Sorry, I've just been reading a lot about feedback mechanisms that *may* be kicking in (permafrost melting releasing CO2 and methane, climate changes that are reducing the ability of the carbon sinks to absorb more).
Chances are you're right, a few years shouldn't make much more difference. Still we've already wasted eight years and even a 1% risk that this might turn into a runaway greenhouse effect is a big risk considering the stakes involved.
Alfred Nobel notwithstanding I'm not sure I'd really classify economics as a science, certainly not a HARD science. (I'm not sure if it was one of the original ones he created a prize for or if it was later added on, like the Peace prize).
Still they do call it the "dismal science" so I guess we should accord it some respect. And to be honest, I do, I don't think economists are responsible for our financial calamity (ask any economist what will happen when you don't properly price the risk of an asset which is what the investment bankers did). I believe some economists were warning about this for some time now such as Paul Krugman of the NYTimes; he got last years Nobel Prize by the way.
No, the problem was, LACK OF REGULATION (where was the SEC? probably being wined and dined by Madoff). Also, the credit rating bureaus were not pricing risk correctly (of course not, they were being paid by the people who they were rating: talk about conflict of interest!).
Actually, I was a little worried a while ago when I found out they were using a Taurus launch vehicle (no offense Orbital). I've only heard of Taurus launch vehicles being used with military projects (and I thought they specialized in air-drop launches from a B-52).
Anyway, I wished they had used something like a Delta (no I do not work for McDonnel Douglas/Boeing or who ever else makes them now!).
I'll be really really happy if they can launch another $230M dollar satellite up in 6 months. I'll be even happier if they don't use a Taurus launch vehicle.
Sorry about the melodrama. Been reading a lot about climate feedback loops (melting permafrost releasing CO2 and methane, saturation of Antarctic ocean carbon sinks due to increased storms, etc.).
Ok, ok, as an AC pointed out earlier there is a Japanese probe that *might* be capable of doing an okay job at this. But maybe not.
We've lost eight years thanks to our previous administration and now I'm worrying that major feedback mechanisms might be kicking in that'll make things much worse (permafrost melting leading to CO2 and methane released, saturation of oceanic carbon sinks, etc.). If the Japanese probe doesn't provide us with definitive data one way or another, we may have lost a couple years. Do we have that kind of time?
Well, I'm a little concerned about possible feedback mechanisms kicking in that might make our climate problem much worse. Such as the permafrost in Siberia and Canada thawing out which may release a TRILLION tons of CO2 (roughly three times as much as all human activity through history combined). Also the discovery that, with the permafrost thawing, large stores of methane are being released (evidently you can go to lakes in the far north and "light the bubbles" up with a match, very impressive plumes of flame).
There are lots of other possible interactions that might happen (some good; recent TOTAL rainforest CO2 capture may be increasing) but WE JUST DON'T KNOW. It may be a few years until we send up another one, that may be a few years we don't have.
So say there's only a 1% chance of a runaway greenhouse effect. Are you willing to take those odds for the entire planet?
Good point, I had heard about the Japanese satellite but hadn't really looked into it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as capable of tracking the carbon dioxide levels.
"OCO's spectrometer will provide greater sensitivity on carbon dioxide measurements but is unable to detect methane. GOSAT's orbit is designed to bring the satellite over the same location more often, allowing the craft's lower resolution instrument to create a new global map every three days."
The real key is whether the Japanese satellite was going to take A SINGLE MEASUREMENT for each data point (that's what appears to be in the articles I've read) or get a reading of the entire atmospheric column (providing a vertical graph of the carbon dioxide level was for each location). NASA had a specific set of three instruments designed to do just that . If the Japanese satellite does that as well then you're probably right I'm overreacting since a three fold drop in resolution is probably still good enough. If not, then there is a vast difference in not just the amount but the TYPE of data returned.
Yes CO2 is barely anything compared to water vapor (I'll take your word on that, I don't know). And compared to Nitrogen or even Oxygen it's less than nothing.
