement. Your car will "tattle" on you if you speed, run a stop sign, run a stop light, park in a no parking zone, or break another law that whose compliance can be easily monitored by automated systems. Your car would enforce the laws we all break. Laws such as speeding, tailgating, improper lane change, improper stop, etc...
Technically, it is feasible today for metropolitan areas to perform this sort of enforcement. Stop signs, stop lights, no parking zones, fire zones, school zones, and speed limit signs would all be able to identify themselves to your car via an IPv6 address. The car's computer could query a municipal database (stored locally in the vehicle like "never lost" maps that could be updated via a link up to a municipal server) to determine if the signpost is a legitimate signpost and not a fake. For instance, you approach a stop sign in the city. The stop sign is designed to transmit its id constantly. Your car determines the signpost is a stopsign and either begins the braking process for you or rats you out to the authorities when you do not stop at the sign. Perhaps the speed limit signs your car identified, with the environment information your car has collected, cause your car's cruise control to deccelerate to the appropriate speed. If you aren't using cruise, then your car could provide visual and/or audible cues that your rate of speed is too fast. A countdown could inform you of how long you have before you get cited by your own car. Sort of like when your mother "counted to 3" before she took the paddle to your behind.
One of the major hurdles such a system could face would be financial pressure to "not implement" because the cities/counties/states could lose money. Let's face it, there aren't enough police officers to make speeding, for instance, go away. Your chances for getting caught, aren't high. Additionally, the speeding ticket amounts do not discourage speeding (for the most part). Instead, they make fairly good money for the cities. If you had to pay a $1000 fine per infraction, instead of the graduated amount based on your speed, you might think twice before dropping the hammer.
Another possible pressure that would need to be overcome, would be the view that the public would inevitably take on such a system. The view that such a system is a "step towards a police state". Perhaps it would be, but you would always have the choice of either breaking the law or not. The only difference would be the guarantee of the consequences. If you break the law would it not be reasonable to expect to "pay the price"?
The cost of implementing the system would be higher in metropolitan areas than in rural areas. There would be more signposts, stop lights, and "zones" to enable with transmitters. Each sign would need to be enabeld to "transmit" its own IPv6 address to all cars within a certain range. The cities would also need to maintain an "update" server for the map database in the cars. Perhaps the server's transmission points would be stop lights, intersections, or gas stations. Some place that would see a high volume of traffic. As cars drove near these points (ideally you would have several server transmision points to load balance) each day, they could query the municipal servers for updates to the database on board the vehicle. The states could provide some of the funds to implement the systems in exchange for the right to use the city update servers to provide "state" data updates to the car databases.
All of the necessary technology already exists today. Cars can be fitted to receive wireless data transmissions, cars can be fitted with LCD displays to display information, computer systems in the car already monitor vehicle environment variables (speed, fuel usage, etc...), low-power RF transmitters can be mounted on road signs and can be powered by solar rechargeable batteries in areas
Good points. I wonder if the commissioners knows that they already consume geneticly modified foodstuffs. The potato for one. Without the domestication of the potato, it would still be poisonous. Genetic engineering has been around for a long while, look at the mule. The crossing of a horse and donkey. While, the sorts of engineering you could do pre-computer age were severly limited, it was still possible to engineer crops and animals. Think of all the different breeds of dogs and cats. There are other "domesticated" vegetable stocks that one could consider engineered aside from the potato.
You are right about that, it's name was Andromidus. That series BG1980 was bad. However, Boomer and Starbuck were still men. While I have no problem with woman being the colonial warriors (Athena), I do have a problem with the gender change of the characters. It's just my opinion, but I think they should have stuck with the premise set about in the orginal series. I think the new series will work for the folks that haven't seen BG before and don't watch the reruns.
I remember a really cheesy movie made that was the result of the Battletech universe popularity during the late eighties early nineties. It sucked. Perhaps they could do something along the lines of what they did with the Final Fantasy movie. That was some good graphics.
If you consume any sort of organic material, you are already utilizing the fruits (no pun intended) of organic nanotechnology. There are some pants that are "marketed" as using nanotechnology. The carbon tubules that repel water...etc. However, the pants aren't directly created by a nanomachine. Still, it is a step in the direction.
I agree with you that Mars is a better location than the moon for a "base" or "research station", but I still think that the creation of a moonbase should come first. Let me explain my reasons for that statment.
