Look, I didn't want to get into an argument about the science of Global Warming. Too much heat and not enough light has been wasted for me to go there. Besides, I am not a climatologist, are you?
Rather I wanted to point out something. The only way for the conclusions (and by and large all I've seen from these guys are estimates and probabilities, not certainties), to be way off would be if there was a huge CONSPIRACY within the scientific community on this subject. Sort of like how the creationists think all of the biologists must be going off somewhere to work on a master plan to deceive everyone that evolution is true. Having known some professional, tenured scientists myself I just don't buy it; the reason why scientists get into a field that pays little, poor recognition, insane amounts of work (teaching and publishing) is because many (most?) are driven by the highest of motives. That's why I mentioned investment bankers; when times are really rough like when the U.S. cancelled the SCC (super conducting collider) some physicists no longer had prospects in doing research. So they went over to "the Dark Side" (which is how they invariably put working in investment banking). Working at a tech startup, a very bright guy I knew wanted, once he made his millions, to become an astro-physicist. For fame or fortune? Of course not, he loved science.
So I find it impossible to believe that the vast majority of all these climatologists are willfully deceiving us (or themselves). Sure there is peer pressure, sure they make mistakes. But they ARE TRAINED SCIENTISTS and they know more than almost any of us the limits of their models and their evidence. (Just going through your oral defense of your thesis will teach you that). Also you seem to think that models are the ONLY thing these guys have going; after decades of research there is a gigantic body of knowledge that is growing. And you know what? By and large it supports the general consensus.
Finally there is the fact that if one, or a group of them, could really make a good case that Global Warming won't happen they would become (scientifically) IMMORTAL. Remember, it is not the followers who become written up in textbooks, it is the ones who make BOLD (meaning contrary to orthodoxy) predictions and WHO ARE PROVEN RIGHT. Ultimately remember popularity counts for NOTHING in Science. Science is not politics or law or history; your peers don't decide NATURE is the ultimate decider.
In this case it'll be EASY we won't have to wait long. If someone were to make a scientifically plausible claim that GW is not gonna happen well we will know in probably well less than a human lifetime. It doesn't even matter if they are still alive ~ Mendel published his results on genetics and it was ignored well after his death. However, when it was determined that he was RIGHT and that he was the FIRST to come up with his laws on heredity, well now he's in every Biology textbook in every country in the world (well excepting some places I guess in the U.S.). This is the kind of immortality every true scientist craves, maybe you don't understand it but I'm sure a lot of the climatologists do.
But I'm happy about it because I think it is important. Anyway since I spent a while putting my submission together, here it is for your (hopeful) enjoyment:
Will LIFE almost end AGAIN? Another Great Dying?
I've said it before (http://slashdot.org/submission/1066423/Another-Permian-extinction-on-the-way?art_pos=62, http://slashdot.org/submission/1056203/Global-Warming-Tipping-Point?art_pos=71) and I'll say it again: there may be a chance that we may be facing another Permian level extinction event. What is that you say? It was the greatest extinction event in earth's history (hence "The Great Dying") causing up to 96% of all marine organisms to go extinct and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates. Remember, these are entire SPECIES that went extinct, individual population losses were obviously higher. The cause? Well according to Wikipedia: "only one sufficiently powerful cause has been proposed for the global 10 reduction in the 13C/12C ratio: the release of methane from methane clathrates;[7]"
So, as you can see, I keep saying this because the stakes are so high.
Well now there are reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10010948) that the methane clathrates off of Eastern Siberia are releasing 8 million tons of methane a year. While currently "negligible" compared to global emissions of about 440 million tons: "The release of just a 'small fraction of the methane held in (the) East Siberian Arctic Shelf sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming,'" This WILL become more likely because: "If atmospheric temperatures rise, the hydrate stability zone will shift upward, leaving in its stead a layer of methane gas that has been freed from the hydrate cages. Pressure in that new layer of free gas would build, forcing the gas to shoot up." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm. Of course what's driving this is the quick rise in temperatures in the Arctic/Antarctic, temperatures there are rising twice as fast as the global average (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane). So even if we manage to keep the temperature rise BEFORE counting in the additional methane release to a very optimistic 2 celsius (3.6 degrees for Americans) it will be twice that for the arctic regions. Remember also that these articles are talking about just a small part of the arctic methane clathrate reserve (which is itself just a tiny part of the global reserve in all the deep sea sediments) and that it is coming out of out of the sea bed in other places too. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm).
If the temperature rises cause enough methane to come out to cause the temperature to rise even more we could be in for a very bad greenhouse effect. Methane is 20x more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are 500-2500 Gigatons of the stuff on the ocean floor compared to just 700 Gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if just 5% of the stuff comes out, we've doubled the heat retained in this manner by the atmosphere!
Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago but to those of you still reading please consider that this is an EXISTENTIAL threat, that is it threatens our (humankind's) very existance. Maybe if temperatures soar into the mid-one hundreds, people will still be able to walk outside/in the winter/in Antarctica and exist in air-conditioned caves elsewhere but I think you'll agree we will have made our own hell on earth. So even if the chance of a semi-runaway greenhouse effect is very small we should really REALLY be careful. (To see the effect of a full runaway greenhouse effect, just visit Venus, hot enough to melt lead!).
Sure prediction, especially about the future, is hard. But the vast majority of climate scientists think we are headed for a cliff in the fog, fast. They may dis
As other nations develop their drones (and robotic fish and crawlers/walkers) our drones should be able to defeat theirs most of the time as long as ours are "smarter" and their senses are more acute.
The only problem is when "most' of the time isn't good enough, either when the enemy can produces a huge number of inferior yet numerically overwhelming units (China?) OR if they carry WMD (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) where letting just one through is catastrophic.
That is why missile defense against a major nuclear power like Russia is useless; when the damage a single $10M nuclear ICBM can cause might be in the Trillions of dollars (target: Manhattan) it makes it very worthwhile to produce lots and lots of missiles to overwhelm any conceivable defense. The return on investment(?) is very high!
Of course for a minor power (Iran, N. Korea are you listening?) that can just barely get their missiles to fly, drones might be a much better way of delivering the goods. (or diplomatic pouch/FedEx).
