I'm curious. Does this attack really work? Does the defense really work?
If the researchers have an effective attack AND an effective defense why not release both so that we can try it? Aren't there some Samsung users out there (okay all of them) that you'd like to annoy?
(Sorry, but with the way things are going, being sociopathic is now in vogue)
Considering that most (all except Google's?) devices are not allowed to receive updates except once they've been vetted by their cell phone carrier, how can this have been patched? I thought a lot of the carriers stopped offering updates on devices more than one or two generations old
Anyway, why don't we test it? Post THE ATTACK and see if any devices are still affected:)
Look, as I said, there's a vast (yes even the most cursory web searches will turn up many web sites like breitbart) "industry" seeking to say bad things about Hillary. Since I am not familiar with this particular claim (and again, I'm sure I'll never be familiar with all of them like that pizza child sex ring Fake news that led to an armed assault by another deluded Republican) I spent a few minutes looking online for evidence of the above claim that "she had the server wiped..."
Unless I'm very wrong about the abilities of Hillary (who, admittedly in the eyes of Republicans, seems to be capable of doing almost anything evil), she's not an expert in server technology and probably has never heard of what was apparently used ("Bleach Bit"?). Therefore, I assume she must have gotten someone else to do it. Okay, is there an order from her to do so? If so, is there any record of this order?
You know, if I were a tech guy asked to do something that looked very illegal ("hey I want you to completely wipe the server NOW and don't retain any backups and don't tell anyone") and could have me end up in prison, I'd really want to 1) refuse the order or 2) get it in WRITING (preferably signed). You know, even if it weren't so (obviously) illegal (I mean there was a federal subpoena for the records), I'd probably want the order in writing anyway because wiping out the boss' server because you misinterpreted what she said (I said "clean the files" not "wipe them!") would possibly be a career ending move (certainly a job ending one).
Don't you think it's more likely that the IT guy just panicked when he realized the server was hacked (and he was responsible for it's security?). Or that maybe he knew that the justice department was likely to be sniffing around and he wanted to do his boss a (misguided) favor? I don't even know if the wipe was successful, of course I'm assuming the Bleach bit worked but what about all the backups or e-mails sent through other servers or they could possibly get them from the recipients (I'm not an expert at these things so there may be other ways of recovering them).
From my (admittedly brief) search (which however did include the top republican sites) THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT HILLARY ORDERED IT DONE
I'm not saying she didn't, it's just we don't know. Considering that she's a (good) lawyer (her Harvard Law degree must be worth something) and that she is very well aware of the penalties of obstruction of justice and that she is NOT an expert on computer security and has no idea if the would, in fact be able to get rid of all the incriminating evidence and that she wouldn't even be sure that the IT guy would cooperate but instead would turn her over to the feds, I think it's likely it's that she didn't. If every republican slimeball I mean operative couldn't get this evidence (and they would really really want to, obstruction of justice can get you sent to PRISON FOR A LONG TIME) then there probably wasn't any don't you think?
Of course you didn't think, and that's the problem. Fake news wins again! Actually this is more like just plain old insinuating, you should read some high-school books on the dangers of relying on hearsay. After forty years I can still remember the name of the book "The Ox-Bow incident", look it up. Or, more tragically read up on the case of Emmett Till, a 14 year old black boy taken out of a jail by a mob with no trial and lynched. Oh and the main accuser has admitted she made it up (but of course there wasn't even a trial to give the poor kid a chance. The woman who made it up refuses to be identified knowing that in no way did he deserve what happened. I hope it follows her to her grave and beyond).
Enough! No one can spend this much time refuting every falsehood and unfounded allegation out there, we have to rely on the people to be well educated. Oh wait, that's precisely the demographic that DIDN'T vote for Hillary
Before I get a raft of Hillary bashers commenting on my post let me try to condense the discussion to save your time (and mine).
"What! Of course Hillary is corrupt, she made hundreds of thousands per speech to Goldman Sachs!"
First of all, from what I understand, the money from Goldman went to her foundation not her personally. Not only has her foundation been repeatedly vetted (as opposed to Trump's foundations which are still under investigation over activities directly pertaining to their purpose) they got decent ratings from third parties (not perfect, they sometimes tried too many things) at least they weren't a glorified tax shelter. That is, at least she (and Bill) tried to make the world a better place instead of just using them to avoid taxes (speaking of taxes look up Trump using over $800M in other people's losses in his business to effectively not pay taxes).
Of course the ironic thing is that now a former (head?) of Goldman Sachs is on Trump's cabinet. (Or, since I don't know if he's been confirmed, at the very least a bunch of very rich guys. So much for draining the swamp).
"They (the foundation) took money from foreign donors" Sure, and Trump (almost) had a chief of staff who had $12M earmarked for him on accounts from Russian allies in Ukraine. The first is not illegal (at least not unless she held public office which she didn't at the time). Again, like it or not (I don't), this is very common on Washington:( On the other hand, Trump was right to remove him (unfortunately he did so only when he was exposed).
"But she had her own e-mail server!" Yes, just as her republican predecessor (Colin Powell) had and in fact recommended that she do herself.
"She got hacked" You know, when a state power (Russia in this case) wants to hack you, you can't expect to prevent it. By the way, what did the Russians find? Anything really damaging (like how they need to hide Obama's lack of being an American citizen from the people? Or their plans to overthrow the government?). Aren't you impressed by, aside from all the stupid half-assed things her staff were doing and saying (like in any large organization) there was no apparent corruption (like where to put all the bribe money?).
Look, I am not going to be able to refute the entire industry set up to bash Hillary. Maybe you believe that where there's smoke there's fire. Well sometimes that's not true; you can go back in history to as far as the Salem Witch trials, to the McCarthy "Red Scare" to see how many people were convinced through their equivalent of "Fake News". In this case, you've got literally tens of millions of dollars in direct investigations trying to find the "fire" that was causing the "smoke" made by the hundreds of millions being spent by her opponents. So, in the words of another old campaign slogan, "Where's the beef?"
The great thing about Trump is that all of his "fire" is out in the open, he's saying these things HIMSELF or not saying like as in not releasing his taxes (although that's just one of many in a long string of significant broken promises).
I guess that's why our justice system is "innocent until proven guilty". Too bad that politics (and people) don't hold themselves to this standard.
Hi there, I live in Vietnam. I just saw a govt. owned newspaper (tuoi tre news) say that the Prime Minister thinks Vietnam could be the home of a tech giant like Google, Facebook, etc.
I don't think so. They have a comments section (most likely to find troublemakers like me) but I've been so frustrated that I decided to send the following reply. (If I start posting from another country, you'll know what happened).
************ In response to the PM saying that Vietnam could be the home to a tech giant ************** While I wish what PM Nguyen Xuan Phuc said would happen, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Certainly there is potential in Vietnam. In my almost 10 years here, I've been impressed by the ambition, hard work ethic and focus on education that is a hallmark of the Vietnamese people. IF they think their efforts will be rewarded, the Vietnamese work just as hard the Chinese, Japanese or even Koreans (my ethnicity:); this is no doubt due to their shared confucian cultural heritage. This is in contrast to their S.E. Asian neighbors who have a more relaxed buddhist/muslim/hindu approach to life. Whether or not this "better" depends on what you think the purpose of life is, however for getting ahead in a material world it is obvious which one is more focused on the here and now instead of the hereafter (or previous life).
Unfortunately due to the, there is no way to beat around the bush, CORRUPTION in Vietnam, this potential is wasted or going abroad. I'm not singling Vietnam out, fully 85% of humanity lives under a corrupt government (http://bit.ly/2kd9LNc). However no country has created a global (tech) giant without getting corruption at least somewhat under control. I'm afraid Vietnam is far from close to doing so.
