Their income is going to go down by 23% ! And that of their robo-industrial-complex-baron owners I suppose.
The actual people, most of them, won't have to worry about this, because their income-earning jobs will long have been replaced by automation.
I wonder what the effect of bands of neo-luddite anarchists, roving across the flooded or parched lands in angry desperation, will be on the global economy.
The attempt by paid accomplices of the fossil fuel industry to freeze out discussion and cool concerns about global warming due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Thanks that's kind of what I was looking for and also what I generally assumed.
One slightly significant change I'd make to your assumptions is that you should factor in that we would want to get the energy for heating and transportation and industry also from the new electric power source (to replace fossil-fuel energy), so you might want to multiply your 3.5TW by anywhere from 5 to 10, depending on efficiency of conversion factors you assume. Also that's just today's consumption.
I just want to point out that solar energy captured by most of these satellites would have missed the Earth otherwise.
So we would be adding extra energy to the Earth, energy which would degrade with use to, you guessed it, heat.
Has anyone done the math on this to see whether doing this would actually help in the effort to limit global warming?
I suspect that the added heat would be tiny compared to displaced fossil fuel-burning carbon emission heat-trapping, but just though someone should crunch the numbers to make sure we wouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot with this technology.
If the old-school telephone companies hired people to listen in to your phone calls then sold the info to the highest bidder. Or the post office routinely steaming open the envelopes of your letters and selling the info, or using it to extort you.
If this sh*t ain't against the law it should be.
They're a common carrier and nothing more. Get off my lawn.
Maxwell's equations which specify how electromagnetism works have been a complete waste of research dollars; a fiasco that has never led to any technological improvement or profit.
And all that money wasted on medical research has never led to a single profitable technology, nor increase in quality or length of life, never mind to any insight into why the four humours continue to kill people like flies.
While I loved the repairing the cracked visor with duct tape scene, I have to say the repairing the blown out hatch with duct tape and polyethylene film stretched credulity to the breaking point.
We are to believe that patch could hold the difference between basically full vacuum and one Earth atmosphere air pressure. Then why is the rest of the hab apparently made of apparently 3+ inch thick metal / carbon fibre or whatever?
Also, with an open hatch patched with a thick plastic bag, the heating system of the hab wouldn't be able to cope, and also the outside cold would probably render the affixing tape and polyethylene brittle and useless after a short time.
Other than that I agree it was an awesome hard sci-fi movie, with great plot, acting, and science.
What exactly what you be attesting to if you sealed and signed off on your software.
Let's assume your software is reasonably large and complex (non-trivial).
Therefore, it is a given that your software has unknown bugs.
It is a given that you do not know in advance the effect of those unknown bugs on the system that the software will be operating.
Software is just like that.
The only thing I can think of that you would be signing would be that you had gone through: Some sort of design process Some sort of design review Some sort of code review Some sort (there are many possible sorts and scopes) of testing
Therefore, your non-trivial software will have unknown bugs, of unknown consequence. Heck, it is probably even theoreticall impossible for you to know if your program will halt, given the inputs it is getting, never mind for you to know what value it will output when/if it 'halt's.
Good thing you didn't sign and seal that your program was correct and safe.
The arbitrary novelty and complexity, and exteme brittleness and fragility, of each unique piece of software, is why software engineering doesn't sign off on its work. It would be a silly game from the start.
Not condoning the cheating, but there is another issue. Many Americans drive, as their family vehicle as well as work vehicle, "light" trucks (e.g. Dodge RAM 3500) and SUVs which have much larger Diesel engines in them than the ones being discussed in these VW cars.
What I've been told about the structure of the EPA regulations is that driving a much more polluting large Diesel pickup truck as your personal vehicle is allowed, but driving a relatively much more efficient and less polluting small European Diesel vehicle is not allowed.
When I ask google a question on my smartphone, and that pleasant female voice answers, I know google is not human, because no human would know as much.
The Kolmogorov-Chaitin definition of random says something to the effect that if there is no process simpler/shorter than the process which produced the sequence/arrangement of events which could predict what that sequence/arrangement of events would have been (and would evolve to next), then the sequence/arrangement is random. It is equivalent to saying that the process which produced the sequence/arrangement is maximally complex.
So if there is a deterministic pattern but it (or its originaing/generating process) is complex enough to be inherently unpredictable, then it is random.
If a series of images is available and observer or target or intermediate objects are moving, occlusion will vary image to image and the nature of the delta portions should be highly informative for recognition. This requires an object/region re-identification subsystem.
Also, scene context statistics should be used, much as preceding utterances are used in speech recognition. Given that we've already recognized a situation type with this that and the other object-type in it in this (possibly dynamic) relation, what are the a priori probabilities for these other types of objects to occur in scene, and assess occluded objects against highest probability objects in situation type. Much more constrained/determined recognition problem in which pieces of objects might suffice to identify them.