If the delay is a problem to this or any other tele-operated mission, put the scientists in orbit around the body to be explored (in this case LUNAR orbit).
I know that it may seem stupid to transport them 230,000 miles just to end up 100 miles away from their goal but consider the expense of getting them down (and back up) from the surface.
1) a landing/ascent vehicle will have to be designed, tested and built. Same thing with lunar spacesuits (primarily dustproof). 2) all this gear will have to be shipped to cis-lunar orbit. Remember life support supplies will also have to landed. 3) to duplicate the functionality of multiple robots in various areas around the moon you'll have to move the whole kit and kaboodle every time you want to explore using landed explorers. Expensive, time-consuming and dangerous. - This will cost billions! (Remember also the time required to de-orbit, land, set up camp, put on suits etc. etc.)
On the other hand, you could just put them in orbit around the moon to operate the robots. The cost? "Only" about 5x the cost ($20M?) of getting a person into LEO. This is what Space Adventures was quoting for a trip around the moon using a modified soyuz spacecraft. (I don't know if they included insertion into lunar orbit though and it doesn't include the tele-operation equipment).
The only problem is that the scientists will be way up out of the magnetosphere so solar flares could be a deadly event. They could bring a "storm shelter" (a little space in between some water tanks) that they could hide out in during the few hours the flare would be peaking. Or, they could modify their orbit around the Moon (or Mars, asteroid or other celestial body) to put it between them and the sun. Since they get (I think) a few days warning, they should be able to do this without burning too much fuel.
Again, maybe the delay won't be a problem for lunar exploration and maybe it will be. Obviously for other targets it will be. A "classic" story on this problem is Arthur C. Clarke's "Meeting with Medusa". I hope someday Mankind will be facing such problems!
... and if you sign this document I'll be happy to take your case in the unfortunate event of your demise due to a poorly implemented software upgrade!
Wow I was just about to say the same thing then I saw your post!
Sorry this post is so late in the thread but if you don't know who that quote is from, please return your geek card immediately. Also it would be helpful if you go to the nearest Solyent green reprocessing facility at your earliest convenience.
On the other hand, let's see if the iPad meets that (admittedly) high standard. To the AVERAGE user (no not you, my fellow slashdotters) it may actually make the bar. How many (normal) people do you know REALLY understand the technology that goes into so many of the little devices that are becoming commonplace. Can they begin to describe how a CD player works? (Can YOU tell me how the laser manages to unerringly hit micron sized pits passing by at many meters a second on a wobbly disk of cheap plastic?). Or how a cell phone can achieve what used to take a suitcase sized radio? (Not that they can even explain how a radio works, can you?). These miracles, even if comprehensible, have become unbelievably cheap (less than a fancy dinner for two). Even if the chinese slave laborers are paid next to nothing (okay, they are), it's still UN-believeable what you get. Isn't that a good definition of magic?
So I'm a little less cynical about Tim Cook's "magic" content, he may have a point.
Actually this has already happened (to an extent). During the recent "great recession" exports from China have plummeted. Not just to the U.S. but to all of their major "developed" country trading partners. So what happened? Did the Chinese economy crash and burn?
Just the opposite. Due to a massive stimulus program (that they, unlike us, paid for out of their huge foreign reserves) they basically just blew by the recession. China's economy has become developed to the point that THEY ARE THEIR OWN LARGEST CUSTOMER. So basically, they are fueling their own growth by rising standards of living. Their growth is so high (8+%) that their central bank is raising interest rates to keep inflation from soaring.
Sure, they have long term problems in food and energy. This is due to prosperity not poverty. They are importing (lots) of food to feed their increasingly sophisticated palates (they are still 95% self-sufficient in grains) and likewise with energy they are importing (oil) to fuel all their new cars (they just passed the U.S. as the largest automobile market in the world). Like us they are dependent on the middle east for energy, unlike us they are committing massive resources to break that dependence. Starting from virtually nothing I believe they are now the worlds largest manufacturer of solar panels and will soon pass us in wind. (They also build a huge number of nuclear plants EACH YEAR).
No doubt China's got problems and challenges ahead. But the writing's on the wall, the "sleeping giant" has awoken and since we blew our lead through sheer incompetence, we have no-one else to blame. (It's not just me who thinks this, despite a substantial drop in foreign language programs the number of American children now learning Mandarin has soared in the last few years - no matter what their parents might say in public, they can see what's coming and are voting with their kids future.)
I'm amused by the juxtaposition of the last two slashdot stories.
Google has too much freedom in its Android software development efforts resulting in confusion and developers being upset.
Apple has too much control in its App store policy resulting in confusion and developers being upset.
Ok, the emotions are a little different in each case but you gotta admit, these two stories highlight the main difference (to developers at least) between the Google and Apple way of doing things!
You have many good points that I won't try to refute because I agree with (many of) them. I am all too aware of the many unnecessary (and worse!) conflicts the U.S. has gotten into because of purely nationalistic (or worse!) goals. However, I'd like to believe that at least sometimes the U.S. has worked on more than pure short-term self-interest (even if that was just long-term self-interest). But like I said, I agree on many of your examples.
As an American though, I CAN (TRY) TO CHANGE the situation, through voting, supporting various political parties, and general activism. All of these things I've done (continue to do). However, not only are these tools unavailable to me as a means of influencing China, they are unavailable TO THE AVERAGE CHINESE. I'm afraid of a future where the world is dominated by an unelected party who have not hesitated to use lethal tools of repression despite widespread international condemnation. If they're willing to do this on their OWN PEOPLE how much do you think they'll care about others?
Okay, let's face it, China is THE rising power this century. Thanks to the mistakes of a previous administration, the U.S. will be surpassed sometime in the 2020s (not the 2050s as was previously predicted). If you're Republican you can pick Clinton, if you're Democrat you can pick Bush. (On the other hand, if you believe in reality, I think the choice is obvious).