However perhaps it is a particularly effective greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, like maybe the how difference between Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 is the difference between a nice metal suitable for armor piercing shells and a nuclear bomb. So when a climatologist tells me it's a critical piece of understanding the climate, I tend to believe them. I'm not a climatologist, are you?
The reason why I believe this is important is because the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists in allied fields tell me so. Why do I believe them? Because they went TO SCHOOL and STUDIED HARD and EARNED LOTS OF DEGREES that I was either unwilling or unable to do. Still I know some of them and, unlike many right wingers, I do not think they are part of some vast conspiracy that only seems to accept smart people as members (or maybe I do!). Even if I didn't know any of them personally, I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.
You know, I don't know if you're a right winger but I've noticed more and more of them suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE as they find their most highly cherished held beliefs overthrown by the facts. Evolution? Well all Biologists must be wrong! The age of the earth being older than 6000 years? Well all Geologists, Astronomers and Physicists must be wrong! Global Warming? Climatologists, Oceanographers... Hell all of science must be wrong! They're all in cohoots to raise my taxes!
This probe would have provided millions of carbon dioxide measurements a day* for the entire atmospheric column (rather than the hundreds of measurements, usually only at ground level that we currently get from our fixed sensors). Considering the importance these measurements would be in helping us predict climate change, I think we (the human race) has just suffered a serious setback.
[There was a scene in the movie "Silent Running" where the command is given to jettison and detonate the last remaining biospheres. The commander says "may god have mercy on us". I'm beginning to feel that way now.]
*it was going to take readings at 56,000 locations a day but at each location would record carbon dioxide concentrations for the entire air column.
If this material concentrates all of the sunlight onto the PV chip in the center does that mean that NO OTHER light will pass through it? From the description of something that will take (sun)light from any angle and direct it towards the center does that mean someone behind it will only see black?
If not, it might be a good surface to use on the millions and millions of square feet of windows that covers office buildings. You could conceivably generate ALL of a buildings energy needs that way. (The power generated would also be in good correlation with needs, hot day requiring air conditioning would often come with bright sunlight). Admittedly, the fresnel (like) lens might distort the view so much that you can't see anything recognizable outside but having a translucent like screen to the outside could be a lot less claustrophobic than a blank wall.
THREE kinds of (possible) life on TITAN!
on
Fly Me To Which Moon?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
While the Titan mission is admittedly more ambitious (and potentially more costly) the reason why we should go to Titan is because there might be THREE radically different kinds of life there. This is from Biologist Peter Ward's book in his book "LIFE AS WE DO NOT KNOW IT".
One might be related to, or if we're not careful with contamination, might be the same as our DNA based "CHON" (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen) life. They would presumably live on the surface feeding on the hydrocarbons drifting down from the sky; similar to our methanogens or other chemo-trophic bacteria on earth.
Another kind of life might be something a "little" different (but still really unlike anything seen on earth, life that uses AMMONIUM as its working fluid as opposed to our life which uses water. (It would presumably live in the ammonium ocean speculated to beneath the ice) that forms Titan's surface. It's only a "little" different because it would still be basically be CHON life but who knows what its metabolism would run on?
Finally he even mentions the possibility of a SILICON based life (as opposed to our carbon based life). No, unlike the star trek Horta from "Devil in the Dark', it needn't live deep underground. Instead it would life in some of the ethane-methane lakes at the surface (which would be capable of making the silicon soluble and would substitue in for carbon I guess). So all of life's components; fats, sugars, proteins, RNA and DNA would use silicon as a major structural component. Now that's different!
For these admittedly extremely speculative reasons he suggests Titan should be on our priority list of places to visit. He recommends sending a biochemist/biochemical lab to Titan. Anyway if they found even ONE of the three kinds of life there, it would (even if they were just micro-organisms) be an incredible discovery. Of course because of Titan's distance it'll be a long while before we can put a human there, maybe we'll have to wait for A.I.