The distance between the earth and the mars is far, far, greater than the distance between the earth and the moon. There is a lot more time for something to go wrong during a trip to mars, than there is for a trip to the moon. Additionally, the amount of food, fuel, and supplies would need to be greater for a ship that would ferry people to mars, than for a ship that would ferry people to the moon.
The moon would be an excellent chance to test new technologies prior to sending them to Mars. It would be an excellent chance to iron out issues with Nuclear propulsion technologies as well as nuclear power systems for use at the base. Hardware and engineering for the creation of a base could be prototyped on the moon as well. Much more quickly and cheaply than could be done on Mars.
The most popular proposals for a Mars base require a robotic advance probe be sent to mars that will prepare the return fuel for a manned mars mission. While we have demonstrated we can land a probe on mars, we have not demostrated that we can extract useable minerals from a body other than the earth. We definitely haven't demonstrated that we can refine minerals to a useable form on a body other than the earth. We don't process those minerals without human supervision her on earth anyways (even though the technology probably is at a level that would support no supervision).
There are other technologies we need to demonstrate before I would feel comfortable taking a trip to mars. Make no mistake though, I am 100% for a manned mars mission. Just, not before we can demonstrate that we have the capability to undertake such a mission.
We are not inorganic systems. We are very much organic. We are assembled buy the process of cellular replication and organization. We rely on enymes and ribosomes to correctly "manufacture" our cells. Those enzymes and ribosomes only "work" in water. I am not certain that there exists any other form of enzymes other than those that function in water. At least, none that are as useful. Unfortunately, water-based chemistry limits us in what we are capable of "assembling" to pretty much the organics. That is why humans are composed of carbon based components, and not made with a steel outerskin. If we were able able to manufacture inorganic components, then we would probably be made of something sturdier than flesh and bone. We might not even require the use of oxygen in our energy production. We as organisms, were created by components that were readily available in the environment. Our development as an organism is limited by the restrictions that the building materials presented to us. Just as a builder is limited to what they can build with concrete and steel, we are limited in how we can develop by the organics.
If we travel down the path of nanomachine creation that mimics how we as humans (and all of biologic life) developed, we will be limited to the same constructs that nature was limited to.
a) That is the job that, like it or not, is played by a superpower. Either because they want to, are complained about when they don't, or because they can. Right or wrong, that is how it has been and will probably always be (to varying degrees). The powerful excercise their power when it serves them.
b) Yes we do. Although, in most cases it isn't of the same quality that our own military use. It is a quite lucrative business I've been told. However, I don't condone selling weaponry to any foreign country no matter the relation.
c) There are plenty of pens in Iraq, and we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword. (Couldn't resist!) In my opinion, the war was simply fought to "finish the job" that the previous administrations (Bush Sr. included) either didn't finish or wasn't able. I believe it was also designed to serve as an "example". Whether it worked or not, is yet to be seen.
d) You believe the vote would have turned the other direction because the media wanted you too (i'm not a big fan of the modern media---necessary evil that they are---in case you are wondering). I believe the electoral college wouldn't have provided a clear majority to either candidate. In that case (as there isn't a third candidate sapping votes) the U.S House would elect the Pres. in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
The average consumer who purchases a DVD, CD, multimedia device, television, or computer system really has no "upfront" knowledge of why DRM is bad. Nor, do they particularly care. There will always be exceptions to the rule, however, the majority of consumers will not be able to tell (unless the package is marked) whether the brand new Sony DVD player they bought contains DRM capabilities. The criteria that the average consumer uses when making their product selection is not as "robust" as the tech savy or politically aware consumer would use. DRM acceptance by the general public really boils down to satisfying a few key requirements.
One, the hardware device which utilizes DRM should not cost anymore than the device which does not utilize DRM. Certainly, the addition of the DRM components will raise the price of the product. Therefore, it is necessary for the consumer to perceive a benefit which justifies the additional cost. This will require slick new features that are available only on the DRM enabled model and suitable advertising of the device. Thus neutralizing the issue of product price increase then becomes a marketing exercise.
DRM enabled equipment should be able to conduct the authentication/verification of the user and their content with NO user involvement. If the new DVD player becomes more difficult to use, people will not purchase the new DVD player. DRM hardware must become innocuous to the user and must be backward compatible with previous releases of content.
DRM enabled hardware will need to have a single industry standard that is used to encode and decode the content. There can be no competing standards such as DVD-R and DVD-RAM. The price of content that supports decryption on all DRM standards would be quite a bit higher than a non-DRM enabled content. There would also be considerable difficulty in creating content to meet all standards. There is also no guarantee that competing standards would work interchangeably.