But I digress. Despite all the bad things that the U.S. has said and done and been blamed for, I think it is obvious that it is still a much more benevolent world power than China has shown itself to be. Consider Tibet, North Korea, Ulighars, Global Warming, dissidents, Iran, Africa etc. etc. Let's face it, China only cares about itself and only about keeping the ruling party in power (and rich). They may not be actively supporting "evil" in the world but they sure don't go out of their way to fight against it.
Frankly, there's not too much that'll stop this from happening. But it's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness. So, please, ask yourself when you have a choice, do you want to support China? If there is another product that's just a little more expensive from another country, please consider buying it. If you can get a return on investment that's just a little less than investing in China consider changing your investments (I did a couple of years ago).
Announcing a new on-line game for all of you armchair warriors: YouKILL.com! With the U.S. Airforce now introducing new Predator drones with 10 cameras each and more and more battlefield "robots" (like BigDog) everyday, there is far too much sensory data for our overtaxed professional soldiers to process. So, now we allow YOU the average citizen to partake in this wonderful way to defend democracy and earn gaming points at the same time!
First stage SCOUT - after showing that you are a U.S. Citizen and 16 years of age (wink, wink), you (and 10 randomly selected other fellow citizen scouts) are assigned a real-time video feed STRAIGHT FROM THE SKIES OVER IRAN / I mean AFGHANISTAN. If a majority of you click on the button "Suspected Bad Guy" at the same time, the video feed is instantly passed on to the next level, TARGETING. When you've proven to our computers that you're a good scout by having a excellent record of detection and (as compared with your other teammates) a "low" number of false positives you'll be promoted! (Sorry, hot babes don't count!)
Second stage TARGETING - Can you take out an insurgent at 3km without harming the orphanage next door? Here again, you (and 10 newly selected random fellow citizen targeters) will wait for "the perfect moment" to pick off the bad guys. In this level, you'll need to consider range, airspeed, armanent, cover and, of course, COLLATERAL DAMAGE. When a majority of you and your teammates think the time has come to fire your feed will be instantly passed to the final stage: FIRING. If you, as measured by the our computers, are consistently picking the best time to shoot compared to your colleagues, we'll promote you to...
Final stege FIRING - Here's where the fun REALLY begins! Now, you'll be able to take out bad guys FOR REAL! Feel the excitement as you unleash high speed rockets tipped with explosives at the enemy! Not only will you get to keep your online footage of each kill but you'll receive a commemorative coffee mug! (Just don't get too trigger happy otherwise you might get a visit from some of our military lawyers.)
Not a U.S. Citizen? No problem, we have a bunch of other suppression activities... I mean games available. If you're British you can play YouCOP which takes advantage of England being the video surveillance capital of the world. Here you (and 10 other "Brits") watch for illegal activity and report it! For now, no weaponry involved. But don't worry about it!
Not a U.S., or British citizen? Care to remain anonymous? Through special arrangement with some other governments we also have a new gaming site: YouREPRESS! Here you can target Tibetans, punish the Palestinians or any other group that our clients want to suppress. All we need is your eyeballs and a good twitch reflex! Remember, points you earn in our games will be tradable for virtual items and maybe even induction into the armed forces of your choice!
NeoOCP - crowdsourcing for the benefits of Big Governments worldwide! (Not a big government but a big corporation instead? Don't worry, we'll be announcing new crowdsourced spy products for you too! Like our new YouDRM; we'll make it profitable for people to snitch!).
If you want to get a feeling of Chatroulette without "exposing" yourself (or getting exposed to some pretty shocking imagery) you might want to check out this blog:
He's been collecting dozens (hundreds) of screencaptures that people have been e-mailing him. While you'll still see some disturbing things at least you'll know this isn't happening to YOU, LIVE and hopefully the lack of immediacy will dull the shock a bit. If you can take that, then by all means take the plunge!
(I'm too chicken and have not). By the way, I got this link from TechCrunch, so just wanted to give them credit.
Being a SUPER apple fanboi, I have to admit this is the kind of app that I'm afraid won't run on an iPhone. Am I right? Do you need multitasking (to run a server in the background) or can you do the same thing with multi-threading.
Otherwise this is a definite plus for the android camp.
Even if global warming was completely made up, why isn't the U.S. embarking on a Manhattan style program to get ourselves off of foreign oil?
Conservation, renewables, "drill baby drill"... ANYTHING is better than pumping oil from governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela. While (some of) their leaders might in public say they are our friends, the majority of their citizens HATE OUR GUTS and want to kill us. Why are we giving them money?
Look, I have complained before about the Israeli lobby owning U.S. foreign policy. Our unqualified support of Israel, in itself, is not "bad"; they are a true democracy in a very bad neighborhood. They produce more scientific discoveries and have done more for the world than all of the arab nations have and probably ever will*. But then why do we shoot ourselves IN THE HEAD by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to these corrupt, ignorant and backwards societies (there I've said it). Either support Israel to the hilt and get off of our addiction to foreign oil or do what China does and work for our naked self-interest (oil) suck up to these bastards and sell the Israelis down the river. We can't have it both ways without spending hundreds of billions of additional dollars in military expenditures and getting involved in wars... oh wait.
Kinda makes you wonder if previous administrations (mainly Bush 41+43 but who knows, maybe Clinton too) have been bought out.
*If you doubt how important jews have been to world civilization, here's a joke(?) that claims the three most important figures IN HISTORY were jews. (and no, I'm not jewish).
- Einstein (science) - Marx (political thinking)
You can guess the last one. Let's just say his name begins with a "J".:)
Any particle physicists out there who can tell (us) if this thing can make "strangelets"? I mean, I kinda buy the explanations of how the LHC won't make mini-black holes or if it does they will instantly "evaporate" but: 4 trillion degrees? Approximating the conditions not seen since the first billionth trillionth of a second (or something like that) of the big bang? And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!
While we're at it, are "strangelets" (or strange matter) real, I mean are they a proven particle? (And if so, how did they prove their existence without supposedly creating any?) Anyway, if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.
Also the phrase "symmetry-altering bubbles" when used in conjunction with the phrase "evolution of the infant UNIVERSE" makes me wonder just a little if they really want to be playing around with this stuff. At least I'm pretty sure that if a false vacuum bubble is created, it'll expand at the speed of light and we definitely won't feel a thing!