I speak from experience, I had two successful (if small) high tech companies in the U.S. before coming to Ho Chi Minh City almost 10 years ago to retire. Now, with time on my hands I've been toying around with they idea of starting a bio-tech company utilizing the latest techniques in DNA nanopore sequencing along with bioinformatics (hopefully enhanced by machine learning). However, I've found the bureaucratic hurdles to be almost unsurmountable. Just getting a simple chemical in Vietnam, a process that is literally overnight in the U.S. takes up to two months. Getting customs approval for more advanced material has been a nightmare; many times shipments are delayed on items that must be kept below freezing. I'm sure some of them have been damaged as a result.
No, much more likely than Vietnam growing its own tech giant, would it contribute to one in another country. This would follow in the fine tradition of Syria (Steve Jobs), South Africa (Elon Musk), Russia (Google founders), Andy Grove (Intel, Czech) who all went to America. Not that America is immune; now that the Trump has come, the republican party has already tried to get rid of anti-corruption efforts and his wealthy white cabinet (and himself!) are filled with major conflict of interest problems. It's sad, the people who believe Hillary was corrupt, instead of just ambitious (and what presidential candidate isn't?), were the reason why Fake news (and Russian involvement) succeeded. However, the U.S. still has many fantastic strengths, Vietnam not so much. So, while I can easily see the next tech giant being founded/run by a Vietnamese (in fact I know of someone who is well on his way to doing so in the next big thing in biotech:) I'm afraid it won't be in Vietnam.
Vietnam has been good to me, I've actually been able to gain a level of proficiency in genetics at a university here (thank you International University!) and maybe I'll even be able to repay the country a bit by doing something here (if the government doesn't kick me out). However, to really be successful, I'll need to go somewhere that doesn't require a "expedited fee" to get things done or regulations whose only purpose is to elicit said fees.
Yes, these were some of the thoughts that immediately crossed my mind and when I heard that it might be metastable (when you relieve the pressure it might stay in that form).
I was wondering what the energy released would be if one could trigger the change back from the meta-stable state back to the normal (lowest energy?) ground state. It might not be a lot (like if you convert diamonds into graphite) but maybe not. I remember hearing of a science fiction story in which a "molecular distortion" battery could store and release fully 10 percent of its rest mass as energy. Of course this would only be for energy storage, not production so there would be no net gain (and maybe big losses). Still it would be a great boon for portable sources of energy for transportation (or explosives!).
Likewise, having just a metallic (powdered?) form of hydrogen could do wonders for space travel. Not having to cryogenically store liquid hydrogen at a few degrees above absolute zero would be great. Even if the solid had to kept below 83K that's still a big improvement. And if the density was (much) higher then there would be big structural savings on having smaller propellant tanks.
I wonder if metastable metallic hydrogen would have any impact on nuclear fusion. IF (and it's a big IF) they can produce small "pellets" of this for use in the inertial confinement (laser) fusion reactor, I'm hoping they can try it with other isotopes (I assume they used straight up single proton hydrogen). Deuterium or tritium might have more "explosive" results!
I'm not sure that cost is the only consideration in whether or not the U.S. should help defend S. Korea. This is even though I have heard that S. Korea pays the U.S. a couple(?) of billion a year in reimbursement; whether or not this is a fair amount I have no idea.
Much more important is the implied alliance between the two nations. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea, inevitably American soldiers will be killed which will bring a much stronger response from the U.S. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea with nukes then they will invite an immediate (and apocalyptic!) nuclear response.
Perhaps more importantly having a U.S. presence in S. Korea TELLS THE CHINESE that the U.S. is a power in their backyard and the U.S. could make life difficult for them in any really serious conflict. (Imagine if China had military bases in Canada). Having U.S. stealth bombers minutes away from Chinese territory must be something that keeps the Chinese strategic planners up at night. The expansion of the THAAD missile defense system to S. Korea allegedly "solely" for the defense of S. Korea and Japan must also make them worry. Could it, indeed, be used to intercept Chinese ICBMs headed for the U.S.? That would mean China would be emasculated in a strategic nuclear conflict (they used to have, like, only 200 warheads that could reach the U.S,; a first strike coupled with a good missile defense system could've rendered them completely useless. That's surely one reason why China is now building subs carrying nuclear weapons, unlike the ICBMS launched from China they can be launched from anywhere and would not have to fly directly over the S. Korean defenses on their way to their targets in the U.S.).
Consider the alternative: the U.S. says "you're on your own" to S. Korea (and Japan). Within a year, the extremely technologically capable S. Koreans and Japanese would likely have their own nuclear weapons (and delivery systems as evidenced by the latest Japanese solid rocket booster). Sounds good no? Except now the Chinese would have to worry about nuclear weapons being delivered onto their soil in minutes by intermediate range ICBMs. They'd have to invest in missile defense and/or more nuclear weapons to ride out an attack. Perhaps India would be spooked and would also follow their "rival" (the Indians like thinking the Chinese are their chief competitor, the Chinese couldn't care less). That could provoke Pakistan to add to their arsenal (at 100+ warheads the fastest growing in the world). Not good since the Pakistanis are probably the country most likely to give (or have stolen from) nuclear weapons for use by radical Islam. Of course with Trump saying the Saudis (who, remember comprised 19 of the 20 hijackers on 9/11) should be allowed to have nukes for use against Iran, maybe there is another pathway for nuclear terrorism.
Anyway, while some of these "dominos" falling is farfetched you can see how inter-country tensions are a lot more complex than a simple "let them pay for their own defense". That's why nuclear non-proliferation treaties (were) a critical part of world diplomacy (until the Bush administration let the Indians be recognized as a DECLARED nuclear power, the first since WWII, with no substantial penalties).
Imagine a net (block?) of this material. IF (and it's a very big if) it could be made large enough IN SPACE, then it could "capture" (by absorbing the impact) space junk. It might need to be hooked up to a low thrust but high efficiency ion drive to compensate for the slow loss of momentum from the impact; it needs to stay in orbit (and to change orbits if it's going after multiple large pieces).
Of course, as mentioned, the real key is can they manufacture the graphene pieces AND put them together in the 3D structure IN SPACE. Being able to create this material out of a (solid?) block of carbon (graphite) is probably essential. Otherwise the density of the structure might be too low to be launched from earth; the low density which might make it ideal for many applications on earth would be a hindrance if it required a huge fairing for the launch vehicle (imagine a blimp on top of a rocket). However, this low density is critical for its success as a space "sponge", it would allow a small mass to subtend a very large volume; essential if we're ever going to clean up the many many small fragments of space junk (and not just the big ones).
Of course, IF they can make this in space there are many space construction applications which could be practical. Would it dramatically reduce the cost of an "O'Neil space cylinder" for example? The greatly reduced mass requirements coupled with the (hopefully) greatly reduced launch costs from reusable launchers (go Space-X!) might allow really large structures to be built. (I guess you'd still need "soil" and volatiles from asteroid or lunar mining).
(A similar solution would be to use in space produced aerogels. The problems of making aerogels in space if they require supercritical carbon dioxide as a working fluid may be too great though.)
Just an early morning rant here in Vietnam, probably had too much coffee.
Unfortunately I'm not a mining expert but isn't much (most?) of the iron available to humanity basically meteorites? I mean most of the iron that the earth formed with sank to the core since it is (much?) denser than the surrounding molten rock?
And wasn't this thing detected because it was a gravity or mass anomaly? A chunk of iron that big could be quite valuable! Here comes the despoiling of the Antarctic, a job made possible by global warming and the "who cares" approach to the environment of our soon to be in office leader.
Sorry, I guess what I wrote could be interpreted in the wrong way:
"Why would Japan want such a thing after having avowed a no nuclear policy after being subjected to the only nuclear attack in history? Because Trump has..."
I guess I could have been more clear: "Why would Japan want to use it in such a way after having avowed..."