DRM enabled hardware must be presented as a positive component by such consumer product publications as popular as Consumer Reports. If DRM is rated as being considerably more costly and painful to operate, the hardware will not be bought.
Finally, the "cut-over" for releasing only DRM enabled content, must be worked out. A large enough majority of the consumer population must posess a DRM enabled hardware device so that the DRM enabled content can be consumed. It wouldn't do for all of the LOTR III DVDs, to use as an example, be released as DRM enabled. There wouldn't be enough people with the correct hardware who would purchase the new LOTR III DVD. The content providers must work with the harware vendors and create a plan to "roll-out" content that by design will only be consumable on DRM enabled hardware.
In conclusion the DRM enabled hardware/media must be competetive in price with the non-DRM enabled hardware/media. The DRM enabled hardware must be as easy-to-use, if not easier, than current hardware. There must be a single industry standard on DRM implementation that allows for backward compatibility. The popular media outlets that consumers consult to build their "criteria of product selection" must present DRM in a "positive" light in order to build public support and neutralize any "negative press" in regards to the DRM product. Finally, the content providers will need to work closely with the hardware vendors to determine how best to implement DRM "roll-out" to the consumers.
Who is truthout.org? Why should we believe what they have to say over the mainstream media? Are they not just as opportunistic and manipulative as current media, activist, or political groups?
It really depends on what you mean by "feasible" and by when you would want to mine.
To consider the "what" as meaning:
returning a significant quantity/quality of payload to earth
manned mining with acceptable level of risk to miners
acceptable "cost of doing business" for extraction
Then the answer is no, it isn't feasible. We will not be able to mine and return ore or processed material to earth from our own moon, much less from anything further out in space, at a scale considerable enough to be called "mining".
To consider the "when":
you mean 11/19/2003
you mean 11/19/2005
you mean 11/19/2010
My belief would be, no.
We possess the capabilities to send a manned vehicle to the moon and return. We have demonstrated that with Apollo. We possess the ability to send items to and return items from orbit. We have demonstrated that with our satellite launch and recovery capabilities involving the Space Shuttle program (whether you like the shuttle or not, it is the only vehicle currently that carries that capability). We even possess the capability of sending non-manned robotic craft to land on other planets/satellite-bodies. We demonstrated that capability with Viking, Pathfinder, and Surveyor. So, in review of this information, we know we can send both man and machine to land on the moon and return home to earth. We can send machine to land on Mars but not return. We can send machine to the moon and not return. It is true that none of the unmanned missions I listed were intended to return to the earth.
To be truly "feasible" in the sense that matches my above definition, we need to be able to demonstrate a couple more capabilities.
We need to:
Demonstrate the ability to have an unmanned vehicle land on another planet/body and then return to earth on its own power. To my knowledge, that project hasn't been completed.
Mitigate the effects of long term exposure to microgravity or reduced gravity on the human body (for manned mining missions). Until we invent artificial gravity or simulate earth gravity successfully, we will have a difficult time establishing bases or completing long distance journeys (mars and back).
Demonstrate that we can successfullly mine and process ore remote from our facilities here on earth.
Possibly the most important, is to demonstrate that there is a significant will or desire to mine extra-terrestrial bodies.
So, to make mining feasible, we would need a solid commitment to such a goal from commercial and governmental entities. We would also need to establish projects to develop and demonstrate the capabilites we are currently missing. In the end, it is attainable, just not right now.
As you say, the cost of extracting the item on earth would need to be greater than the cost of extracting from space. However, the "value" of the mineral extracted (from earth or space) shouldn't ever be less than a certain percentage above the cost of extracting that mineral, and definitely not lower than that cost. An abundance of some object doesn't ever reduce the "value" of said object to zero. Especially, when that object is a "raw material" for other objects (which means it will be in demand) as is the case with most minerals. The abundance of a desired object will keep the cost of the object "down", but will never cause the object's value to reach zero. People pay for dirt, for air, and for other "abundant" objects when they have a demand for said object.
This is a gross simplification of certain aspects of economic theory. However, it is useful for conceptualizing "value" as related to "cost" for the purposes of this post.
It would only seem reasonable to mine extraterrestrial sources when we "need" them. In other words, if we have a shortage of iron on our planet then it would make sense to go and mine the closest extraterrestrial sources. Even in that situation, only if our recovery techniques on terrestrial iron wouldn't yield enough supply for the demand. The only other reason to mine an extraterrestrial sources would be to supply/resupply a space exploration journey. In that vein, it would be cheaper to supply a mission that was launched from the moon with material mined from the moon, than it would be to supply from Earth.