So when the black hole evaporates by giving off Hawking radiation, who's to say the information (albeit all mixed together) isn't coming out in the particular spatio-temporal pattern of emanation of the radiation?
Sure, the radiation seems (and is effectively to any observer) random, but it is well known that a random bitstring (k-random bitstring) can encode information, and in fact can be the most compact encoding of information.
Random simply means you don't have the means or supplementary information to deduce/detect the pattern. It does not mean that no pattern is there.
I read some summaries of the science sometime around the early to mid 80s, and was on balance, quite convinced and concerned immediately. The basic physics of it is dead simple, if you got a B in science or better.
It's because organized, and particularly democratically organized groups of people seem generally socially incapable of acting on long-term, large-scale threats (threats which are abstract to most individual people.) See "boiling frog" syndrome.
defn: science: 1) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2) a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
The fact of the matter is, by your saying that scientists (the gatherers and interpreters of scientific knowledge) have no credibility with members of congress, you are implying that those members of congress don't understand nor care to understand the physical and natural world and how it works, and broader; don't care about the properties of systematically organized (and systematically verified) knowledge, no matter what the topic.
They are much more concerned with what they can convince people of by rhetoric and charm than with what is actually the case and what will actually work to improve things.
And that ny friend, while probably true, is fucking scary. Basically we have a bunch of people running the world who not only make up fairytales for a living but also have, themselves, no principled means of distinguishing fairytales from reality. What could possibly go wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
And anyone can claim to be anonymous?
Well, I say we need to throw everyone in jail, on suspicion of this cowardly info-terrorist activity.
Whatever spouting of denialist delusions gets you through your massively over-consuming day without crushing guilt and self-loathing...
God forbid we might have to actually lift a finger and adjust something in our lives.
Aye there's the rub. To accept the truth and have to shift one's butt by a few centimetres uncomfortably.
Their income is going to go down by 23% ! And that of their robo-industrial-complex-baron owners I suppose.
The actual people, most of them, won't have to worry about this, because their income-earning jobs will long have been replaced by automation.
I wonder what the effect of bands of neo-luddite anarchists, roving across the flooded or parched lands in angry desperation, will be on the global economy.
Definition: Shill Chill
The attempt by paid accomplices of the fossil fuel industry to freeze out discussion and cool concerns about global warming due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Thanks that's kind of what I was looking for and also what I generally assumed.
One slightly significant change I'd make to your assumptions is that you should factor in that we would want to get the energy for heating and transportation and industry also from the new electric power source (to replace fossil-fuel energy), so you might want to multiply your 3.5TW by anywhere from 5 to 10, depending on efficiency of conversion factors you assume. Also that's just today's consumption.
But your general point still stands.
I just want to point out that solar energy captured by most of these satellites would have missed the Earth otherwise.
So we would be adding extra energy to the Earth, energy which would degrade with use to, you guessed it, heat.
Has anyone done the math on this to see whether doing this would actually help in the effort to limit global warming?
I suspect that the added heat would be tiny compared to displaced fossil fuel-burning carbon emission heat-trapping, but just though someone should crunch the numbers to make sure we wouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot with this technology.
If the old-school telephone companies hired people to listen in to your phone calls then sold the info to the highest bidder.
Or the post office routinely steaming open the envelopes of your letters and selling the info, or using it to extort you.
If this sh*t ain't against the law it should be.
They're a common carrier and nothing more. Get off my lawn.
Maxwell's equations which specify how electromagnetism works have been a complete waste of research dollars; a fiasco that has never led to any technological improvement or profit.
And all that money wasted on medical research has never led to a single profitable technology, nor increase in quality or length of life, never mind to any insight into why the four humours continue to kill people like flies.
In related news, Larry has announced he is changing spelling of his name to more accurately describe his life's work:
Larry
W(rite)
O(nly)
L(anguage)
While I loved the repairing the cracked visor with duct tape scene, I have to say the repairing the blown out hatch with duct tape and polyethylene film stretched credulity to the breaking point.
We are to believe that patch could hold the difference between basically full vacuum and one Earth atmosphere air pressure.
Then why is the rest of the hab apparently made of apparently 3+ inch thick metal / carbon fibre or whatever?
Also, with an open hatch patched with a thick plastic bag, the heating system of the hab wouldn't be able to cope, and also the outside cold would probably render the affixing tape and polyethylene brittle and useless after a short time.
Other than that I agree it was an awesome hard sci-fi movie, with great plot, acting, and science.
In an international project?
Surely a few of them have a few dimes clinking around in their pockets?