Unfortunately as much as I (and many other people including James Cameron) would love to see "black smokers" (geothermal/chemical powered undersea geysers) at Europa, Dr, Ward explains that there is just not enough energy available to Europan life (from the dim sunlight filtering through the ice or the flexing of rocky core by Jupiter's gravitational tides) to drive an ecosystem. I think he claims there would be enough to make, perhaps, 120 tons of biological matter dispersed in a volume twice that of Earth's oceans! A low flying orbiter scanning for molecular signatures in the ice or trying to capture ice crystals kicked up off the surface would likely find nothing. Even if it did find some complex organic molecules (proteins, long carbohydrates or DNA) that would be relatively indirect evidence; there would always be concern about contamination. This is in comparison to a direct observation of life on Titan, we could watch it grow!
That's why we should go to Titan, there may be a higher chance of life be present there NOW than even at Mars (recent methane plumes discoveries notwithstanding). And how cool would it be to send an orbiter AND a balloon AND a lander (or even a boat!).
Agreed but would you really prefer that he (and Buffet) sit on their Billions and do nothing? Perhaps this was a mistake (and I'm glad he realized it) but not everything paved with good intentions is a road to hell. What about the vaccination programs in Africa?
Anyway, as I mentioned before, the fact that he recognized his mistake and presumably will stop it is one important thing that separates him from GW who never admitted his mistake(s!) and kept pouring blood and treasure into Iraq (until we're almost out of treasure if not blood!).
okay okay I'm just saying that at least he (seems to) be trying to make some sort of contribution. Perhaps he failed here but his vaccination programs in Africa may have brought some good. Still I'm open minded enough to consider the possibility that all of this "generosity" is the direct result of his economic crimes (I am a micro$oft basher after all!). But that question is beyond my pay scale.
I'm still glad he admitted this mistake because that implies he won't continue making it, which someone with his resources could easily do!
I wasn't going to bother responding but thank you AC. Why did he think I mentioned religion? Is it because only religious people are willing to ignore the overwhelming preponderance of evidence for both of these issues? Faith, for many of them, always trumps facts.
There are some other sites that not everyone will be pleased will be in the public domain.
How about the locations of sunken nuclear subs like the Thresher and the Russian sub the Glomar Challenger went after? There are some nuclear warheads still down there!
Aren't there also a couple of nukes still "lost at sea" but with the approximate locations known?
Also, how about the plutonium in the Apollo 13 Lunar Module that was impacted in "the deep Pacific"?
My point is with rent-a-submersible services available (I guess from primarily, you guessed it, Russian vendors) it might be possible to pick up some dangerous things. In addition there are a few ecological sites (some "black smokers") that Oceanographers have been trying to keep secret to preserve them. Other than that, it seems like a great idea!
You know, even though I am a Microsoft basher I must say that at least Gates is big enough to realize that he was wrong/made a mistake. I'm glad he didn't let ideology blind him to reality unlike the previous administration. Or maybe that was just stupidity.
He is one of the multi-billionaires who is spending a large part of his fortune actually trying to make a (BIG) difference (Carlos Slim are you listening?). (I realize there are some who take a much more cynical view towards his contributions, sorry I don't know enough to judge).
Just because there are two (more?) possible outcomes to a given situation/argument doesn't mean there is a 50% chance each one will come to pass.
Let me guess, you'd say "well evolution could be true or not true so there is a 50% chance that it's not true". Or maybe "global warming will either occur or not occur so there is a 50% chance it will not".
I can guess where you stand on both of those issues.
So, let's say Jobs needs (I guess his doctors would decide if he needed it) a liver. Where does he get it? I mean, in the U.S., the scarce organs available for transplant are decided (I think) by some medical board that determines the medical usefulness(?) of the organ to the patient. That is, will it help the patient live a substantially longer, healthier life.
I don't think that they take into consideration the person's wealth or any other measure of that person's *value* to society. So, even if billions of dollars of market capitalization are at stake and millions of customers depend on his brilliance, he may be turned down for say, a 16 year old girl who has her whole life in front of her. I could be wrong though, there may be some provision for "importance" to society. Anybody know the answer? (Of course the medical board's answer may be different from what you think it should be!)