...he wouldn't have hacked the electoral college's vote. The people don't elect the president, the electoral college does. Of course, I pitty the electoral college representative (in some states) who doesn't vote with the mandate of their state's population. Some states will hand out jail time.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding, at least from IBM, of the "On Demand" vision, is that companies will begin to view computing as they would a utility. Electricity from a power company for example. You only get billed the electricity that you use, and you don't have to do anything other than "tap the supply" to get more electricity. If you want to run all of the lights, fine. If you don't want to run all of the lights, you don't have to and you won't pay for the electricity that you don't use.
IBM's view is that you would pay for IBM to be your "computing" provider (power company). If you need a whole lot of computing, then you simply perform a whole lot of computing and you don't have to buy the systems to do the computing. If you don't need a whole lot of computing, then you don't perform a whole lot of computing. You only pay for what you used. This is a nice feature in that your computing infrastructure is now scalable "real-time" both directions. You get a better return on your computing investment in that you aren't paying for computing cycles you aren't using (servers you only need during "peak" times of the year).
Apparently, they've been successful in selling the "on demand" concept as, Proctor & Gamble, Twinlab, Telestra, and Nextra have signed deals for on-demand, and there are apparently others.
There is no such thing as zero chance. Would you believe that nuclear powered space probes have already left the planet? There is Pioneer 10, Voyager 1 and 2, Viking, and I believe the Surveyors were nuclear powered as well. Depending on where the CATO occurred, it would probably break up and disintegrate upon re-entry. The disintegration of the fuel would preclude exposure, as there wouldn't be anything left. If it occurred prior to reaching the outer atmospheres, then the remaining bits (if there were any) would sink to the bottom of the Atlantic or Pacific (depending on who is doing the launching).
I can't debate your first point, as you didn't provide me with any sources. The fact that Gulf War Syndrome is defined as "Gulf War Syndrome" obviously means that the effects aren't deniable, indeed they are observable. We don't name things that have no observable effects. We can't. We wouldn't know they existed. The fact that the soldiers are sent into the Gulf in the first place is akin to sending fire-fighters to put out a fire. We know flames are dangerous. Yet we continue to send fire-fighters to put them out. There are always going to be bad people in positions of power that do bad things. If you don't want to be placed "in harms way" do not sign up to be a soldier. It is your job, necessarily, to die to protect those that cannot or do not fight. I would find it hard to believe that the scientific body of knowledge dealing with radiation's effect on physiology was anything larger than "slim" during the time period of the Bikini Atoll, Manhatten Project, and "Fat Man" and "Little boy" projects.
As to your second point, we can quantify the amount of damage to a biological system. We can use either rem (roentgen-man-equivalents) or Sieverts. One Sievert is the equivalent to 100 rem ( 1 Sv = 100 rem). A Sievert is the amount of energy delivered per unit mass ( measured in Grays ) multiplied by relative biological effectiveness ( RBE or some quality factor ). A gray is a measure of Joule/Kg. The quality factor you use depends upon the type of radiation you are exposed to (i.e. Gamma, Beta, Alpha, etc...). Different types of radiation are more "reactive", or more energetic than others. Cancer is typically a broad term that describes a malfunctioning of cells during cellular reproduction. The affected cells reproduce themselves at a rate that is too fast for the bodies natural mechanisms (cell "suicide switch") to keep up with (or when the natural mechanism fails altogether.). Radiation causes the genetic mutations within the cell that eventually lead to the generation of cancer. We do not know that it takes "ONE unlucky mutation" to lead to cancer. It may take several to overwhelm the bodies defenses. Please visit this website for more information. I would counter that it is the public that is ill informed with regards to nuclear power, nuclear safety, and nuclear regulation. The pro-nuclear lobby, the ones that truly "have a dog in the fight" are well versed in radiation and its affects. They have to be, it is their jobs.
Why not simply adapt the UNSPSC codes to work with RFID technologies? UNSPSC codes are already used around the world for working with material goods. In addition, all of the world's ERP systems including the market leading SAP R/3 support UNSPSC codes. So, instead of receiving a UNSPSC code through a Purchase Order, Invoice, or Purchase Requisition, the software would receive the RFID transmission of its UNSPSC code.
Wouldn't it be possible for companies to buy their own custom coded or blank RFID tags anyway? Who says you would have to subscribe to this format in the first place? Already there are competing standards on how e-commerce should be used. We have ebXML, cXML, and cbML. Sure it would be better if there was a single standard, but there isn't a way to force businesses to use such a standard. Why would RFID and EPC be any different?