As someone who been following national space programs for decades (and regularly attended JPL conferences), it was not my intent to say that Trump was responsible for Japan's solid rocket program (as if). Nitpicking aside, my apologies for the confusion, however the rest of my points (repeated I see by numerous other commentators) stand.
Did I say Japan built this thing in response to Trump? Am I claiming that Japan's nuclear reactors (including their plutonium breeder reactors) were built because they needed to make nuclear fuel for their weapons?
Of course not, however if the need arises they will surely turn towards the skills they have peaceably acquired for the production of weapons of mass destruction.
Conservatives are fond of saying that guns don't kill people, people do. Like so many many things in our technological world, (GPS, high purity aluminum alloys for centrifuges, etc.) advanced technological items can be used for many purposes (I do genetic engineering). Now we've got someone who wants to radically alter the balance of power in the world, I would say in a very short-sighted way. So people are looking anew, for their own protection, at what they have and what they can be used for.
Actually it's not perfect for satellites (and much worse for manned missions, remember Challenger). The lack of throttle control (and an off switch) probably makes it more difficult to precisely place it into orbit.
As a military weapon of course it's just about perfect. Relatively robust to physical shock, storable (on its side!) for long periods of time without expensive cooling systems, instant launch capability (no loading of cryogenic propellants, no pressurization of fuel tanks) its only disadvantage is the specific impulse may be lower than liquid fuels (less payload). Presumably the warhead has its own guidance system so a little imprecision in the boost phase is acceptable.
Why would Japan want such a thing after having avowed a no nuclear policy after being subjected to the only nuclear attack in history? Because Trump has declared S. Korea and Japan to no longer be protected by the American nuclear umbrella. So with a rogue N. Korea using its pitifully scarce resources to build as many nuclear capable delivery systems as it can, what choice does Japan and S. Korea have?
So now the Chinese have another reason to regret their support of the Kim dynasty. It will be much more difficult for them to cow the Koreans or Japanese once they develop an effective nuclear arsenal (and considering the technological and industrial capabilities of these nations it may happen in months not years). N.E. Asia will become a more dangerous place because there will be a temptation to use nukes in the various unresolved territorial issues (Senkaku islands for example). They may consider a "small" tactical nuke necessary should there be a naval showdown that would cause them to lose face. Of course there is no such thing as a small nuke and if one is used, even in the ocean, there will be a huge temptation to take out the remaining ones in a first strike. This would lead to fears of "use it or lose it" etc. (With distances so short between the three countries, a launch on warning policy would mean making a nation-ending decision in a few minutes, not the leisurely half hour the Americans usually have). In general unlike the U.S. and say Canada; it's not a good thing when historically antagonistic neighbors acquire nukes (India and Pakistan).
That's one reason why nuclear nonproliferation is a good thing. While most of the actors in N.E. Asia are extremely level headed (excepting Kim and maybe the current S. Korean president who's got a Shaman giving her advice), that can't be said for the rest of the world. That's why Trump's other statements of letting the Saudi's develop (or buy from Pakistan) nukes to counter Iran is a bad idea; as the 19 out of 20 hijackers on 9/11 showed us, even our allies can't always be trusted. Unfortunately it looks like the nuclear club may soon be getting bigger
While these (South Asians?) are willing to work for a fraction of the wages because it's much better than at home, relatively soon there will be a much more compelling reason for them to try to get visas (any visa or none at all).
Survival.
Within the lifetime of many of those reading these words, the climate in large regions of the world will make them UNINHABITABLE. Due to a combination of high heat in the summer months and high humidity (yes there is high humidity in parts of the middle east, like near the Red Sea), the typical healthy Adult (not sick or old or young) will die after just 6 hours outdoors (I believe in the shade!). That's even with plenty of water because, with such high humidity you can't sweat the heat out.
That's Hundreds of Millions of Refugees, a number that will make the current six million fleeing Syria seem like a drop in the bucket. (And look at what this small number has done to Europe). Of course it won't be restricted just to the Middle East, another report from a military focused organization claims there will be 30 Million climate refugees from just ONE country (Bangladesh).
It's obvious that these people won't just sit there and DIE, they'll want to LIVE. They'll be willing to do anything and everything to live in a country where they won't literally die from heat (or being submerged). Thanks to the internet, they'll know where to go and how to get there. Are you prepared to share your country? To save people from dying? Or will you shoot them on sight (because that'll be what its going to take). I'm afraid we're headed towards a world where men with machine guns protecting the wealthy against the desperate masses will be a common sight. Go NRA! (Sarcasm)
If you still don't believe in Climate Change, why don't you to put your money where your mouth is and invest in property that's at risk. Say the low lying areas of Florida or Bangladesh. Or you can put it into the glittering cities of Dubai and other places like Yemen which are slated to become hot properties indeed. According to these projections, you'll only need to wait 20-30 years; some mortgages are shorter than that. And if you're right, you'll make a killing! (But if you're wrong, you'll be the one who's dead).
You've gotta be kidding right? "Anti-science" liberal culture? Being a scientist (just performed the first nanopore DNA sequencing in Vietnam!) who graduated from the top liberal arts school in the world (it always ranks number one or two, sorry Stanford!), let me tell you that our culture is far far from anti-science. For example our university has the most Nobel prize winners in the world. (Speaking of which, so how many Nobel laureates supported Trump again?).
(I also studied Architecture while a graduate and took a fair amount of general design courses so I certainly think I qualify as being in touch with my touchy-feely liberal side). Anyway, even the quickest most cursory (that means brief by the way) search would show that there is an extremely high correlation between scientists and in general well educated people being liberal. Unfortunately, you don't sound like either
And here's the actual, AUDIO of the interview so you can hear him in literally his own words saying this: https://soundcloud.com/breitba...
Next time you're "genuinely curious" about something, do bother to read the article carefully. See the underlined words? They indicate "links" which is a way of connecting web pages together. If you clicked on the VERY FIRST link marked "an interview", you'd have come to the actual interview.
Of course, before I call someone a racist against Asians (I had heard he was a racist against other minorities from other comments) I wanted proof. So, before I settled that opinion to my own satisfaction, I CHECKED by reading the article and following the links to the ACTUAL FACTS. So now I know, Brannon's an equal opportunity racist (or I guess white nationalist). Now that I think of it, you're probably one too and just trolling by pretending to be "generally curious"
Unfortunately, when you look at the people who've graduated from Harvard Business School, it really appears as if their admissions standards needs re-evaluating. Their only criteria seems to be is if they think the candidate has a good chance of being "successful" later in life. Since the number one predictor (in the U.S. at least) of success isn't intelligence or diligence or "talent" but rather how successful (or rich) your dad was, they've let in some sorry characters. I believe George "Gentleman's 'C'" Bush is one of them. And, of course, once you're in and paying $50,000 a year, you're likely not to be kicked out. (It's not the Law or Medical School, cash is king).
At least character estimation is an important consideration when admitting students as undergraduates into Harvard College (I'm an interviewer, that's my job). We're supposed to look for people who "you'd like to have as your roommate" (it's the Turing test for personality:). Of course, Harvard does have its issues with "legacy" candidates and they do tend to give the children of extremely prominent people a closer look (like the Obama's kids) but they are certainly not fixated on one metric (like grades or SAT scores).
Oh and another thing (though there are many more) that particularly rankles me is Putin's state sponsored cheating on the Olympics. This of course is very well documented (by the head physician of the Russian team I believe) and of course by lots of documentation not to mention the preserved backup samples of urine (they collect TWO vials of urine, one is processed immediately at the country's anti-doping center the other is stored. Guess what the stored vials showed?)