Now, living as I do in a third world country, I can see how Jobs could easily fly here and "procure" one if he needed it. (I'm not saying that he'd take one from a living person of course, just that he would get bumped up to the front of the line). Wouldn't look too good for Apple's image to so openly go around the American system but he would save his life (and presumably Apple). I'm afraid to say that as an Apple fanboy I'd rather him do that than die.
Yeah, I should have said "Why it'll be great *IF* they come out with it."
I did mention later in my post that "(hopefully)" Apple will take these ideas further. You are of course right in saying I am an Apple zealot to the core,;) it's just that people on slashdot are so technically oriented that they don't seem to realize that probably the MOST important thing about a computer, or phone, or ANY piece of technology is its user interface.
I don't think Apple has a monopoly on good UI design (I've heard good things about the Xbox and Sony used to be good at it). It's just that they've been consistently getting things mostly right. While there's a lot of talk about Gigahertz this and Terabyte the most important metric is probably "how long does it take to get something done?". So if you save five seconds because your browser loads faster but waste 5 hours trying to get rid of viruses, a PC might not be the better choice.
Of course any techno nerd (myself included) doesn't want to hear this when they're at Fry's (a computer store in the U.S.) looking at row after row of shiny gadgets but I think intuitively people are beginning to realize this. That's why Apple's market share has gradually been getting larger and larger even in large corporations. The bean counters are realizing that spending time futzing with your computer is not productive.
So when I hear (admittedly a RUMOR) that Apple is coming out with a tablet, I am looking forward to it! I've played around with PC tablets which have some kludged version of windows married to some sort of touch sensitive pen interface. Does it work? Yes. Do I want to use it? No. On the other hand, the iPhone (and iPod touch) is a CLEAN design that was built from the ground up to use the touch interface/accelerometer/proximity sensor/GPS. It is a joy to use! (By the same token however, I look skeptically upon attempts to directly convert a MacBook into some sort of tablet. Maybe it's not too bad but I'm afraid it's just a kludge).
I guess that's why I'm an Apple zealot. Guilty as charged.;)
The reason why it'll be really cool/great is because of the new input technologies which it'll have.
Remember, what makes Apple products unique are not their increasingly commodity hardware but the USER INTERFACE. I believe the user interface is THE major reason for the iPhone/iPod Touch's success (look at the Xmas sales figures). It is because of Apple's ability to take advantage of the touch screen and accelerometer. Not the hardware but things like the "pinch zoom" and "swipe" and landscape/portrait mode detection.
To really see how people have taken advantage of these features, play some of the many many games available for this PLATFORM.
Now Apple has (hopefully) the opportunity to take these ideas even further. A 7-9" iPod Touch would make a passable netbook; that is a decent device for doing most CASUAL computing tasks. (many complaints about the tiny "keyboard" on the iPhone would go away). Where it would excel in would be in the new applications (10,000+ strong in the AppStore, close to 500 MILLION downloads) that take REAL advantage of the new input technologies. A lot of these applications, particularly the creative ones (sound and paint programs for example) would benefit substantially from more screen real-estate. And think of the games!
So that could be Apple's answer to the netbooks. Using its (I know, I know) proprietary technologies it could bring these new technologies together in a way that is cohesive, fun and easy to use. That's the advantage of totally controlling the hardware and software. Unfortunately without this control, open source projects and (to a lesser extent) Microsoft have to aim at the lowest common denominator and can only copy what Apple pioneers.
The real key to all of these and all non-trivial efforts at Nano technology is for these devices to be self assembling. By non-trivial I mean other than "simple" things like nanotubes or quantum dots. These simple compounds can now be produced in industrial quantities through basically chemical/physical means.
While it is very very impressive that they can do this, in order for this to become practical, they will have to make millions, no billions, no trillions, no quadrillions... of these things at once or they have to be able to duplicate/reproduce themselves. The (self) "assembler" is, of course, the holy grail of nano-tech.
Hope I see it before I die and that it doesn't cause my (and all of our) deaths!:P
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I've just been reading a lot about feedback mechanisms that *may* be kicking in (permafrost melting releasing CO2 and methane, climate changes that are reducing the ability of the carbon sinks to absorb more).