Finally, if I use SAP (for example) why would I need my RFID tags or any software to communicate with Verisign? Why wouldn't I want my R/3 system to be "the system of record" as it is for my accounting?
"Students should not be of the opinion that it is acceptable to abuse the privileges that are afforded them by the taxpayers. If they are allowed to experiment and do things on the computers that the teachers have not specifically given them permission to do, we would never get any computer education accomplished.
I think that "abuse" is a strong word to use. Did he receive permission to send a communication to other systems? Probably not. This could have been handled by the instructor in the classroom. A simple "Please refrain from messaging all systems on the network." would have sufficed. Definitely, this child is a hacker, though not in the definition espoused by the media. He did not crack any system. Had this Sweeney individual been intelligent enough, she would have isolated the computer lab from all systems on the net to prevent such an occurence. Perhaps she should be supsended for her dereliction in security practice! Furthermore, in this instance, who taught who? I don't believe that this Sweeney character deserves the respect that the moniker "teacher" commands. She may have been a public educator for many years, but that does not make her a "teacher". She isn't "teaching" anyone, she apparently squashes the already difficult-to-encourage motivation for learning that her pupils displayed. I would imagine that she rotely follows her lesson plan making small changes as the "fads" develop. Her "experimentation" that she frowns upon is precisely what drives a child's desire to learn. Not the tedious hum-drum that is today's modern class. I wonder why American education is not where it should be in relation to other industrialized nation, and then I read an article such as this that anwers a lot of my questions. Thank you educator Sweeney for setting the example for poor instructors!
The double-edge sword of innovation. Do you spend the money on R&D or do you go with what works? Do you wait to follow the coat-tails of your competitor or do you lead your competitor by your coat-tails? Not easy questions to ponder when the costs are real and measurable. It's a gamble, not unlike the lottery, but your odds are better with the quality of your research and the theories you build on.
I don't think so. I think the accretion disk would be the point at which matter is being transferred from one object to another. In other words, the point where the matter collects due to a gravitational pull that would not allow for easy escape.
My guess is that the parachute/airbag system allowed the weight that an engine system would have occupied to be used for sensor equipment. It is also a more simple solution. The failure points are reduced (fewer working parts).
Perhaps, after heavily debated research, violent video games are shown to make it "easier" by desensitization to commit acts of violence. What does this mean? Should we seek to rid our society of all violent content that desensitizes us to such actions? Should all simulations of violence either real or fictional be removed from American culture? Would we revert to movies of the quality of action made in the 30's, 40's, and 50's? While certainly there were some good shows made during those time periods, I doubt the public would appreciate the perceived regression. Perhaps we would see literature and music that relied less on the action and thrills of violent content, but I doubt it would be a welcome reversion.
Perhaps the real question should not be "Does video game violence contribute to real life acts of violence?", but "Why are violent video games such as GTA a huge seller in the video game market?". Additionally, we should perform some introspection on why our society creates violent content in the first place? Could it be that we are a society that still finds violence an acceptable method to reach our goals? Perhaps, or pehaps not.
Personally, I think the researchers are barking up the wrong tree. The questions they should be asking are not being asked. If they are, we don't see the media reporting on such research. Rather, we are playing the "blame game" and "pass the buck". It is easier to pass the blame than to address the underlying issues. Why do we play violent video games in the first place? Because they are "fun" is not a sufficient answer. What makes simulated violence fun? Why do we enjoy going to action movies that depict peoples' heads being chopped off, massive explosions resulting in death, etc...? Is it a substitute we seek to fulfill a lack of "excitement" in our own lives? We should be more concerned with how to create a responsble person in today's society. Responsible people do not believe that violence is an acceptable measure to accomplish their goals. Responsible people can be trusted to drive a car sober, parent their kids appropriately, own firearms, and generally "fit in" with society on a level that precludes violence altogether.
From the article:
It would appear the argument that the court found silly was, the "perceived" liability the ISP has with regards to music piracy because the pirated music is downloaded over their systems.
I can see how the Court would view this as silly. I would have ruled it as asinine, personally. Some of the counter arguments were (probably):
In all of these cases, unless you can prove the malice, I think the answer is a resounding NO! Why then should ISP's be responsible for the illegal acts of its subscribers, for which they (ISP) have no specific knowledge of even the occurence of such acts? They shouldn't be. If Verizon has reason to believe that you, the subscriber, are using their services to commit crimes; they will cancel your account and turn you over to the authorities. Verizon takes the position that its subscribers are law-abiding and then handles the exceptions. The RIAA would like the ISPs to take the position that all susbsribers are law-breakers, and need to prove otherwise. While this isn't exactly spelled out, it is a reasonable conclustion to draw.
