Google's primary purpose is information? I don't think so.
Google is a business, and that means that it's primary purpose is to make money so that the business can continue to exist.The fact that Google provides very accurate search results is what makes it so attractive to advertisers.
Their "actual" business plan is to make a ton of money. Period.
The suits are actually nowhere near sterile. Normally, at least when dealing with shuttle operations, they're stored in the airlock, just hanging there. Putting them on is no robot-assisted, hands free task either; you're usually talking two people to get into a suit: the person wearing it, and their assistant. In space (microgravity) it's possible, if you're good, to get into a suit yourself, but its not easy by any means.
Anyway, once you're into the suit, you can head out into space/whereever. Of course, the exterior of that suit is probably lousy with contaminants, so that's not such a good idea if you're looking for bacteria or whatnot on the planet.
You could probably use some sort of cleaning solution, but given the ridges and folds, not to mention the binding and connection points on the suit, you'd probably miss some spots or even worse, get liquid that could (perhaps) freeze in a joint or seam. Something like that happening near the helmet or glove attachment point could be very bad news.
Finally, lets not forget that taking enough of those chemicals to sterilize the suit everytime you go out could get both very heavy AND very expensive.
Okay, it was wierd when companies changed their names to titles that mean nothing (Altria) or just started naming them incomprehensibly (Zyprexa), but now we have SOFTWARE that has a name that is following the same trend. What's next?
I love the idea of expanding space exploration, and it has a good chance of bi-partisan support, but with the already grossly engorged nation budget, how in the hell are we going to fund something like this? Just plunge deeper into debt?
Furthermore, I haven't seen much to address the management issues at NASA being done...this could wind up going very, very wrong.
I'm curious as to the power draw and commercial applicability, at least in the neart term. That is, how much power would a tool like this draw, how many shots would be required to destroy, say, a gleoblastoma in a patient's brain, and exactly how precise is it? That is, how deep can it be tuned, and does it have difficulty say, affecting marrow through the bone?
Nonetheless, very interesting preliminary work!
Is if they released this not as a cartridge but as one of these! and as a ROM. That way, you get all the Homestar Runner goodness you crave, PLUS being able to play it on your TV at home.
AOL is actually doing something that may result in the 'net becoming a better place? Talk about Shock and Awe! Alas, I seriously doubt it's out of the kindness of their corporate heart...more likely, it's because they're desperate to do something to improve the appearance of their customer service and corporate image.
Nonetheless, this does have the potential to be of benefit to denizens of the net, at least in the short term. Plus, it's fun to watch the evil corporation track down the people breaking their TOS.
http://www.leapfrog.com isn't strictly an educational website, but a supplement to Leapfrog's educational toys.
I hooked my little brothers up with some of Leapfrog's toys, and they seem pretty impressed with them. Plus, they age well since you can update them with new questions, games, puzzles, and whatnot. Granted, the actual toys themselves are pretty pricey, but it's a decent investment, particularly for children under 6.
Additionally, you might also take a look at http://www.kidsdomain.com/games/
I don't know about that; proving the injurous effect afterwards can have tragic consequences. The "Thalidomide" epidemic, for instance, leaps to mind as an example of proving something is bad after the fact. I doubt many of those parents would be sympathetic to corporate cries of "We didn't know! There was no proof!"
As for holding back on medicine to make sure it's totally safe, there's no such thing as absolute safety. However, as decent human beings we have a responsibility to ensure that a given product or service is as safe as is humanly possible.
Look, merely because all of the potential positive effects of nanotechnology are being extolled by supporters doesn't mean that micro scale objects pose no health threats.
Considering the emphasis that the EPA and environmental organizations are putting on the health hazards of particulate matter, it's a good idea to examine the potential problems here.
Some might argue that nanotech particles would be too small to pose a significant threat, but something that small could easily work it's way into structures in the human body previously accessible only by other types of cells. I don't know about you, but I shudder to think of the potential damage that could be done to the air sacs in lungs just from breathing in "clouds" of these structures, even if benign.
I'm not saying that nanotech is bad; just that thinking of it as totally benign is foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
I was so worried about their financial well being! I'm nearly out of coasters.