Chances are you're right, a few years shouldn't make much more difference. Still we've already wasted eight years and even a 1% risk that this might turn into a runaway greenhouse effect is a big risk considering the stakes involved.
Alfred Nobel notwithstanding I'm not sure I'd really classify economics as a science, certainly not a HARD science. (I'm not sure if it was one of the original ones he created a prize for or if it was later added on, like the Peace prize).
Still they do call it the "dismal science" so I guess we should accord it some respect. And to be honest, I do, I don't think economists are responsible for our financial calamity (ask any economist what will happen when you don't properly price the risk of an asset which is what the investment bankers did). I believe some economists were warning about this for some time now such as Paul Krugman of the NYTimes; he got last years Nobel Prize by the way.
No, the problem was, LACK OF REGULATION (where was the SEC? probably being wined and dined by Madoff). Also, the credit rating bureaus were not pricing risk correctly (of course not, they were being paid by the people who they were rating: talk about conflict of interest!).
Actually, I was a little worried a while ago when I found out they were using a Taurus launch vehicle (no offense Orbital). I've only heard of Taurus launch vehicles being used with military projects (and I thought they specialized in air-drop launches from a B-52).
Anyway, I wished they had used something like a Delta (no I do not work for McDonnel Douglas/Boeing or who ever else makes them now!).
Actually I don't think the Chinese would have nearly as much to benefit as from the Canadians (who are always looking for ways to defrost!)
I'll be really really happy if they can launch another $230M dollar satellite up in 6 months. I'll be even happier if they don't use a Taurus launch vehicle.
Sorry about the melodrama. Been reading a lot about climate feedback loops (melting permafrost releasing CO2 and methane, saturation of Antarctic ocean carbon sinks due to increased storms, etc.).
Ok, ok, as an AC pointed out earlier there is a Japanese probe that *might* be capable of doing an okay job at this. But maybe not.
We've lost eight years thanks to our previous administration and now I'm worrying that major feedback mechanisms might be kicking in that'll make things much worse (permafrost melting leading to CO2 and methane released, saturation of oceanic carbon sinks, etc.). If the Japanese probe doesn't provide us with definitive data one way or another, we may have lost a couple years. Do we have that kind of time?
Well, I'm a little concerned about possible feedback mechanisms kicking in that might make our climate problem much worse. Such as the permafrost in Siberia and Canada thawing out which may release a TRILLION tons of CO2 (roughly three times as much as all human activity through history combined). Also the discovery that, with the permafrost thawing, large stores of methane are being released (evidently you can go to lakes in the far north and "light the bubbles" up with a match, very impressive plumes of flame).
There are lots of other possible interactions that might happen (some good; recent TOTAL rainforest CO2 capture may be increasing) but WE JUST DON'T KNOW. It may be a few years until we send up another one, that may be a few years we don't have.
So say there's only a 1% chance of a runaway greenhouse effect. Are you willing to take those odds for the entire planet?
Good point, I had heard about the Japanese satellite but hadn't really looked into it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as capable of tracking the carbon dioxide levels.
"OCO's spectrometer will provide greater sensitivity on carbon dioxide measurements but is unable to detect methane. GOSAT's orbit is designed to bring the satellite over the same location more often, allowing the craft's lower resolution instrument to create a new global map every three days."
The real key is whether the Japanese satellite was going to take A SINGLE MEASUREMENT for each data point (that's what appears to be in the articles I've read) or get a reading of the entire atmospheric column (providing a vertical graph of the carbon dioxide level was for each location). NASA had a specific set of three instruments designed to do just that . If the Japanese satellite does that as well then you're probably right I'm overreacting since a three fold drop in resolution is probably still good enough. If not, then there is a vast difference in not just the amount but the TYPE of data returned.
Yes CO2 is barely anything compared to water vapor (I'll take your word on that, I don't know). And compared to Nitrogen or even Oxygen it's less than nothing.
However perhaps it is a particularly effective greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, like maybe the how difference between Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 is the difference between a nice metal suitable for armor piercing shells and a nuclear bomb. So when a climatologist tells me it's a critical piece of understanding the climate, I tend to believe them. I'm not a climatologist, are you?