US government cannot, by regulation, outsource any of its internal work to a non-citizen. There are waivers attainable in rare circumstance, but they are very, very limited in duration.
That's already being done in some rental cars, although they don't use RF technology to do it.
It is the future of motor vehicle code enforcement. Your car will "tattle" on you if you speed, run a stop sign, run a stop light, park in a no parking zone, or break another law that whose compliance can be easily monitored by automated systems. Your car would enforce the laws we all break. Laws such as speeding, tailgating, improper lane change, improper stop, etc...
Technically, it is feasible today for metropolitan areas to perform this sort of enforcement. Stop signs, stop lights, no parking zones, fire zones, school zones, and speed limit signs would all be able to identify themselves to your car via an IPv6 address. The car's computer could query a municipal database (stored locally in the vehicle like "never lost" maps that could be updated via a link up to a municipal server) to determine if the signpost is a legitimate signpost and not a fake. For instance, you approach a stop sign in the city. The stop sign is designed to transmit its id constantly. Your car determines the signpost is a stopsign and either begins the braking process for you or rats you out to the authorities when you do not stop at the sign. Perhaps the speed limit signs your car identified, with the environment information your car has collected, cause your car's cruise control to deccelerate to the appropriate speed. If you aren't using cruise, then your car could provide visual and/or audible cues that your rate of speed is too fast. A countdown could inform you of how long you have before you get cited by your own car. Sort of like when your mother "counted to 3" before she took the paddle to your behind.
One of the major hurdles such a system could face would be financial pressure to "not implement" because the cities/counties/states could lose money. Let's face it, there aren't enough police officers to make speeding, for instance, go away. Your chances for getting caught, aren't high. Additionally, the speeding ticket amounts do not discourage speeding (for the most part). Instead, they make fairly good money for the cities. If you had to pay a $1000 fine per infraction, instead of the graduated amount based on your speed, you might think twice before dropping the hammer.
Another possible pressure that would need to be overcome, would be the view that the public would inevitably take on such a system. The view that such a system is a "step towards a police state". Perhaps it would be, but you would always have the choice of either breaking the law or not. The only difference would be the guarantee of the consequences. If you break the law would it not be reasonable to expect to "pay the price"?
The cost of implementing the system would be higher in metropolitan areas than in rural areas. There would be more signposts, stop lights, and "zones" to enable with transmitters. Each sign would need to be enabeld to "transmit" its own IPv6 address to all cars within a certain range. The cities would also need to maintain an "update" server for the map database in the cars. Perhaps the server's transmission points would be stop lights, intersections, or gas stations. Some place that would see a high volume of traffic. As cars drove near these points (ideally you would have several server transmision points to load balance) each day, they could query the municipal servers for updates to the database on board the vehicle. The states could provide some of the funds to implement the systems in exchange for the right to use the city update servers to provide "state" data updates to the car databases.
All of the necessary technology already exists today. Cars can be fitted to receive wireless data transmissions, cars can be fitted with LCD displays to display information, computer systems in the car already monitor vehicle environment variables (speed, fuel usage, etc...), low-power RF transmitters can be mounted on road signs and can be powered by solar rechargeable batteries in areas
Good points. I wonder if the commissioners knows that they already consume geneticly modified foodstuffs. The potato for one. Without the domestication of the potato, it would still be poisonous. Genetic engineering has been around for a long while, look at the mule. The crossing of a horse and donkey. While, the sorts of engineering you could do pre-computer age were severly limited, it was still possible to engineer crops and animals. Think of all the different breeds of dogs and cats. There are other "domesticated" vegetable stocks that one could consider engineered aside from the potato.
You are right about that, it's name was Andromidus. That series BG1980 was bad. However, Boomer and Starbuck were still men. While I have no problem with woman being the colonial warriors (Athena), I do have a problem with the gender change of the characters. It's just my opinion, but I think they should have stuck with the premise set about in the orginal series. I think the new series will work for the folks that haven't seen BG before and don't watch the reruns.
I remember a really cheesy movie made that was the result of the Battletech universe popularity during the late eighties early nineties. It sucked. Perhaps they could do something along the lines of what they did with the Final Fantasy movie. That was some good graphics.