- I actually love science and physics and have full confidence in these guys. It's fun to be paranoid every now and then though.
Okay, let's say we have two states (let's call them Blue and Red) each with 2500 nukes.
Let's say Red develops a defense system that's 90% effective.
Let's say war appears imminent. Now Blue has a choice, it can either make a sneak attack which will still get 10% or 250 of its warheads through (which is more than enough to destroy a country). Red will of course retaliate destroying Blue so they both lose OR...
It can wait for Red to attack first (and wait for Red's warheads to actually hit before retaliating). Now though, Blue's strategic forces have been pulverized from Red's first strike and very few will make it through Red's defenses. Red wins. (If there was no defense system, enough of Blue's forces would have gotten through which would have meant that again, they both would have "lost").
In both cases Blue loses, but in the first case it can at least also destroy Red. So, it is "better" for Blue to launch a sneak attack. Now obviously no one (country) wants to commit suicide but in times of great international strife, when war seems likely anyway, a desperate "leader" may decide it is better to go down fighting. So the presence of this "defense system" has increased the likelihood of a major nuclear exchange. At the very least Blue should adopt a policy of "Launch on Warning"; that way if Red launches a surprise strike by the time the warheads arrive, the silos it targeted will be empty. Unfortunately this policy carries substantial risks; can you say "false alarm"?
For these reasons (and others) the US and USSR through diplomatic agreements but driven by base self-interest (nobody wants to die), dramatically reduced their number of MIRVed warheads. (Some missiles like the US's MX and the USSR's "Satan" could carry up to 14). While very efficient, a MIRV with 14 warheads was a very tempting target in a first strike; one hit and you've kept 14 warheads from hitting your homeland. Likewise silos were hardened so that military commanders didn't think that they had to "use it or lose it" so much, instead they could afford to ride out an attack (and make sure that the radar blips weren't in fact a bunch of geese). (The US also had a lot of submarine based warheads, the USSR used mobile launchers). Finally, with the end of the cold war, missiles have been retargeted to the open ocean. While mostly symbolic if there was an accidental launching there would be more dead fish (but fewer dead people).
So missile defenses might not "effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict". In some circumstances they could increase it. MAD has worked for 50 years. Be careful when you try replacing it with something else.
I know you're just kidding (and a lot of people appreciate your sense of humor with a +5 Funny) but really if you could quantum teleport energy it could have some really unbelievable applications.
Imagine a space probe drilling through the ice on Europa, even if the efficiency of teleporting energy was a tiny fraction of a percent, not having to transport a (nuclear) generator several billion miles *might* make it worth it.
If the efficiency was respectable, then it *might* make interstellar travel practical. A photon drive uses a lot of energy but no fuel. Put a satellite in orbit near the sun and teleport the energy to a spacecraft with a photon drive and you've got infinite acceleration.
Of course there are a lot of other factors that would have to be true before this would work out. Hence the *might*. Still, just dreaming.
He must be negatively charged (thus keeping water a liquid on or in him) and then the moment he "releases" it, it freezes!
Could there be some sort of industrial application for this, like ice-making where you have a jet of "liquid" water (because it is kept in a negatively charged apparatus) but upon contact with something, loses its charge and freezes? How about rapid construction of ice sculptures? Just like spray on concrete.
I even seem to remember someone in WWII proposing making giant pontoons/floating islands out of ice and hay.
How about in Antarctica/on Mars using it for rapid construction of ice domes? Once it solidifies it won't melt.
Thanks for the response! Unfortunately I still don't understand, I'm not a chemist/theoretical chemist/physicist (obviously). I didn't think about the fact that graphite isn't good for armor (good point!). Why not? Is it that there are too many defects so it fragments on a nano scale? Or is because there is no "glue" between the layers and that makes them slide around too much (I remember enough chemistry to know that's how pencils work!).
I never knew that there could be a difference between unit thickness strength and total strength. (I thought it would just be unit thickness x number of units). Also I didn't know that the 2D mesh is STRONGER than diamond. Fascinating!
So can you solve these problems and make a super material for us?:)
Or at least I thought I did, (for some reason I thought 1 atmosphere = 32ft. water:)
What I meant to say is that think of the relative strength of a mesh A SINGLE ATOM THICK (sorry for the caps, I don't know how to do italics) being able to hold back the incredible number of molecular impacts one atmosphere of pressure implies. If you layered this mesh to be much much thicker so that it actually was macroscopic in thickness (like a tissue paper) it would be millions (billions? trillions?) of atoms thick. Think how much pressure it could contain!
If a mesh say a million atoms thick (or make it a hundred million for a hundred fold safety margin) could contain a gas at a million atmospheres, it would revolutionize space travel (and every other form of transportation not to mention SCUBA diving). Yet the walls of such a pressure vessel would be so thin that, edge on, they wouldn't even be visible to the human eye!
I mean isn't graphene basically unrolled carbon nano-tubes? And aren't carbon nano-tubes supposed to be very very (tensile) strong, strong enough to be considered to be usable as the raw material for a practical space elevator?
If (as another poster claims) 30+" sheets of the stuff can be made, could this stuff (even if slightly impure and not good enough for nano-electronics) be very useful for ultra-lightweight armor, fuel tanks (for a single stage to orbit vehicle), bikeframes... even a space elevator? Or is the fact that it is only a 2D mesh of carbon atoms (as opposed to a 3D "lattice" like diamond) make it substantially weaker?
I read somewhere that a layer of graphene a single atom thick is able to hold back 1 atm. of pressure. Isn't that roughly equivalent to a tissue paper holding back the ocean at some very deep depth (I know this is very imprecise!:)
How did you do the AR? I thought Apple didn't allow anyone to tap the video stream which is why most AR apps are just video overlays. I want to see more cool AR games!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Look, I didn't want to get into an argument about the science of Global Warming. Too much heat and not enough light has been wasted for me to go there. Besides, I am not a climatologist, are you?