The reason why I believe this is important is because the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists in allied fields tell me so. Why do I believe them? Because they went TO SCHOOL and STUDIED HARD and EARNED LOTS OF DEGREES that I was either unwilling or unable to do. Still I know some of them and, unlike many right wingers, I do not think they are part of some vast conspiracy that only seems to accept smart people as members (or maybe I do!). Even if I didn't know any of them personally, I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.
You know, I don't know if you're a right winger but I've noticed more and more of them suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE as they find their most highly cherished held beliefs overthrown by the facts. Evolution? Well all Biologists must be wrong! The age of the earth being older than 6000 years? Well all Geologists, Astronomers and Physicists must be wrong! Global Warming? Climatologists, Oceanographers... Hell all of science must be wrong! They're all in cohoots to raise my taxes!
This probe would have provided millions of carbon dioxide measurements a day* for the entire atmospheric column (rather than the hundreds of measurements, usually only at ground level that we currently get from our fixed sensors). Considering the importance these measurements would be in helping us predict climate change, I think we (the human race) has just suffered a serious setback.
[There was a scene in the movie "Silent Running" where the command is given to jettison and detonate the last remaining biospheres. The commander says "may god have mercy on us". I'm beginning to feel that way now.]
*it was going to take readings at 56,000 locations a day but at each location would record carbon dioxide concentrations for the entire air column.
If this material concentrates all of the sunlight onto the PV chip in the center does that mean that NO OTHER light will pass through it? From the description of something that will take (sun)light from any angle and direct it towards the center does that mean someone behind it will only see black?
If not, it might be a good surface to use on the millions and millions of square feet of windows that covers office buildings. You could conceivably generate ALL of a buildings energy needs that way. (The power generated would also be in good correlation with needs, hot day requiring air conditioning would often come with bright sunlight). Admittedly, the fresnel (like) lens might distort the view so much that you can't see anything recognizable outside but having a translucent like screen to the outside could be a lot less claustrophobic than a blank wall.
While the Titan mission is admittedly more ambitious (and potentially more costly) the reason why we should go to Titan is because there might be THREE radically different kinds of life there. This is from Biologist Peter Ward's book in his book "LIFE AS WE DO NOT KNOW IT".
One might be related to, or if we're not careful with contamination, might be the same as our DNA based "CHON" (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen) life. They would presumably live on the surface feeding on the hydrocarbons drifting down from the sky; similar to our methanogens or other chemo-trophic bacteria on earth.
Another kind of life might be something a "little" different (but still really unlike anything seen on earth, life that uses AMMONIUM as its working fluid as opposed to our life which uses water. (It would presumably live in the ammonium ocean speculated to beneath the ice) that forms Titan's surface. It's only a "little" different because it would still be basically be CHON life but who knows what its metabolism would run on?
Finally he even mentions the possibility of a SILICON based life (as opposed to our carbon based life). No, unlike the star trek Horta from "Devil in the Dark', it needn't live deep underground. Instead it would life in some of the ethane-methane lakes at the surface (which would be capable of making the silicon soluble and would substitue in for carbon I guess). So all of life's components; fats, sugars, proteins, RNA and DNA would use silicon as a major structural component. Now that's different!
For these admittedly extremely speculative reasons he suggests Titan should be on our priority list of places to visit. He recommends sending a biochemist/biochemical lab to Titan. Anyway if they found even ONE of the three kinds of life there, it would (even if they were just micro-organisms) be an incredible discovery. Of course because of Titan's distance it'll be a long while before we can put a human there, maybe we'll have to wait for A.I.
Unfortunately as much as I (and many other people including James Cameron) would love to see "black smokers" (geothermal/chemical powered undersea geysers) at Europa, Dr, Ward explains that there is just not enough energy available to Europan life (from the dim sunlight filtering through the ice or the flexing of rocky core by Jupiter's gravitational tides) to drive an ecosystem. I think he claims there would be enough to make, perhaps, 120 tons of biological matter dispersed in a volume twice that of Earth's oceans! A low flying orbiter scanning for molecular signatures in the ice or trying to capture ice crystals kicked up off the surface would likely find nothing. Even if it did find some complex organic molecules (proteins, long carbohydrates or DNA) that would be relatively indirect evidence; there would always be concern about contamination. This is in comparison to a direct observation of life on Titan, we could watch it grow!