If you consume any sort of organic material, you are already utilizing the fruits (no pun intended) of organic nanotechnology. There are some pants that are "marketed" as using nanotechnology. The carbon tubules that repel water...etc. However, the pants aren't directly created by a nanomachine. Still, it is a step in the direction.
I agree with you that Mars is a better location than the moon for a "base" or "research station", but I still think that the creation of a moonbase should come first. Let me explain my reasons for that statment.
The distance between the earth and the mars is far, far, greater than the distance between the earth and the moon. There is a lot more time for something to go wrong during a trip to mars, than there is for a trip to the moon. Additionally, the amount of food, fuel, and supplies would need to be greater for a ship that would ferry people to mars, than for a ship that would ferry people to the moon.
The moon would be an excellent chance to test new technologies prior to sending them to Mars. It would be an excellent chance to iron out issues with Nuclear propulsion technologies as well as nuclear power systems for use at the base. Hardware and engineering for the creation of a base could be prototyped on the moon as well. Much more quickly and cheaply than could be done on Mars.
The most popular proposals for a Mars base require a robotic advance probe be sent to mars that will prepare the return fuel for a manned mars mission. While we have demonstrated we can land a probe on mars, we have not demostrated that we can extract useable minerals from a body other than the earth. We definitely haven't demonstrated that we can refine minerals to a useable form on a body other than the earth. We don't process those minerals without human supervision her on earth anyways (even though the technology probably is at a level that would support no supervision).
There are other technologies we need to demonstrate before I would feel comfortable taking a trip to mars. Make no mistake though, I am 100% for a manned mars mission. Just, not before we can demonstrate that we have the capability to undertake such a mission.
Disclaimer: I am not a chemist nor a biologist.
We are not inorganic systems. We are very much organic. We are assembled buy the process of cellular replication and organization. We rely on enymes and ribosomes to correctly "manufacture" our cells. Those enzymes and ribosomes only "work" in water. I am not certain that there exists any other form of enzymes other than those that function in water. At least, none that are as useful. Unfortunately, water-based chemistry limits us in what we are capable of "assembling" to pretty much the organics. That is why humans are composed of carbon based components, and not made with a steel outerskin. If we were able able to manufacture inorganic components, then we would probably be made of something sturdier than flesh and bone. We might not even require the use of oxygen in our energy production. We as organisms, were created by components that were readily available in the environment. Our development as an organism is limited by the restrictions that the building materials presented to us. Just as a builder is limited to what they can build with concrete and steel, we are limited in how we can develop by the organics.
If we travel down the path of nanomachine creation that mimics how we as humans (and all of biologic life) developed, we will be limited to the same constructs that nature was limited to.
The average consumer who purchases a DVD, CD, multimedia device, television, or computer system really has no "upfront" knowledge of why DRM is bad. Nor, do they particularly care. There will always be exceptions to the rule, however, the majority of consumers will not be able to tell (unless the package is marked) whether the brand new Sony DVD player they bought contains DRM capabilities. The criteria that the average consumer uses when making their product selection is not as "robust" as the tech savy or politically aware consumer would use. DRM acceptance by the general public really boils down to satisfying a few key requirements.
One, the hardware device which utilizes DRM should not cost anymore than the device which does not utilize DRM. Certainly, the addition of the DRM components will raise the price of the product. Therefore, it is necessary for the consumer to perceive a benefit which justifies the additional cost. This will require slick new features that are available only on the DRM enabled model and suitable advertising of the device. Thus neutralizing the issue of product price increase then becomes a marketing exercise.
DRM enabled equipment should be able to conduct the authentication/verification of the user and their content with NO user involvement. If the new DVD player becomes more difficult to use, people will not purchase the new DVD player. DRM hardware must become innocuous to the user and must be backward compatible with previous releases of content.
DRM enabled hardware will need to have a single industry standard that is used to encode and decode the content. There can be no competing standards such as DVD-R and DVD-RAM. The price of content that supports decryption on all DRM standards would be quite a bit higher than a non-DRM enabled content. There would also be considerable difficulty in creating content to meet all standards. There is also no guarantee that competing standards would work interchangeably.
DRM enabled hardware must be presented as a positive component by such consumer product publications as popular as Consumer Reports. If DRM is rated as being considerably more costly and painful to operate, the hardware will not be bought.