The insanity of Trump's admiration/support/connections for a leader who murders his opponents/journalists, commits war crimes deliberately attacking humanitarian convoys and hospitals (yes, I know the U.S. hit one but at the very least they admitted their wartime error and presumably is making reparations), breaks arms control agreements and violates fundamental agreements on not seizing land by force (Crimea was taken despite the Russian pledge to respect Ukraine's border in exchange for them giving up their nukes), drives his nation into an economic dead-end by focusing on one commodity (oil) instead of diversifying (which, of course would have required him to respect rule of law and cut down on the kleptocracy), etc. well this is amongst many many reasons why Trump is completely unqualified (should be disqualified) for being the president of the U.S.
So of course supporting a guy who basically says "I have a gun that can clean blow your head off", I guess that's nothing new for Trump. (and don't tell me that the announcement of this weapon wasn't authorized by Putin). Let me be clear, I do mean Trump supports Putin; by refusing the unanimous consensus of (all?) 17 intelligence agencies that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic Party (gee I wonder why no Republicans were hacked?) saying, he can't say who hacked the Democrats, he is supporting Putin.
Likewise Assange, by selling himself out to Putin because of his problems with Sweden (and presumably the U.S.) indicates that he is willing to sell us all (and especially for his fellow journalists* who have been dying in Russia) out for his own skin. It has really debased the once sterling reputation of Wikileaks, hasn't it? So sad.
*but I don't think very many journalists would still be willing to say he is one of them now
I read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that the problem may be that the Samsung phones have a 3500mWH (or something like that) battery which is significantly larger than the iPhones which (I think) are less than 2000. Are the batteries the same physical size? That, and I heard that they charge in roughly the same amount of time.
So does that mean that they are pumping in almost twice as much current? Is it possible to damage the battery that way? Can a battery store more energy by just overloading it?
Maybe Samsung can fix this problem by changing the software(?) in the phones so that they charge slower. Am I missing something? (Or a lot of things, I'm not a battery expert).
So what if our universe (and all the other universes in the multiverse) are just analog simulations? Our 3D universe + time is just a hyper sphere. If the Meta verse is 5 dimensions or more, then just as an infinitely large 2D space can be folded into a finite 3D space, then they could take even our (infinitely?) large universe and put it into a "small" 5D object. So storage wouldn't be a problem.
Imagine the beings in this 5D universe. Say they wanted to create some intelligent entities to converse to. They could create universes like ours and, because they have an extra dimension, could "reach in" and alter anything they wanted just like we can change anything on a piece of paper. Also, if time to them is just another dimension, perhaps they could "scroll" through it and alter events (or at least view) events at any time. All they would have to do is set up the laws of physics (ok ok) in the simulation and (maybe) it would be easy for them to generate an infinite 3D space there because to them an infinitely large 3D verse would be just a point.
(Actually it seems like we are NOT living in a digital simulation because it seems like there is a huge amount of wasted space. Look at the heavens and the billions of light years of apparently uncrowded perhaps uninhabited space. Unless they truly have infinite resources, it seems like a huge waste regardless of what they are trying to create (intelligence? Pretty starscapes?).
and we never get anything better than fusion drives (and Bussard ramjets don't work), then maybe a high density of these "rogue" worlds will allow the (very slow) colonization of the galaxy.
If there are roughly 1000x as many these large planetary bodies floating in interstellar space as there are stars, then perhaps it'll be feasible to travel to them in tens of years traveling at speeds achievable by nuclear fusion (hundredths of "C"). Then, using the resources there, colonies could be set up. Eventually, these will sprout new colonies, further pushing the boundaries of inhabited space until finally they reach a star.
This scheme of colonization would be unlike anything the western world, even in the days of years long voyages via sailing ships, has known. Perhaps the closest would be the voyages of the far flung polynesians who managed to spread across the vastness of the pacific ocean over a period measured in centuries(?). If any of them made it to South America (some say they did), it would be like these future voyagers making it to the next star.
Of course, we all hope for a Star Trek/Star Wars future with warp/hyperdrive bringing the stars within an afternoon's jaunt. Failing that I guess the runner up desirable future would be the hyper broadband interstellar communications network in which our downloaded selves could be digitally transferred at the speed of light to the next instancing hub (such as in Greg Egan stories of the post-singularity future).
However if neither of those pan out and if we don't learn how to make/harness anti-matter, micro-blackholes, zero-point energy, giant laser driven solar sails or ??? then perhaps this is our most optimistic future.
Maybe with immortality and suspended animation it won't be too bad. Slow trips around the galaxy indeed
Too bad it's too late for them to be able to use the Space Shuttle external tanks.
There were around 135 launches (so I guess the number of tanks that made it almost to orbit would be 134). Of course many (most?) of these missions were not in the correct orbital plane for use as space habitats (I guess they would not be easily reachable by subsequent manned flights). Still when one considers the sheer volume (about 2 million liters!) you'd think they'd be very useful. Also because they didn't have much heavy external hardware (like engines) they'd be easier to move around and keep in orbit.
What could they have been used for? I'm not sure but a whole bunch of interesting applications come to mind. If they could hold a full atmosphere's worth of pressure they'd make huge living spaces. If only a low pressure environment could be maintained, perhaps plants could survive in a mostly CO2 atmosphere; with a slow rotation about the long axis and a central light column running down the length of it, it could be a huge hydroponic garden for waste recycling and food. If they turned out to be pretty durable then perhaps propellent storage or even reuse as fuel tanks for interplanetary expeditions could be envisioned. Since they are light, perhaps they could be sent, empty, to a passing comet to refill with water and then sent back to earth orbit using some of the collected mass as fuel. If nothing else, they could have been cut up and used as raw materials for use in providing shielding against micrometeorites.
Anyway, there were well over a hundred of these giant things that, with just a little more delta-V (and admittedly, long term boosting to counteract atmospheric drag) could have been a valuable orbital resource. I guess it wasn't done because some infrastructure wasn't available (cheap orbital "tugs" perhaps using ion drives for low fuel consumption) and the vision and political will wasn't there. Too bad because this could've been like Skylab but hundredfold.
If "extinction" is the level of catastrophe we're looking at, then most of these events won't meet that high a bar.
I mean, even after a major asteroid impact or even all out nuclear war there are going to be some survivors; maybe in unlikely places (nuclear submarines*, the ISS, Iceland, Antarctica). Likewise, almost every "natural" pathogen will leave resistant survivors even if there is no vaccine or cure. As long as enough are left to breed they could restart humankind (but perhaps at a very reduced level of technology/civilization). Whether or not they would ever be able to recover to our current state due to exhaustion of most easily exploited resources is another question but forever is a long time. If there are a sufficient number of survivors and IF there is a repository of knowledge that has survived (archived wikipedia perhaps?) it is probable that decades or centuries of technological development can be skipped (like going directly from wood burning furnaces to photovoltaics or wind power).
However, if there is an Intelligent enemy that is pursuing us, then our chances are much lower. A sentient A.I. that wanted to wipe out humanity could track down and eliminate those in shelter or get them when they come back out of hiding. I guess the long-living product of an intelligent enemy (like mindless "grey-goo" nanobots) could do the same thing by continuously and systematically breaking down the biosphere (and anything that re-enters it from space, the deep ocean or the polar regions). Then, unless we've recreated another biosphere somewhere else (is that why you're going to Mars, Elon Musk?) we're all dead. Of course, WE are our own intelligent enemy and a deliberate attempt to wipe ourselves out (super weapons, resilient viruses) or even big "oops!" ("gene-drive", mini-black holes, large asteroid mining near earth gone wrong), might readily succeed.
We have met the enemy and it is us.
*Okay I know that the crews of nuclear submarine are (nearly?) all men. But if there are any women left at least they'll have a good gene pool to dip from!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious. Does this attack really work? Does the defense really work?