That's why we should go to Titan, there may be a higher chance of life be present there NOW than even at Mars (recent methane plumes discoveries notwithstanding). And how cool would it be to send an orbiter AND a balloon AND a lander (or even a boat!).
I live in Vietnam and regularly purchase apps for my iPhone which, uh, has gained the ability to work here ;).
I saw the warning too but short of setting up some sort of proxy I have no other options but to try and use it here. Fortunately it works (for now).
Geez, my post deserves better! ;) Please give it the respect it deserves! (Karma whoring).
Agreed but would you really prefer that he (and Buffet) sit on their Billions and do nothing? Perhaps this was a mistake (and I'm glad he realized it) but not everything paved with good intentions is a road to hell. What about the vaccination programs in Africa?
Anyway, as I mentioned before, the fact that he recognized his mistake and presumably will stop it is one important thing that separates him from GW who never admitted his mistake(s!) and kept pouring blood and treasure into Iraq (until we're almost out of treasure if not blood!).
okay okay I'm just saying that at least he (seems to) be trying to make some sort of contribution. Perhaps he failed here but his vaccination programs in Africa may have brought some good. Still I'm open minded enough to consider the possibility that all of this "generosity" is the direct result of his economic crimes (I am a micro$oft basher after all!). But that question is beyond my pay scale.
I'm still glad he admitted this mistake because that implies he won't continue making it, which someone with his resources could easily do!
I wasn't going to bother responding but thank you AC. Why did he think I mentioned religion? Is it because only religious people are willing to ignore the overwhelming preponderance of evidence for both of these issues? Faith, for many of them, always trumps facts.
There are some other sites that not everyone will be pleased will be in the public domain.
How about the locations of sunken nuclear subs like the Thresher and the Russian sub the Glomar Challenger went after? There are some nuclear warheads still down there!
Aren't there also a couple of nukes still "lost at sea" but with the approximate locations known?
Also, how about the plutonium in the Apollo 13 Lunar Module that was impacted in "the deep Pacific"?
My point is with rent-a-submersible services available (I guess from primarily, you guessed it, Russian vendors) it might be possible to pick up some dangerous things. In addition there are a few ecological sites (some "black smokers") that Oceanographers have been trying to keep secret to preserve them. Other than that, it seems like a great idea!
You know, even though I am a Microsoft basher I must say that at least Gates is big enough to realize that he was wrong/made a mistake. I'm glad he didn't let ideology blind him to reality unlike the previous administration. Or maybe that was just stupidity.
He is one of the multi-billionaires who is spending a large part of his fortune actually trying to make a (BIG) difference (Carlos Slim are you listening?). (I realize there are some who take a much more cynical view towards his contributions, sorry I don't know enough to judge).
Boy talk about bad logic. Are you a reporter?
Just because there are two (more?) possible outcomes to a given situation/argument doesn't mean there is a 50% chance each one will come to pass.
Let me guess, you'd say "well evolution could be true or not true so there is a 50% chance that it's not true". Or maybe "global warming will either occur or not occur so there is a 50% chance it will not".
I can guess where you stand on both of those issues.
So, let's say Jobs needs (I guess his doctors would decide if he needed it) a liver. Where does he get it? I mean, in the U.S., the scarce organs available for transplant are decided (I think) by some medical board that determines the medical usefulness(?) of the organ to the patient. That is, will it help the patient live a substantially longer, healthier life.
I don't think that they take into consideration the person's wealth or any other measure of that person's *value* to society. So, even if billions of dollars of market capitalization are at stake and millions of customers depend on his brilliance, he may be turned down for say, a 16 year old girl who has her whole life in front of her. I could be wrong though, there may be some provision for "importance" to society. Anybody know the answer? (Of course the medical board's answer may be different from what you think it should be!)