Finally, the "cut-over" for releasing only DRM enabled content, must be worked out. A large enough majority of the consumer population must posess a DRM enabled hardware device so that the DRM enabled content can be consumed. It wouldn't do for all of the LOTR III DVDs, to use as an example, be released as DRM enabled. There wouldn't be enough people with the correct hardware who would purchase the new LOTR III DVD. The content providers must work with the harware vendors and create a plan to "roll-out" content that by design will only be consumable on DRM enabled hardware.
In conclusion the DRM enabled hardware/media must be competetive in price with the non-DRM enabled hardware/media. The DRM enabled hardware must be as easy-to-use, if not easier, than current hardware. There must be a single industry standard on DRM implementation that allows for backward compatibility. The popular media outlets that consumers consult to build their "criteria of product selection" must present DRM in a "positive" light in order to build public support and neutralize any "negative press" in regards to the DRM product. Finally, the content providers will need to work closely with the hardware vendors to determine how best to implement DRM "roll-out" to the consumers.
Who is truthout.org? Why should we believe what they have to say over the mainstream media? Are they not just as opportunistic and manipulative as current media, activist, or political groups?
It really depends on what you mean by "feasible" and by when you would want to mine.
- To consider the "what" as meaning:
- returning a significant quantity/quality of payload to earth
- manned mining with acceptable level of risk to miners
- acceptable "cost of doing business" for extraction
Then the answer is no, it isn't feasible. We will not be able to mine and return ore or processed material to earth from our own moon, much less from anything further out in space, at a scale considerable enough to be called "mining".- To consider the "when":
- you mean 11/19/2003
- you mean 11/19/2005
- you mean 11/19/2010
My belief would be, no.We possess the capabilities to send a manned vehicle to the moon and return. We have demonstrated that with Apollo. We possess the ability to send items to and return items from orbit. We have demonstrated that with our satellite launch and recovery capabilities involving the Space Shuttle program (whether you like the shuttle or not, it is the only vehicle currently that carries that capability). We even possess the capability of sending non-manned robotic craft to land on other planets/satellite-bodies. We demonstrated that capability with Viking, Pathfinder, and Surveyor. So, in review of this information, we know we can send both man and machine to land on the moon and return home to earth. We can send machine to land on Mars but not return. We can send machine to the moon and not return. It is true that none of the unmanned missions I listed were intended to return to the earth.
To be truly "feasible" in the sense that matches my above definition, we need to be able to demonstrate a couple more capabilities.
- We need to:
- Demonstrate the ability to have an unmanned vehicle land on another planet/body and then return to earth on its own power. To my knowledge, that project hasn't been completed.
- Mitigate the effects of long term exposure to microgravity or reduced gravity on the human body (for manned mining missions). Until we invent artificial gravity or simulate earth gravity successfully, we will have a difficult time establishing bases or completing long distance journeys (mars and back).
- Demonstrate that we can successfullly mine and process ore remote from our facilities here on earth.
- Possibly the most important, is to demonstrate that there is a significant will or desire to mine extra-terrestrial bodies.
So, to make mining feasible, we would need a solid commitment to such a goal from commercial and governmental entities. We would also need to establish projects to develop and demonstrate the capabilites we are currently missing. In the end, it is attainable, just not right now.As you say, the cost of extracting the item on earth would need to be greater than the cost of extracting from space. However, the "value" of the mineral extracted (from earth or space) shouldn't ever be less than a certain percentage above the cost of extracting that mineral, and definitely not lower than that cost. An abundance of some object doesn't ever reduce the "value" of said object to zero. Especially, when that object is a "raw material" for other objects (which means it will be in demand) as is the case with most minerals. The abundance of a desired object will keep the cost of the object "down", but will never cause the object's value to reach zero. People pay for dirt, for air, and for other "abundant" objects when they have a demand for said object.
This is a gross simplification of certain aspects of economic theory. However, it is useful for conceptualizing "value" as related to "cost" for the purposes of this post.
It would only seem reasonable to mine extraterrestrial sources when we "need" them. In other words, if we have a shortage of iron on our planet then it would make sense to go and mine the closest extraterrestrial sources. Even in that situation, only if our recovery techniques on terrestrial iron wouldn't yield enough supply for the demand. The only other reason to mine an extraterrestrial sources would be to supply/resupply a space exploration journey. In that vein, it would be cheaper to supply a mission that was launched from the moon with material mined from the moon, than it would be to supply from Earth.
...he wouldn't have hacked the electoral college's vote. The people don't elect the president, the electoral college does. Of course, I pitty the electoral college representative (in some states) who doesn't vote with the mandate of their state's population. Some states will hand out jail time.