Putting this conversation back at least partly into the nerd domain,
So, can anyone explain to me why the US government (top executive levels) doesn't have a standard secure e-mail communications system?
I honestly don't get it.
What exactly what you be attesting to if you sealed and signed off on your software.
Let's assume your software is reasonably large and complex (non-trivial).
Therefore, it is a given that your software has unknown bugs.
It is a given that you do not know in advance the effect of those unknown bugs on the system that the software will be operating.
Software is just like that.
The only thing I can think of that you would be signing would be that you had gone through:
Some sort of design process
Some sort of design review
Some sort of code review
Some sort (there are many possible sorts and scopes) of testing
Therefore, your non-trivial software will have unknown bugs, of unknown consequence.
Heck, it is probably even theoreticall impossible for you to know if your program will halt, given the inputs it is getting, never mind for you to know what value it will output when/if it 'halt's.
Good thing you didn't sign and seal that your program was correct and safe.
The arbitrary novelty and complexity, and exteme brittleness and fragility, of each unique piece of software, is why software engineering doesn't sign off on its work.
It would be a silly game from the start.
Not condoning the cheating, but there is another issue. Many Americans drive, as their family vehicle as well as work vehicle, "light" trucks (e.g. Dodge RAM 3500) and SUVs which have much larger Diesel engines in them than the ones being discussed in these VW cars.
What I've been told about the structure of the EPA regulations is that driving a much more polluting large Diesel pickup truck as your personal vehicle is allowed, but driving a relatively much more efficient and less polluting small European Diesel vehicle is not allowed.
Something is seriously messed up there.
When I ask google a question on my smartphone, and that pleasant female voice answers, I know google is not human, because no human would know as much.
It's a good thing you Americans aren't arrogant imperialist bastards, cause if you were, some people might take your sentiment the wrong way.
Thinking.
Can't you do that on your own time?
The Kolmogorov-Chaitin definition of random says something to the effect that if there is no process simpler/shorter than the process which produced the sequence/arrangement of events which could predict what that sequence/arrangement of events would have been (and would evolve to next), then the sequence/arrangement is random. It is equivalent to saying that the process which produced the sequence/arrangement is maximally complex.
So if there is a deterministic pattern but it (or its originaing/generating process) is complex enough to be inherently unpredictable, then it is random.
If a series of images is available and observer or target or intermediate objects are moving, occlusion will vary image to image and the nature of the delta portions should be highly informative for recognition. This requires an object/region re-identification subsystem.
Also, scene context statistics should be used, much as preceding utterances are used in speech recognition. Given that we've already recognized a situation type with this that and the other object-type in it in this (possibly dynamic) relation, what are the a priori probabilities for these other types of objects to occur in scene, and assess occluded objects against highest probability objects in situation type. Much more constrained/determined recognition problem in which pieces of objects might suffice to identify them.
So when the black hole evaporates by giving off Hawking radiation, who's to say the information (albeit all mixed together) isn't coming out in the particular spatio-temporal pattern of emanation of the radiation?
Sure, the radiation seems (and is effectively to any observer) random, but it is well known that a random bitstring (k-random bitstring) can encode information, and in fact can be the most compact encoding of information.
Random simply means you don't have the means or supplementary information to deduce/detect the pattern. It does not mean that no pattern is there.
Collectively insane, yes.
In denial, not willing to admit we've been destructive idiots, on balance.
Unwilling to be flexible or adaptable at slight cost.
Acting contrary to our best information.
Pretty much insane, or at least, societally addicted to profligate fossil fuel use.
I read some summaries of the science sometime around the early to mid 80s, and was on balance, quite convinced and concerned immediately. The basic physics of it is dead simple, if you got a B in science or better.
It's because organized, and particularly democratically organized groups of people seem generally socially incapable of acting on long-term, large-scale threats (threats which are abstract to most individual people.)
See "boiling frog" syndrome.
Perhaps you should have been more afraid when that guy was holding a gun to your head.
Because clearly you didn't take action, and they've removed some of your mental/emotional capability.
defn: science:
1) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
2) a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
The fact of the matter is, by your saying that scientists (the gatherers and interpreters of scientific knowledge) have no credibility with members of congress, you are implying that those members of congress don't understand nor care to understand the physical and natural world and how it works, and broader; don't care about the properties of systematically organized (and systematically verified) knowledge, no matter what the topic.
They are much more concerned with what they can convince people of by rhetoric and charm than with what is actually the case and what will actually work to improve things.
And that ny friend, while probably true, is fucking scary. Basically we have a bunch of people running the world who not only make up fairytales for a living but also have, themselves, no principled means of distinguishing fairytales from reality. What could possibly go wrong?