If the researchers have an effective attack AND an effective defense why not release both so that we can try it? Aren't there some Samsung users out there (okay all of them) that you'd like to annoy?
(Sorry, but with the way things are going, being sociopathic is now in vogue)
Considering that most (all except Google's?) devices are not allowed to receive updates except once they've been vetted by their cell phone carrier, how can this have been patched? I thought a lot of the carriers stopped offering updates on devices more than one or two generations old
Anyway, why don't we test it? Post THE ATTACK and see if any devices are still affected :)
Look, as I said, there's a vast (yes even the most cursory web searches will turn up many web sites like breitbart) "industry" seeking to say bad things about Hillary. Since I am not familiar with this particular claim (and again, I'm sure I'll never be familiar with all of them like that pizza child sex ring Fake news that led to an armed assault by another deluded Republican) I spent a few minutes looking online for evidence of the above claim that "she had the server wiped..."
Unless I'm very wrong about the abilities of Hillary (who, admittedly in the eyes of Republicans, seems to be capable of doing almost anything evil), she's not an expert in server technology and probably has never heard of what was apparently used ("Bleach Bit"?). Therefore, I assume she must have gotten someone else to do it. Okay, is there an order from her to do so? If so, is there any record of this order?
You know, if I were a tech guy asked to do something that looked very illegal ("hey I want you to completely wipe the server NOW and don't retain any backups and don't tell anyone") and could have me end up in prison, I'd really want to 1) refuse the order or 2) get it in WRITING (preferably signed). You know, even if it weren't so (obviously) illegal (I mean there was a federal subpoena for the records), I'd probably want the order in writing anyway because wiping out the boss' server because you misinterpreted what she said (I said "clean the files" not "wipe them!") would possibly be a career ending move (certainly a job ending one).
Don't you think it's more likely that the IT guy just panicked when he realized the server was hacked (and he was responsible for it's security?). Or that maybe he knew that the justice department was likely to be sniffing around and he wanted to do his boss a (misguided) favor? I don't even know if the wipe was successful, of course I'm assuming the Bleach bit worked but what about all the backups or e-mails sent through other servers or they could possibly get them from the recipients (I'm not an expert at these things so there may be other ways of recovering them).
From my (admittedly brief) search (which however did include the top republican sites) THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT HILLARY ORDERED IT DONE
I'm not saying she didn't, it's just we don't know. Considering that she's a (good) lawyer (her Harvard Law degree must be worth something) and that she is very well aware of the penalties of obstruction of justice and that she is NOT an expert on computer security and has no idea if the would, in fact be able to get rid of all the incriminating evidence and that she wouldn't even be sure that the IT guy would cooperate but instead would turn her over to the feds, I think it's likely it's that she didn't. If every republican slimeball I mean operative couldn't get this evidence (and they would really really want to, obstruction of justice can get you sent to PRISON FOR A LONG TIME) then there probably wasn't any don't you think?
Of course you didn't think, and that's the problem. Fake news wins again! Actually this is more like just plain old insinuating, you should read some high-school books on the dangers of relying on hearsay. After forty years I can still remember the name of the book "The Ox-Bow incident", look it up. Or, more tragically read up on the case of Emmett Till, a 14 year old black boy taken out of a jail by a mob with no trial and lynched. Oh and the main accuser has admitted she made it up (but of course there wasn't even a trial to give the poor kid a chance. The woman who made it up refuses to be identified knowing that in no way did he deserve what happened. I hope it follows her to her grave and beyond).
Enough! No one can spend this much time refuting every falsehood and unfounded allegation out there, we have to rely on the people to be well educated. Oh wait, that's precisely the demographic that DIDN'T vote for Hillary
Before I get a raft of Hillary bashers commenting on my post let me try to condense the discussion to save your time (and mine).
"What! Of course Hillary is corrupt, she made hundreds of thousands per speech to Goldman Sachs!"
First of all, from what I understand, the money from Goldman went to her foundation not her personally. Not only has her foundation been repeatedly vetted (as opposed to Trump's foundations which are still under investigation over activities directly pertaining to their purpose) they got decent ratings from third parties (not perfect, they sometimes tried too many things) at least they weren't a glorified tax shelter. That is, at least she (and Bill) tried to make the world a better place instead of just using them to avoid taxes (speaking of taxes look up Trump using over $800M in other people's losses in his business to effectively not pay taxes).
Of course the ironic thing is that now a former (head?) of Goldman Sachs is on Trump's cabinet. (Or, since I don't know if he's been confirmed, at the very least a bunch of very rich guys. So much for draining the swamp).
"They (the foundation) took money from foreign donors" Sure, and Trump (almost) had a chief of staff who had $12M earmarked for him on accounts from Russian allies in Ukraine. The first is not illegal (at least not unless she held public office which she didn't at the time). Again, like it or not (I don't), this is very common on Washington :( On the other hand, Trump was right to remove him (unfortunately he did so only when he was exposed).
"But she had her own e-mail server!" Yes, just as her republican predecessor (Colin Powell) had and in fact recommended that she do herself.
"She got hacked" You know, when a state power (Russia in this case) wants to hack you, you can't expect to prevent it. By the way, what did the Russians find? Anything really damaging (like how they need to hide Obama's lack of being an American citizen from the people? Or their plans to overthrow the government?). Aren't you impressed by, aside from all the stupid half-assed things her staff were doing and saying (like in any large organization) there was no apparent corruption (like where to put all the bribe money?).
Look, I am not going to be able to refute the entire industry set up to bash Hillary. Maybe you believe that where there's smoke there's fire. Well sometimes that's not true; you can go back in history to as far as the Salem Witch trials, to the McCarthy "Red Scare" to see how many people were convinced through their equivalent of "Fake News". In this case, you've got literally tens of millions of dollars in direct investigations trying to find the "fire" that was causing the "smoke" made by the hundreds of millions being spent by her opponents. So, in the words of another old campaign slogan, "Where's the beef?"
The great thing about Trump is that all of his "fire" is out in the open, he's saying these things HIMSELF or not saying like as in not releasing his taxes (although that's just one of many in a long string of significant broken promises).
I guess that's why our justice system is "innocent until proven guilty". Too bad that politics (and people) don't hold themselves to this standard.
Hi there, I live in Vietnam. I just saw a govt. owned newspaper (tuoi tre news) say that the Prime Minister thinks Vietnam could be the home of a tech giant like Google, Facebook, etc.
I don't think so. They have a comments section (most likely to find troublemakers like me) but I've been so frustrated that I decided to send the following reply. (If I start posting from another country, you'll know what happened).
************ In response to the PM saying that Vietnam could be the home to a tech giant **************
While I wish what PM Nguyen Xuan Phuc said would happen, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Certainly there is potential in Vietnam. In my almost 10 years here, I've been impressed by the ambition, hard work ethic and focus on education that is a hallmark of the Vietnamese people. IF they think their efforts will be rewarded, the Vietnamese work just as hard the Chinese, Japanese or even Koreans (my ethnicity :); this is no doubt due to their shared confucian cultural heritage. This is in contrast to their S.E. Asian neighbors who have a more relaxed buddhist/muslim/hindu approach to life. Whether or not this "better" depends on what you think the purpose of life is, however for getting ahead in a material world it is obvious which one is more focused on the here and now instead of the hereafter (or previous life).
Unfortunately due to the, there is no way to beat around the bush, CORRUPTION in Vietnam, this potential is wasted or going abroad. I'm not singling Vietnam out, fully 85% of humanity lives under a corrupt government (http://bit.ly/2kd9LNc). However no country has created a global (tech) giant without getting corruption at least somewhat under control. I'm afraid Vietnam is far from close to doing so.