Of course, you could argue that in the current business climate, my statement is accurate.
Google is a business, and that means that it's primary purpose is to make money so that the business can continue to exist.The fact that Google provides very accurate search results is what makes it so attractive to advertisers.
Their "actual" business plan is to make a ton of money. Period.
Anyway, once you're into the suit, you can head out into space/whereever. Of course, the exterior of that suit is probably lousy with contaminants, so that's not such a good idea if you're looking for bacteria or whatnot on the planet.
You could probably use some sort of cleaning solution, but given the ridges and folds, not to mention the binding and connection points on the suit, you'd probably miss some spots or even worse, get liquid that could (perhaps) freeze in a joint or seam. Something like that happening near the helmet or glove attachment point could be very bad news.
Finally, lets not forget that taking enough of those chemicals to sterilize the suit everytime you go out could get both very heavy AND very expensive.
Okay, it was wierd when companies changed their names to titles that mean nothing (Altria) or just started naming them incomprehensibly (Zyprexa), but now we have SOFTWARE that has a name that is following the same trend. What's next?
It's cool, Project Prometheus is in a secure, undisclosed location.
I love the idea of expanding space exploration, and it has a good chance of bi-partisan support, but with the already grossly engorged nation budget, how in the hell are we going to fund something like this? Just plunge deeper into debt? Furthermore, I haven't seen much to address the management issues at NASA being done...this could wind up going very, very wrong.
I'm curious as to the power draw and commercial applicability, at least in the neart term. That is, how much power would a tool like this draw, how many shots would be required to destroy, say, a gleoblastoma in a patient's brain, and exactly how precise is it? That is, how deep can it be tuned, and does it have difficulty say, affecting marrow through the bone? Nonetheless, very interesting preliminary work!
Try "Popcorn Eyeglasses", "Puppy Helmet" or "Pandora Tomorrow". Cheers to Penny-Arcade.
I meant as one of these: http://www.thinkgeek.com/cubegoodies/toys/5d39 My kingdom for an edit feature!
Is if they released this not as a cartridge but as one of these! and as a ROM. That way, you get all the Homestar Runner goodness you crave, PLUS being able to play it on your TV at home.
AOL is actually doing something that may result in the 'net becoming a better place? Talk about Shock and Awe! Alas, I seriously doubt it's out of the kindness of their corporate heart...more likely, it's because they're desperate to do something to improve the appearance of their customer service and corporate image.
Nonetheless, this does have the potential to be of benefit to denizens of the net, at least in the short term. Plus, it's fun to watch the evil corporation track down the people breaking their TOS.
http://www.leapfrog.com isn't strictly an educational website, but a supplement to Leapfrog's educational toys. I hooked my little brothers up with some of Leapfrog's toys, and they seem pretty impressed with them. Plus, they age well since you can update them with new questions, games, puzzles, and whatnot. Granted, the actual toys themselves are pretty pricey, but it's a decent investment, particularly for children under 6. Additionally, you might also take a look at http://www.kidsdomain.com/games/
I don't know about that; proving the injurous effect afterwards can have tragic consequences. The "Thalidomide" epidemic, for instance, leaps to mind as an example of proving something is bad after the fact. I doubt many of those parents would be sympathetic to corporate cries of "We didn't know! There was no proof!" As for holding back on medicine to make sure it's totally safe, there's no such thing as absolute safety. However, as decent human beings we have a responsibility to ensure that a given product or service is as safe as is humanly possible.
Look, merely because all of the potential positive effects of nanotechnology are being extolled by supporters doesn't mean that micro scale objects pose no health threats. Considering the emphasis that the EPA and environmental organizations are putting on the health hazards of particulate matter, it's a good idea to examine the potential problems here. Some might argue that nanotech particles would be too small to pose a significant threat, but something that small could easily work it's way into structures in the human body previously accessible only by other types of cells. I don't know about you, but I shudder to think of the potential damage that could be done to the air sacs in lungs just from breathing in "clouds" of these structures, even if benign. I'm not saying that nanotech is bad; just that thinking of it as totally benign is foolish.