Rather I wanted to point out something. The only way for the conclusions (and by and large all I've seen from these guys are estimates and probabilities, not certainties), to be way off would be if there was a huge CONSPIRACY within the scientific community on this subject. Sort of like how the creationists think all of the biologists must be going off somewhere to work on a master plan to deceive everyone that evolution is true. Having known some professional, tenured scientists myself I just don't buy it; the reason why scientists get into a field that pays little, poor recognition, insane amounts of work (teaching and publishing) is because many (most?) are driven by the highest of motives. That's why I mentioned investment bankers; when times are really rough like when the U.S. cancelled the SCC (super conducting collider) some physicists no longer had prospects in doing research. So they went over to "the Dark Side" (which is how they invariably put working in investment banking). Working at a tech startup, a very bright guy I knew wanted, once he made his millions, to become an astro-physicist. For fame or fortune? Of course not, he loved science.
So I find it impossible to believe that the vast majority of all these climatologists are willfully deceiving us (or themselves). Sure there is peer pressure, sure they make mistakes. But they ARE TRAINED SCIENTISTS and they know more than almost any of us the limits of their models and their evidence. (Just going through your oral defense of your thesis will teach you that). Also you seem to think that models are the ONLY thing these guys have going; after decades of research there is a gigantic body of knowledge that is growing. And you know what? By and large it supports the general consensus.
Finally there is the fact that if one, or a group of them, could really make a good case that Global Warming won't happen they would become (scientifically) IMMORTAL. Remember, it is not the followers who become written up in textbooks, it is the ones who make BOLD (meaning contrary to orthodoxy) predictions and WHO ARE PROVEN RIGHT. Ultimately remember popularity counts for NOTHING in Science. Science is not politics or law or history; your peers don't decide NATURE is the ultimate decider.
In this case it'll be EASY we won't have to wait long. If someone were to make a scientifically plausible claim that GW is not gonna happen well we will know in probably well less than a human lifetime. It doesn't even matter if they are still alive ~ Mendel published his results on genetics and it was ignored well after his death. However, when it was determined that he was RIGHT and that he was the FIRST to come up with his laws on heredity, well now he's in every Biology textbook in every country in the world (well excepting some places I guess in the U.S.). This is the kind of immortality every true scientist craves, maybe you don't understand it but I'm sure a lot of the climatologists do.
But I'm happy about it because I think it is important. Anyway since I spent a while putting my submission together, here it is for your (hopeful) enjoyment:
Will LIFE almost end AGAIN? Another Great Dying?
I've said it before (http://slashdot.org/submission/1066423/Another-Permian-extinction-on-the-way?art_pos=62, http://slashdot.org/submission/1056203/Global-Warming-Tipping-Point?art_pos=71) and I'll say it again: there may be a chance that we may be facing another Permian level extinction event. What is that you say? It was the greatest extinction event in earth's history (hence "The Great Dying") causing up to 96% of all marine organisms to go extinct and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates. Remember, these are entire SPECIES that went extinct, individual population losses were obviously higher. The cause? Well according to Wikipedia: "only one sufficiently powerful cause has been proposed for the global 10 reduction in the 13C/12C ratio: the release of methane from methane clathrates;[7]"
So, as you can see, I keep saying this because the stakes are so high.
Well now there are reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10010948) that the methane clathrates off of Eastern Siberia are releasing 8 million tons of methane a year. While currently "negligible" compared to global emissions of about 440 million tons: "The release of just a 'small fraction of the methane held in (the) East Siberian Arctic Shelf sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming,'" This WILL become more likely because: "If atmospheric temperatures rise, the hydrate stability zone will shift upward, leaving in its stead a layer of methane gas that has been freed from the hydrate cages. Pressure in that new layer of free gas would build, forcing the gas to shoot up." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm. Of course what's driving this is the quick rise in temperatures in the Arctic/Antarctic, temperatures there are rising twice as fast as the global average (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane). So even if we manage to keep the temperature rise BEFORE counting in the additional methane release to a very optimistic 2 celsius (3.6 degrees for Americans) it will be twice that for the arctic regions. Remember also that these articles are talking about just a small part of the arctic methane clathrate reserve (which is itself just a tiny part of the global reserve in all the deep sea sediments) and that it is coming out of out of the sea bed in other places too. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm).
If the temperature rises cause enough methane to come out to cause the temperature to rise even more we could be in for a very bad greenhouse effect. Methane is 20x more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are 500-2500 Gigatons of the stuff on the ocean floor compared to just 700 Gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if just 5% of the stuff comes out, we've doubled the heat retained in this manner by the atmosphere!
Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago but to those of you still reading please consider that this is an EXISTENTIAL threat, that is it threatens our (humankind's) very existance. Maybe if temperatures soar into the mid-one hundreds, people will still be able to walk outside/in the winter/in Antarctica and exist in air-conditioned caves elsewhere but I think you'll agree we will have made our own hell on earth. So even if the chance of a semi-runaway greenhouse effect is very small we should really REALLY be careful. (To see the effect of a full runaway greenhouse effect, just visit Venus, hot enough to melt lead!).
Sure prediction, especially about the future, is hard. But the vast majority of climate scientists think we are headed for a cliff in the fog, fast. They may dis
As other nations develop their drones (and robotic fish and crawlers/walkers) our drones should be able to defeat theirs most of the time as long as ours are "smarter" and their senses are more acute.
The only problem is when "most' of the time isn't good enough, either when the enemy can produces a huge number of inferior yet numerically overwhelming units (China?) OR if they carry WMD (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) where letting just one through is catastrophic.
That is why missile defense against a major nuclear power like Russia is useless; when the damage a single $10M nuclear ICBM can cause might be in the Trillions of dollars
(target: Manhattan) it makes it very worthwhile to produce lots and lots of missiles to
overwhelm any conceivable defense. The
return on investment(?) is very high!
Of course for a minor power (Iran, N. Korea are you listening?) that can just barely get their missiles to fly, drones might be a much better way of delivering the goods. (or diplomatic pouch/FedEx).
If the delay is a problem to this or any other tele-operated mission, put the scientists in orbit around the body to be explored (in this case LUNAR orbit).