I speak from experience, I had two successful (if small) high tech companies in the U.S. before coming to Ho Chi Minh City almost 10 years ago to retire. Now, with time on my hands I've been toying around with they idea of starting a bio-tech company utilizing the latest techniques in DNA nanopore sequencing along with bioinformatics (hopefully enhanced by machine learning). However, I've found the bureaucratic hurdles to be almost unsurmountable. Just getting a simple chemical in Vietnam, a process that is literally overnight in the U.S. takes up to two months. Getting customs approval for more advanced material has been a nightmare; many times shipments are delayed on items that must be kept below freezing. I'm sure some of them have been damaged as a result.
No, much more likely than Vietnam growing its own tech giant, would it contribute to one in another country. This would follow in the fine tradition of Syria (Steve Jobs), South Africa (Elon Musk), Russia (Google founders), Andy Grove (Intel, Czech) who all went to America. Not that America is immune; now that the Trump has come, the republican party has already tried to get rid of anti-corruption efforts and his wealthy white cabinet (and himself!) are filled with major conflict of interest problems. It's sad, the people who believe Hillary was corrupt, instead of just ambitious (and what presidential candidate isn't?), were the reason why Fake news (and Russian involvement) succeeded. However, the U.S. still has many fantastic strengths, Vietnam not so much. So, while I can easily see the next tech giant being founded/run by a Vietnamese (in fact I know of someone who is well on his way to doing so in the next big thing in biotech :) I'm afraid it won't be in Vietnam.
Vietnam has been good to me, I've actually been able to gain a level of proficiency in genetics at a university here (thank you International University!) and maybe I'll even be able to repay the country a bit by doing something here (if the government doesn't kick me out). However, to really be successful, I'll need to go somewhere that doesn't require a "expedited fee" to get things done or regulations whose only purpose is to elicit said fees.
New Zealand anyone?
Yes, these were some of the thoughts that immediately crossed my mind and when I heard that it might be metastable (when you relieve the pressure it might stay in that form).
I was wondering what the energy released would be if one could trigger the change back from the meta-stable state back to the normal (lowest energy?) ground state. It might not be a lot (like if you convert diamonds into graphite) but maybe not. I remember hearing of a science fiction story in which a "molecular distortion" battery could store and release fully 10 percent of its rest mass as energy. Of course this would only be for energy storage, not production so there would be no net gain (and maybe big losses). Still it would be a great boon for portable sources of energy for transportation (or explosives!).
Likewise, having just a metallic (powdered?) form of hydrogen could do wonders for space travel. Not having to cryogenically store liquid hydrogen at a few degrees above absolute zero would be great. Even if the solid had to kept below 83K that's still a big improvement. And if the density was (much) higher then there would be big structural savings on having smaller propellant tanks.
I wonder if metastable metallic hydrogen would have any impact on nuclear fusion. IF (and it's a big IF) they can produce small "pellets" of this for use in the inertial confinement (laser) fusion reactor, I'm hoping they can try it with other isotopes (I assume they used straight up single proton hydrogen). Deuterium or tritium might have more "explosive" results!
I'm not sure that cost is the only consideration in whether or not the U.S. should help defend S. Korea. This is even though I have heard that S. Korea pays the U.S. a couple(?) of billion a year in reimbursement; whether or not this is a fair amount I have no idea.
Much more important is the implied alliance between the two nations. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea, inevitably American soldiers will be killed which will bring a much stronger response from the U.S. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea with nukes then they will invite an immediate (and apocalyptic!) nuclear response.
Perhaps more importantly having a U.S. presence in S. Korea TELLS THE CHINESE that the U.S. is a power in their backyard and the U.S. could make life difficult for them in any really serious conflict. (Imagine if China had military bases in Canada). Having U.S. stealth bombers minutes away from Chinese territory must be something that keeps the Chinese strategic planners up at night. The expansion of the THAAD missile defense system to S. Korea allegedly "solely" for the defense of S. Korea and Japan must also make them worry. Could it, indeed, be used to intercept Chinese ICBMs headed for the U.S.? That would mean China would be emasculated in a strategic nuclear conflict (they used to have, like, only 200 warheads that could reach the U.S,; a first strike coupled with a good missile defense system could've rendered them completely useless. That's surely one reason why China is now building subs carrying nuclear weapons, unlike the ICBMS launched from China they can be launched from anywhere and would not have to fly directly over the S. Korean defenses on their way to their targets in the U.S.).
Consider the alternative: the U.S. says "you're on your own" to S. Korea (and Japan). Within a year, the extremely technologically capable S. Koreans and Japanese would likely have their own nuclear weapons (and delivery systems as evidenced by the latest Japanese solid rocket booster). Sounds good no? Except now the Chinese would have to worry about nuclear weapons being delivered onto their soil in minutes by intermediate range ICBMs. They'd have to invest in missile defense and/or more nuclear weapons to ride out an attack. Perhaps India would be spooked and would also follow their "rival" (the Indians like thinking the Chinese are their chief competitor, the Chinese couldn't care less). That could provoke Pakistan to add to their arsenal (at 100+ warheads the fastest growing in the world). Not good since the Pakistanis are probably the country most likely to give (or have stolen from) nuclear weapons for use by radical Islam. Of course with Trump saying the Saudis (who, remember comprised 19 of the 20 hijackers on 9/11) should be allowed to have nukes for use against Iran, maybe there is another pathway for nuclear terrorism.
Anyway, while some of these "dominos" falling is farfetched you can see how inter-country tensions are a lot more complex than a simple "let them pay for their own defense". That's why nuclear non-proliferation treaties (were) a critical part of world diplomacy (until the Bush administration let the Indians be recognized as a DECLARED nuclear power, the first since WWII, with no substantial penalties).
wow, thanks
Imagine a net (block?) of this material. IF (and it's a very big if) it could be made large enough IN SPACE, then it could "capture" (by absorbing the impact) space junk. It might need to be hooked up to a low thrust but high efficiency ion drive to compensate for the slow loss of momentum from the impact; it needs to stay in orbit (and to change orbits if it's going after multiple large pieces).
Of course, as mentioned, the real key is can they manufacture the graphene pieces AND put them together in the 3D structure IN SPACE. Being able to create this material out of a (solid?) block of carbon (graphite) is probably essential. Otherwise the density of the structure might be too low to be launched from earth; the low density which might make it ideal for many applications on earth would be a hindrance if it required a huge fairing for the launch vehicle (imagine a blimp on top of a rocket). However, this low density is critical for its success as a space "sponge", it would allow a small mass to subtend a very large volume; essential if we're ever going to clean up the many many small fragments of space junk (and not just the big ones).
Of course, IF they can make this in space there are many space construction applications which could be practical. Would it dramatically reduce the cost of an "O'Neil space cylinder" for example? The greatly reduced mass requirements coupled with the (hopefully) greatly reduced launch costs from reusable launchers (go Space-X!) might allow really large structures to be built. (I guess you'd still need "soil" and volatiles from asteroid or lunar mining).
(A similar solution would be to use in space produced aerogels. The problems of making aerogels in space if they require supercritical carbon dioxide as a working fluid may be too great though.)
Just an early morning rant here in Vietnam, probably had too much coffee.
Unfortunately I'm not a mining expert but isn't much (most?) of the iron available to humanity basically meteorites? I mean most of the iron that the earth formed with sank to the core since it is (much?) denser than the surrounding molten rock?
And wasn't this thing detected because it was a gravity or mass anomaly? A chunk of iron that big could be quite valuable! Here comes the despoiling of the Antarctic, a job made possible by global warming and the "who cares" approach to the environment of our soon to be in office leader.
Sorry, I guess what I wrote could be interpreted in the wrong way:
"Why would Japan want such a thing after having avowed a no nuclear policy after being subjected to the only nuclear attack in history? Because Trump has..."
I guess I could have been more clear: "Why would Japan want to use it in such a way after having avowed..."