Now, living as I do in a third world country, I can see how Jobs could easily fly here and "procure" one if he needed it. (I'm not saying that he'd take one from a living person of course, just that he would get bumped up to the front of the line). Wouldn't look too good for Apple's image to so openly go around the American system but he would save his life (and presumably Apple). I'm afraid to say that as an Apple fanboy I'd rather him do that than die.
Yeah, I should have said "Why it'll be great *IF* they come out with it."
I did mention later in my post that "(hopefully)" Apple will take these ideas further. You are of course right in saying I am an Apple zealot to the core, ;) it's just that people on slashdot are so technically oriented that they don't seem to realize that probably the MOST important thing about a computer, or phone, or ANY piece of technology is its user interface.
I don't think Apple has a monopoly on good UI design (I've heard good things about the Xbox and Sony used to be good at it). It's just that they've been consistently getting things mostly right. While there's a lot of talk about Gigahertz this and Terabyte the most important metric is probably "how long does it take to get something done?". So if you save five seconds because your browser loads faster but waste 5 hours trying to get rid of viruses, a PC might not be the better choice.
Of course any techno nerd (myself included) doesn't want to hear this when they're at Fry's (a computer store in the U.S.) looking at row after row of shiny gadgets but I think intuitively people are beginning to realize this. That's why Apple's market share has gradually been getting larger and larger even in large corporations. The bean counters are realizing that spending time futzing with your computer is not productive.
So when I hear (admittedly a RUMOR) that Apple is coming out with a tablet, I am looking forward to it! I've played around with PC tablets which have some kludged version of windows married to some sort of touch sensitive pen interface. Does it work? Yes. Do I want to use it? No. On the other hand, the iPhone (and iPod touch) is a CLEAN design that was built from the ground up to use the touch interface/accelerometer/proximity sensor/GPS. It is a joy to use! (By the same token however, I look skeptically upon attempts to directly convert a MacBook into some sort of tablet. Maybe it's not too bad but I'm afraid it's just a kludge).
I guess that's why I'm an Apple zealot. Guilty as charged. ;)
SORRY I became A BIT of a LOUDMOUTH during this years PRESIDENTIAL election. :)
The reason why it'll be really cool/great is because of the new input technologies which it'll have.
Remember, what makes Apple products unique are not their increasingly commodity hardware but the USER INTERFACE. I believe the user interface is THE major reason for the iPhone/iPod Touch's success (look at the Xmas sales figures). It is because of Apple's ability to take advantage of the touch screen and accelerometer. Not the hardware but things like the "pinch zoom" and "swipe" and landscape/portrait mode detection.
To really see how people have taken advantage of these features, play some of the many many games available for this PLATFORM.
Now Apple has (hopefully) the opportunity to take these ideas even further. A 7-9" iPod Touch would make a passable netbook; that is a decent device for doing most CASUAL computing tasks. (many complaints about the tiny "keyboard" on the iPhone would go away). Where it would excel in would be in the new applications (10,000+ strong in the AppStore, close to 500 MILLION downloads) that take REAL advantage of the new input technologies. A lot of these applications, particularly the creative ones (sound and paint programs for example) would benefit substantially from more screen real-estate. And think of the games!
So that could be Apple's answer to the netbooks. Using its (I know, I know) proprietary technologies it could bring these new technologies together in a way that is cohesive, fun and easy to use. That's the advantage of totally controlling the hardware and software. Unfortunately without this control, open source projects and (to a lesser extent) Microsoft have to aim at the lowest common denominator and can only copy what Apple pioneers.
The real key to all of these and all non-trivial efforts at Nano technology is for these devices to be self assembling. By non-trivial I mean other than "simple" things like nanotubes or quantum dots. These simple compounds can now be produced in industrial quantities through basically chemical/physical means.
While it is very very impressive that they can do this, in order for this to become practical, they will have to make millions, no billions, no trillions, no quadrillions... of these things at once or they have to be able to duplicate/reproduce themselves. The (self) "assembler" is, of course, the holy grail of nano-tech.
Hope I see it before I die and that it doesn't cause my (and all of our) deaths! :P