I know that it may seem stupid to transport them 230,000 miles just to end up 100 miles away from their goal but consider the expense of getting them down (and back up) from the surface.
1) a landing/ascent vehicle will have to be designed, tested and built. Same thing with lunar spacesuits (primarily dustproof).
2) all this gear will have to be shipped to cis-lunar orbit. Remember life support supplies will also have to landed.
3) to duplicate the functionality of multiple robots in various areas around the moon you'll have to move the whole kit and kaboodle every time you want to explore using landed explorers. Expensive, time-consuming and dangerous.
- This will cost billions! (Remember also the time required to de-orbit, land, set up camp, put on suits etc. etc.)
On the other hand, you could just put them in orbit around the moon to operate the robots. The cost? "Only" about 5x the cost ($20M?) of getting a person into LEO. This is what Space Adventures was quoting for a trip around the moon using a modified soyuz spacecraft. (I don't know if they included insertion into lunar orbit though and it doesn't include the tele-operation equipment).
The only problem is that the scientists will be way up out of the magnetosphere so solar flares could be a deadly event. They could bring a "storm shelter" (a little space in between some water tanks) that they could hide out in during the few hours the flare would be peaking. Or, they could modify their orbit around the Moon (or Mars, asteroid or other celestial body) to put it between them and the sun. Since they get (I think) a few days warning, they should be able to do this without burning too much fuel.
Again, maybe the delay won't be a problem for lunar exploration and maybe it will be. Obviously for other targets it will be. A "classic" story on this problem is Arthur C. Clarke's "Meeting with Medusa". I hope someday Mankind will be facing such problems!
Think AVATAR!
... and if you sign this document I'll be happy to take your case in the unfortunate event of your demise due to a poorly implemented software upgrade!
Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually I guess it should be ARM with the "A" being analog (remember that?).
Wow I was just about to say the same thing then I saw your post!
Sorry this post is so late in the thread but if you don't know who that quote is from, please return your geek card immediately. Also it would be helpful if you go to the nearest Solyent green reprocessing facility at your earliest convenience.
On the other hand, let's see if the iPad meets that (admittedly) high standard. To the AVERAGE user (no not you, my fellow slashdotters) it may actually make the bar. How many (normal) people do you know REALLY understand the technology that goes into so many of the little devices that are becoming commonplace. Can they begin to describe how a CD player works? (Can YOU tell me how the laser manages to unerringly hit micron sized pits passing by at many meters a second on a wobbly disk of cheap plastic?). Or how a cell phone can achieve what used to take a suitcase sized radio? (Not that they can even explain how a radio works, can you?). These miracles, even if comprehensible, have become unbelievably cheap (less than a fancy dinner for two). Even if the chinese slave laborers are paid next to nothing (okay, they are), it's still UN-believeable what you get. Isn't that a good definition of magic?
So I'm a little less cynical about Tim Cook's "magic" content, he may have a point.
Nuff said
Actually this has already happened (to an extent). During the recent "great recession" exports from China have plummeted. Not just to the U.S. but to all of their major "developed" country trading partners. So what happened? Did the Chinese economy crash and burn?
Just the opposite. Due to a massive stimulus program (that they, unlike us, paid for out of their huge foreign reserves) they basically just blew by the recession. China's economy has become developed to the point that THEY ARE THEIR OWN LARGEST CUSTOMER. So basically, they are fueling their own growth by rising standards of living. Their growth is so high (8+%) that their central bank is raising interest rates to keep inflation from soaring.
Sure, they have long term problems in food and energy. This is due to prosperity not poverty. They are importing (lots) of food to feed their increasingly sophisticated palates (they are still 95% self-sufficient in grains) and likewise with energy they are importing (oil) to fuel all their new cars (they just passed the U.S. as the largest automobile market in the world). Like us they are dependent on the middle east for energy, unlike us they are committing massive resources to break that dependence. Starting from virtually nothing I believe they are now the worlds largest manufacturer of solar panels and will soon pass us in wind. (They also build a huge number of nuclear plants EACH YEAR).
No doubt China's got problems and challenges ahead. But the writing's on the wall, the "sleeping giant" has awoken and since we blew our lead through sheer incompetence, we have no-one else to blame. (It's not just me who thinks this, despite a substantial drop in foreign language programs the number of American children now learning Mandarin has soared in the last few years - no matter what their parents might say in public, they can see what's coming and are voting with their kids future.)
I'm amused by the juxtaposition of the last two slashdot stories.
Google has too much freedom in its Android software development efforts resulting in confusion and developers being upset.
Apple has too much control in its App store policy resulting in confusion and developers being upset.
Ok, the emotions are a little different in each case but you gotta admit, these two stories highlight the main difference (to developers at least) between the Google and Apple way of doing things!
You have many good points that I won't try to refute because I agree with (many of) them. I am all too aware of the many unnecessary (and worse!) conflicts the U.S. has gotten into because of purely nationalistic (or worse!) goals. However, I'd like to believe that at least sometimes the U.S. has worked on more than pure short-term self-interest (even if that was just long-term self-interest). But like I said, I agree on many of your examples.
As an American though, I CAN (TRY) TO CHANGE the situation, through voting, supporting various political parties, and general activism. All of these things I've done (continue to do). However, not only are these tools unavailable to me as a means of influencing China, they are unavailable TO THE AVERAGE CHINESE. I'm afraid of a future where the world is dominated by an unelected party who have not hesitated to use lethal tools of repression despite widespread international condemnation. If they're willing to do this on their OWN PEOPLE how much do you think they'll care about others?
Okay, let's face it, China is THE rising power this century. Thanks to the mistakes of a previous administration, the U.S. will be surpassed sometime in the 2020s (not the 2050s as was previously predicted). If you're Republican you can pick Clinton, if you're Democrat you can pick Bush. (On the other hand, if you believe in reality, I think the choice is obvious).
But I digress. Despite all the bad things that the U.S. has said and done and been blamed for, I think it is obvious that it is still a much more benevolent world power than China has shown itself to be. Consider Tibet, North Korea, Ulighars, Global Warming, dissidents, Iran, Africa etc. etc. Let's face it, China only cares about itself and only about keeping the ruling party in power (and rich). They may not be actively supporting "evil" in the world but they sure don't go out of their way to fight against it.