As someone who been following national space programs for decades (and regularly attended JPL conferences), it was not my intent to say that Trump was responsible for Japan's solid rocket program (as if). Nitpicking aside, my apologies for the confusion, however the rest of my points (repeated I see by numerous other commentators) stand.
Did I say Japan built this thing in response to Trump? Am I claiming that Japan's nuclear reactors (including their plutonium breeder reactors) were built because they needed to make nuclear fuel for their weapons?
Of course not, however if the need arises they will surely turn towards the skills they have peaceably acquired for the production of weapons of mass destruction.
Conservatives are fond of saying that guns don't kill people, people do. Like so many many things in our technological world, (GPS, high purity aluminum alloys for centrifuges, etc.) advanced technological items can be used for many purposes (I do genetic engineering). Now we've got someone who wants to radically alter the balance of power in the world, I would say in a very short-sighted way. So people are looking anew, for their own protection, at what they have and what they can be used for.
Actually it's not perfect for satellites (and much worse for manned missions, remember Challenger). The lack of throttle control (and an off switch) probably makes it more difficult to precisely place it into orbit.
As a military weapon of course it's just about perfect. Relatively robust to physical shock, storable (on its side!) for long periods of time without expensive cooling systems, instant launch capability (no loading of cryogenic propellants, no pressurization of fuel tanks) its only disadvantage is the specific impulse may be lower than liquid fuels (less payload). Presumably the warhead has its own guidance system so a little imprecision in the boost phase is acceptable.
Why would Japan want such a thing after having avowed a no nuclear policy after being subjected to the only nuclear attack in history? Because Trump has declared S. Korea and Japan to no longer be protected by the American nuclear umbrella. So with a rogue N. Korea using its pitifully scarce resources to build as many nuclear capable delivery systems as it can, what choice does Japan and S. Korea have?
So now the Chinese have another reason to regret their support of the Kim dynasty. It will be much more difficult for them to cow the Koreans or Japanese once they develop an effective nuclear arsenal (and considering the technological and industrial capabilities of these nations it may happen in months not years). N.E. Asia will become a more dangerous place because there will be a temptation to use nukes in the various unresolved territorial issues (Senkaku islands for example). They may consider a "small" tactical nuke necessary should there be a naval showdown that would cause them to lose face. Of course there is no such thing as a small nuke and if one is used, even in the ocean, there will be a huge temptation to take out the remaining ones in a first strike. This would lead to fears of "use it or lose it" etc. (With distances so short between the three countries, a launch on warning policy would mean making a nation-ending decision in a few minutes, not the leisurely half hour the Americans usually have). In general unlike the U.S. and say Canada; it's not a good thing when historically antagonistic neighbors acquire nukes (India and Pakistan).
That's one reason why nuclear nonproliferation is a good thing. While most of the actors in N.E. Asia are extremely level headed (excepting Kim and maybe the current S. Korean president who's got a Shaman giving her advice), that can't be said for the rest of the world. That's why Trump's other statements of letting the Saudi's develop (or buy from Pakistan) nukes to counter Iran is a bad idea; as the 19 out of 20 hijackers on 9/11 showed us, even our allies can't always be trusted. Unfortunately it looks like the nuclear club may soon be getting bigger
While these (South Asians?) are willing to work for a fraction of the wages because it's much better than at home, relatively soon there will be a much more compelling reason for them to try to get visas (any visa or none at all).
Survival.
Within the lifetime of many of those reading these words, the climate in large regions of the world will make them UNINHABITABLE. Due to a combination of high heat in the summer months and high humidity (yes there is high humidity in parts of the middle east, like near the Red Sea), the typical healthy Adult (not sick or old or young) will die after just 6 hours outdoors (I believe in the shade!). That's even with plenty of water because, with such high humidity you can't sweat the heat out.
http://www.sciencealert.com/mi...
That's Hundreds of Millions of Refugees, a number that will make the current six million fleeing Syria seem like a drop in the bucket. (And look at what this small number has done to Europe). Of course it won't be restricted just to the Middle East, another report from a military focused organization claims there will be 30 Million climate refugees from just ONE country (Bangladesh).
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
It's obvious that these people won't just sit there and DIE, they'll want to LIVE. They'll be willing to do anything and everything to live in a country where they won't literally die from heat (or being submerged). Thanks to the internet, they'll know where to go and how to get there. Are you prepared to share your country? To save people from dying? Or will you shoot them on sight (because that'll be what its going to take). I'm afraid we're headed towards a world where men with machine guns protecting the wealthy against the desperate masses will be a common sight. Go NRA! (Sarcasm)
If you still don't believe in Climate Change, why don't you to put your money where your mouth is and invest in property that's at risk. Say the low lying areas of Florida or Bangladesh. Or you can put it into the glittering cities of Dubai and other places like Yemen which are slated to become hot properties indeed. According to these projections, you'll only need to wait 20-30 years; some mortgages are shorter than that. And if you're right, you'll make a killing! (But if you're wrong, you'll be the one who's dead).
Thanks Trump! (Sarcasm)
:)
You've gotta be kidding right? "Anti-science" liberal culture? Being a scientist (just performed the first nanopore DNA sequencing in Vietnam!) who graduated from the top liberal arts school in the world (it always ranks number one or two, sorry Stanford!), let me tell you that our culture is far far from anti-science. For example our university has the most Nobel prize winners in the world. (Speaking of which, so how many Nobel laureates supported Trump again?).
(I also studied Architecture while a graduate and took a fair amount of general design courses so I certainly think I qualify as being in touch with my touchy-feely liberal side). Anyway, even the quickest most cursory (that means brief by the way) search would show that there is an extremely high correlation between scientists and in general well educated people being liberal. Unfortunately, you don't sound like either
Just in case other people haven't done this:
Here's the Washington Post article which talks about the interview:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And here's the actual, AUDIO of the interview so you can hear him in literally his own words saying this:
https://soundcloud.com/breitba...
Next time you're "genuinely curious" about something, do bother to read the article carefully. See the underlined words? They indicate "links" which is a way of connecting web pages together. If you clicked on the VERY FIRST link marked "an interview", you'd have come to the actual interview.
Of course, before I call someone a racist against Asians (I had heard he was a racist against other minorities from other comments) I wanted proof. So, before I settled that opinion to my own satisfaction, I CHECKED by reading the article and following the links to the ACTUAL FACTS. So now I know, Brannon's an equal opportunity racist (or I guess white nationalist). Now that I think of it, you're probably one too and just trolling by pretending to be "generally curious"
Unfortunately, when you look at the people who've graduated from Harvard Business School, it really appears as if their admissions standards needs re-evaluating. Their only criteria seems to be is if they think the candidate has a good chance of being "successful" later in life. Since the number one predictor (in the U.S. at least) of success isn't intelligence or diligence or "talent" but rather how successful (or rich) your dad was, they've let in some sorry characters. I believe George "Gentleman's 'C'" Bush is one of them. And, of course, once you're in and paying $50,000 a year, you're likely not to be kicked out. (It's not the Law or Medical School, cash is king).
At least character estimation is an important consideration when admitting students as undergraduates into Harvard College (I'm an interviewer, that's my job). We're supposed to look for people who "you'd like to have as your roommate" (it's the Turing test for personality :). Of course, Harvard does have its issues with "legacy" candidates and they do tend to give the children of extremely prominent people a closer look (like the Obama's kids) but they are certainly not fixated on one metric (like grades or SAT scores).
Oh and another thing (though there are many more) that particularly rankles me is Putin's state sponsored cheating on the Olympics. This of course is very well documented (by the head physician of the Russian team I believe) and of course by lots of documentation not to mention the preserved backup samples of urine (they collect TWO vials of urine, one is processed immediately at the country's anti-doping center the other is stored. Guess what the stored vials showed?)
Great example of sportsmanship, NOT!
The insanity of Trump's admiration/support/connections for a leader who murders his opponents/journalists, commits war crimes deliberately attacking humanitarian convoys and hospitals (yes, I know the U.S. hit one but at the very least they admitted their wartime error and presumably is making reparations), breaks arms control agreements and violates fundamental agreements on not seizing land by force (Crimea was taken despite the Russian pledge to respect Ukraine's border in exchange for them giving up their nukes), drives his nation into an economic dead-end by focusing on one commodity (oil) instead of diversifying (which, of course would have required him to respect rule of law and cut down on the kleptocracy), etc. well this is amongst many many reasons why Trump is completely unqualified (should be disqualified) for being the president of the U.S.
So of course supporting a guy who basically says "I have a gun that can clean blow your head off", I guess that's nothing new for Trump. (and don't tell me that the announcement of this weapon wasn't authorized by Putin). Let me be clear, I do mean Trump supports Putin; by refusing the unanimous consensus of (all?) 17 intelligence agencies that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic Party (gee I wonder why no Republicans were hacked?) saying, he can't say who hacked the Democrats, he is supporting Putin.
Likewise Assange, by selling himself out to Putin because of his problems with Sweden (and presumably the U.S.) indicates that he is willing to sell us all (and especially for his fellow journalists* who have been dying in Russia) out for his own skin. It has really debased the once sterling reputation of Wikileaks, hasn't it? So sad.
*but I don't think very many journalists would still be willing to say he is one of them now
I read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that the problem may be that the Samsung phones have a 3500mWH (or something like that) battery which is significantly larger than the iPhones which (I think) are less than 2000. Are the batteries the same physical size? That, and I heard that they charge in roughly the same amount of time.
So does that mean that they are pumping in almost twice as much current? Is it possible to damage the battery that way? Can a battery store more energy by just overloading it?
Maybe Samsung can fix this problem by changing the software(?) in the phones so that they charge slower. Am I missing something? (Or a lot of things, I'm not a battery expert).
So what if our universe (and all the other universes in the multiverse) are just analog simulations? Our 3D universe + time is just a hyper sphere. If the Meta verse is 5 dimensions or more, then just as an infinitely large 2D space can be folded into a finite 3D space, then they could take even our (infinitely?) large universe and put it into a "small" 5D object. So storage wouldn't be a problem.
Imagine the beings in this 5D universe. Say they wanted to create some intelligent entities to converse to. They could create universes like ours and, because they have an extra dimension, could "reach in" and alter anything they wanted just like we can change anything on a piece of paper. Also, if time to them is just another dimension, perhaps they could "scroll" through it and alter events (or at least view) events at any time. All they would have to do is set up the laws of physics (ok ok) in the simulation and (maybe) it would be easy for them to generate an infinite 3D space there because to them an infinitely large 3D verse would be just a point.
(Actually it seems like we are NOT living in a digital simulation because it seems like there is a huge amount of wasted space. Look at the heavens and the billions of light years of apparently uncrowded perhaps uninhabited space. Unless they truly have infinite resources, it seems like a huge waste regardless of what they are trying to create (intelligence? Pretty starscapes?).
and we never get anything better than fusion drives (and Bussard ramjets don't work), then maybe a high density of these "rogue" worlds will allow the (very slow) colonization of the galaxy.
If there are roughly 1000x as many these large planetary bodies floating in interstellar space as there are stars, then perhaps it'll be feasible to travel to them in tens of years traveling at speeds achievable by nuclear fusion (hundredths of "C"). Then, using the resources there, colonies could be set up. Eventually, these will sprout new colonies, further pushing the boundaries of inhabited space until finally they reach a star.
This scheme of colonization would be unlike anything the western world, even in the days of years long voyages via sailing ships, has known. Perhaps the closest would be the voyages of the far flung polynesians who managed to spread across the vastness of the pacific ocean over a period measured in centuries(?). If any of them made it to South America (some say they did), it would be like these future voyagers making it to the next star.
Of course, we all hope for a Star Trek/Star Wars future with warp/hyperdrive bringing the stars within an afternoon's jaunt. Failing that I guess the runner up desirable future would be the hyper broadband interstellar communications network in which our downloaded selves could be digitally transferred at the speed of light to the next instancing hub (such as in Greg Egan stories of the post-singularity future).
However if neither of those pan out and if we don't learn how to make/harness anti-matter, micro-blackholes, zero-point energy, giant laser driven solar sails or ??? then perhaps this is our most optimistic future.
Maybe with immortality and suspended animation it won't be too bad. Slow trips around the galaxy indeed
Too bad it's too late for them to be able to use the Space Shuttle external tanks.
There were around 135 launches (so I guess the number of tanks that made it almost to orbit would be 134). Of course many (most?) of these missions were not in the correct orbital plane for use as space habitats (I guess they would not be easily reachable by subsequent manned flights). Still when one considers the sheer volume (about 2 million liters!) you'd think they'd be very useful. Also because they didn't have much heavy external hardware (like engines) they'd be easier to move around and keep in orbit.
What could they have been used for? I'm not sure but a whole bunch of interesting applications come to mind. If they could hold a full atmosphere's worth of pressure they'd make huge living spaces. If only a low pressure environment could be maintained, perhaps plants could survive in a mostly CO2 atmosphere; with a slow rotation about the long axis and a central light column running down the length of it, it could be a huge hydroponic garden for waste recycling and food. If they turned out to be pretty durable then perhaps propellent storage or even reuse as fuel tanks for interplanetary expeditions could be envisioned. Since they are light, perhaps they could be sent, empty, to a passing comet to refill with water and then sent back to earth orbit using some of the collected mass as fuel. If nothing else, they could have been cut up and used as raw materials for use in providing shielding against micrometeorites.
Anyway, there were well over a hundred of these giant things that, with just a little more delta-V (and admittedly, long term boosting to counteract atmospheric drag) could have been a valuable orbital resource. I guess it wasn't done because some infrastructure wasn't available (cheap orbital "tugs" perhaps using ion drives for low fuel consumption) and the vision and political will wasn't there. Too bad because this could've been like Skylab but hundredfold.
If "extinction" is the level of catastrophe we're looking at, then most of these events won't meet that high a bar.
I mean, even after a major asteroid impact or even all out nuclear war there are going to be some survivors; maybe in unlikely places (nuclear submarines*, the ISS, Iceland, Antarctica). Likewise, almost every "natural" pathogen will leave resistant survivors even if there is no vaccine or cure. As long as enough are left to breed they could restart humankind (but perhaps at a very reduced level of technology/civilization). Whether or not they would ever be able to recover to our current state due to exhaustion of most easily exploited resources is another question but forever is a long time. If there are a sufficient number of survivors and IF there is a repository of knowledge that has survived (archived wikipedia perhaps?) it is probable that decades or centuries of technological development can be skipped (like going directly from wood burning furnaces to photovoltaics or wind power).
However, if there is an Intelligent enemy that is pursuing us, then our chances are much lower. A sentient A.I. that wanted to wipe out humanity could track down and eliminate those in shelter or get them when they come back out of hiding. I guess the long-living product of an intelligent enemy (like mindless "grey-goo" nanobots) could do the same thing by continuously and systematically breaking down the biosphere (and anything that re-enters it from space, the deep ocean or the polar regions). Then, unless we've recreated another biosphere somewhere else (is that why you're going to Mars, Elon Musk?) we're all dead. Of course, WE are our own intelligent enemy and a deliberate attempt to wipe ourselves out (super weapons, resilient viruses) or even big "oops!" ("gene-drive", mini-black holes, large asteroid mining near earth gone wrong), might readily succeed.
We have met the enemy and it is us.
*Okay I know that the crews of nuclear submarine are (nearly?) all men. But if there are any women left at least they'll have a good gene pool to dip from!