Frankly, there's not too much that'll stop this from happening. But it's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness. So, please, ask yourself when you have a choice, do you want to support China? If there is another product that's just a little more expensive from another country, please consider buying it. If you can get a return on investment that's just a little less than investing in China consider changing your investments (I did a couple of years ago).
You'll sleep better because of it.
Announcing a new on-line game for all of you armchair warriors: YouKILL.com! With the U.S. Airforce now introducing new Predator drones with 10 cameras each and more and more battlefield "robots" (like BigDog) everyday, there is far too much sensory data for our overtaxed professional soldiers to process. So, now we allow YOU the average citizen to partake in this wonderful way to defend democracy and earn gaming points at the same time!
First stage SCOUT - after showing that you are a U.S. Citizen and 16 years of age (wink, wink), you (and 10 randomly selected other fellow citizen scouts) are assigned a real-time video feed STRAIGHT FROM THE SKIES OVER IRAN / I mean AFGHANISTAN. If a majority of you click on the button "Suspected Bad Guy" at the same time, the video feed is instantly passed on to the next level, TARGETING. When you've proven to our computers that you're a good scout by having a excellent record of detection and (as compared with your other teammates) a "low" number of false positives you'll be promoted! (Sorry, hot babes don't count!)
Second stage TARGETING - Can you take out an insurgent at 3km without harming the orphanage next door? Here again, you (and 10 newly selected random fellow citizen targeters) will wait for "the perfect moment" to pick off the bad guys. In this level, you'll need to consider range, airspeed, armanent, cover and, of course, COLLATERAL DAMAGE. When a majority of you and your teammates think the time has come to fire your feed will be instantly passed to the final stage: FIRING. If you, as measured by the our computers, are consistently picking the best time to shoot compared to your colleagues, we'll promote you to...
Final stege FIRING - Here's where the fun REALLY begins! Now, you'll be able to take out bad guys FOR REAL! Feel the excitement as you unleash high speed rockets tipped with explosives at the enemy! Not only will you get to keep your online footage of each kill but you'll receive a commemorative coffee mug! (Just don't get too trigger happy otherwise you might get a visit from some of our military lawyers.)
Not a U.S. Citizen? No problem, we have a bunch of other suppression activities... I mean games available. If you're British you can play YouCOP which takes advantage of England being the video surveillance capital of the world. Here you (and 10 other "Brits") watch for illegal activity and report it! For now, no weaponry involved. But don't worry about it!
Not a U.S., or British citizen? Care to remain anonymous? Through special arrangement with some other governments we also have a new gaming site: YouREPRESS! Here you can target Tibetans, punish the Palestinians or any other group that our clients want to suppress. All we need is your eyeballs and a good twitch reflex! Remember, points you earn in our games will be tradable for virtual items and maybe even induction into the armed forces of your choice!
NeoOCP - crowdsourcing for the benefits of Big Governments worldwide! (Not a big government but a big corporation instead? Don't worry, we'll be announcing new crowdsourced spy products for you too! Like our new YouDRM; we'll make it profitable for people to snitch!).
If you want to get a feeling of Chatroulette without "exposing" yourself (or getting exposed to some pretty shocking imagery) you might want to check out this blog:
http://chatroulette.tumblr.com/
He's been collecting dozens (hundreds) of screencaptures that people have been e-mailing him. While you'll still see some disturbing things at least you'll know this isn't happening to YOU, LIVE and hopefully the lack of immediacy will dull the shock a bit. If you can take that, then by all means take the plunge!
(I'm too chicken and have not). By the way, I got this link from TechCrunch, so just wanted to give them credit.
Being a SUPER apple fanboi, I have to admit this is the kind of app that I'm afraid won't run on an iPhone. Am I right? Do you need multitasking (to run a server in the background) or can you do the same thing with multi-threading.
Otherwise this is a definite plus for the android camp.
For those of you wondering when Google will become sentient:
I think this proves it already is and is just solidifying its control over the systems it needs to dominate the world!
Next will be when Google becomes a defense contractor specializing in nuclear weapons security.
Poor Larry Page and Sergey Brin, they are probably already "meat puppets" for Google!
Even if global warming was completely made up, why isn't the U.S. embarking on a Manhattan style program to get ourselves off of foreign oil?
Conservation, renewables, "drill baby drill"... ANYTHING is better than pumping oil from governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela. While (some of) their leaders might in public say they are our friends, the majority of their citizens HATE OUR GUTS and want to kill us. Why are we giving them money?
Look, I have complained before about the Israeli lobby owning U.S. foreign policy. Our unqualified support of Israel, in itself, is not "bad"; they are a true democracy in a very bad neighborhood. They produce more scientific discoveries and have done more for the world than all of the arab nations have and probably ever will*. But then why do we shoot ourselves IN THE HEAD by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to these corrupt, ignorant and backwards societies (there I've said it). Either support Israel to the hilt and get off of our addiction to foreign oil or do what China does and work for our naked self-interest (oil) suck up to these bastards and sell the Israelis down the river. We can't have it both ways without spending hundreds of billions of additional dollars in military expenditures and getting involved in wars... oh wait.
Kinda makes you wonder if previous administrations (mainly Bush 41+43 but who knows, maybe Clinton too) have been bought out.
*If you doubt how important jews have been to world civilization, here's a joke(?) that claims the three most important figures IN HISTORY were jews. (and no, I'm not jewish).
- Einstein (science)
- Marx (political thinking)
You can guess the last one. Let's just say his name begins with a "J". :)
Any particle physicists out there who can tell (us) if this thing can make "strangelets"? I mean, I kinda buy the explanations of how the LHC won't make mini-black holes or if it does they will instantly "evaporate" but: 4 trillion degrees? Approximating the conditions not seen since the first billionth trillionth of a second (or something like that) of the big bang? And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!
While we're at it, are "strangelets" (or strange matter) real, I mean are they a proven particle? (And if so, how did they prove their existence without supposedly creating any?) Anyway, if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.
Also the phrase "symmetry-altering bubbles" when used in conjunction with the phrase "evolution of the infant UNIVERSE" makes me wonder just a little if they really want to be playing around with this stuff. At least I'm pretty sure that if a false vacuum bubble is created, it'll expand at the speed of light and we definitely won't feel a thing!
- I actually love science and physics and have full confidence in these guys. It's fun to be paranoid every now and then though.
Okay, let's say we have two states (let's call them Blue and Red) each with 2500 nukes.
Let's say Red develops a defense system that's 90% effective.
Let's say war appears imminent. Now Blue has a choice, it can either make a sneak attack which will still get 10% or 250 of its warheads through (which is more than enough to destroy a country). Red will of course retaliate destroying Blue so they both lose OR...
It can wait for Red to attack first (and wait for Red's warheads to actually hit before retaliating). Now though, Blue's strategic forces have been pulverized from Red's first strike and very few will make it through Red's defenses. Red wins. (If there was no defense system, enough of Blue's forces would have gotten through which would have meant that again, they both would have "lost").
In both cases Blue loses, but in the first case it can at least also destroy Red. So, it is "better" for Blue to launch a sneak attack. Now obviously no one (country) wants to commit suicide but in times of great international strife, when war seems likely anyway, a desperate "leader" may decide it is better to go down fighting. So the presence of this "defense system" has increased the likelihood of a major nuclear exchange. At the very least Blue should adopt a policy of "Launch on Warning"; that way if Red launches a surprise strike by the time the warheads arrive, the silos it targeted will be empty. Unfortunately this policy carries substantial risks; can you say "false alarm"?
For these reasons (and others) the US and USSR through diplomatic agreements but driven by base self-interest (nobody wants to die), dramatically reduced their number of MIRVed warheads. (Some missiles like the US's MX and the USSR's "Satan" could carry up to 14). While very efficient, a MIRV with 14 warheads was a very tempting target in a first strike; one hit and you've kept 14 warheads from hitting your homeland. Likewise silos were hardened so that military commanders didn't think that they had to "use it or lose it" so much, instead they could afford to ride out an attack (and make sure that the radar blips weren't in fact a bunch of geese). (The US also had a lot of submarine based warheads, the USSR used mobile launchers). Finally, with the end of the cold war, missiles have been retargeted to the open ocean. While mostly symbolic if there was an accidental launching there would be more dead fish (but fewer dead people).
So missile defenses might not "effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict". In some circumstances they could increase it. MAD has worked for 50 years. Be careful when you try replacing it with something else.
I know you're just kidding (and a lot of people appreciate your sense of humor with a +5 Funny) but really if you could quantum teleport energy it could have some really unbelievable applications.
Imagine a space probe drilling through the ice on Europa, even if the efficiency of teleporting energy was a tiny fraction of a percent, not having to transport a (nuclear) generator several billion miles *might* make it worth it.
If the efficiency was respectable, then it *might* make interstellar travel practical. A photon drive uses a lot of energy but no fuel. Put a satellite in orbit near the sun and teleport the energy to a spacecraft with a photon drive and you've got infinite acceleration.
Of course there are a lot of other factors that would have to be true before this would work out. Hence the *might*. Still, just dreaming.
He must be negatively charged (thus keeping water a liquid on or in him) and then the moment he "releases" it, it freezes!
Could there be some sort of industrial application for this, like ice-making where you have a jet of "liquid" water (because it is kept in a negatively charged apparatus) but upon contact with something, loses its charge and freezes? How about rapid construction of ice sculptures? Just like spray on concrete.
I even seem to remember someone in WWII proposing making giant pontoons/floating islands out of ice and hay.
How about in Antarctica/on Mars using it for rapid construction of ice domes? Once it solidifies it won't melt.
Thanks for the response! Unfortunately I still don't understand, I'm not a chemist/theoretical chemist/physicist (obviously). I didn't think about the fact that graphite isn't good for armor (good point!). Why not? Is it that there are too many defects so it fragments on a nano scale? Or is because there is no "glue" between the layers and that makes them slide around too much (I remember enough chemistry to know that's how pencils work!).
I never knew that there could be a difference between unit thickness strength and total strength. (I thought it would just be unit thickness x number of units). Also I didn't know that the 2D mesh is STRONGER than diamond. Fascinating!
So can you solve these problems and make a super material for us? :)
Or at least I thought I did, (for some reason I thought 1 atmosphere = 32ft. water :)
What I meant to say is that think of the relative strength of a mesh A SINGLE ATOM THICK (sorry for the caps, I don't know how to do italics) being able to hold back the incredible number of molecular impacts one atmosphere of pressure implies. If you layered this mesh to be much much thicker so that it actually was macroscopic in thickness (like a tissue paper) it would be millions (billions? trillions?) of atoms thick. Think how much pressure it could contain!
If a mesh say a million atoms thick (or make it a hundred million for a hundred fold safety margin) could contain a gas at a million atmospheres, it would revolutionize space travel (and every other form of transportation not to mention SCUBA diving). Yet the walls of such a pressure vessel would be so thin that, edge on, they wouldn't even be visible to the human eye!
Now that's what I call a super material.
I mean isn't graphene basically unrolled carbon nano-tubes? And aren't carbon nano-tubes supposed to be very very (tensile) strong, strong enough to be considered to be usable as the raw material for a practical space elevator?
If (as another poster claims) 30+" sheets of the stuff can be made, could this stuff (even if slightly impure and not good enough for nano-electronics) be very useful for ultra-lightweight armor, fuel tanks (for a single stage to orbit vehicle), bikeframes... even a space elevator? Or is the fact that it is only a 2D mesh of carbon atoms (as opposed to a 3D "lattice" like diamond) make it substantially weaker?
I read somewhere that a layer of graphene a single atom thick is able to hold back 1 atm. of pressure. Isn't that roughly equivalent to a tissue paper holding back the ocean at some very deep depth (I know this is very imprecise! :)
How did you do the AR? I thought Apple didn't allow anyone to tap the video stream which is why most AR apps are just video overlays. I want to see more cool AR games! :)