You don't. It's not really your job to go around investigating the options of every fantasy mythology, conspiracy theory, or untestable hogwash that comes your way. Religion doesn't offer a lick of evidence, well then boo-hoo for religion. I don't see any evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, it doesn't mean I should waste my time weighing the options. If there's no evidence and the claims are rather absurd then you don't accept it. A self-sacrificing zombie God who cleans away your inherited ancestral sins by sacrificing himself to himself, isn't worth your time.
I'm not an atheist because I believe there is no God. I'm an atheist because I realize the evidence for God is on par with the evidence for werewolves!
Nobody looks to science as a way to deny religion, science suggests that things need to make a reasonable case before they are accepted and religion has always failed to do that. Scientists don't typically go around rocking the boat about silly things the general population believes, it's hard to do and difficult and unrewarding. The fact that people believe false things typically doesn't cause much of an issue, when they tread on actual questions for science it's a problem, but typically it's just a nuisance at best.
The majority of scientists are not religious and openly agnostic and atheist in numbers on the order of ten times greater than the typical population. So people who are very concerned with the truth, don't accept religion much at all. There's something to take away from that, but it's certainly not what you'd think.
I don't know who this discordant "they" are but I don't think "they" really exist. As far as the militant new atheist movement goes, having the audacity to pay money to put words on buses that say things like 'it's okay to not believe in God', that's rather silly. The fact is the myth of discord is a myth. Atheists are really nice people for the most part, and the only people I've heard crying havoc and demanding that these vile attacks stop are preachers and the like. I mean, the most strident atheists seem to pretty much be saying that religion isn't true. Oh, the humanity!
The fact that many scientists are not strident anti-religion people has a lot more to do with typical atheists not being strident anti-religious people. As the evil anti-religious strident satanic atheist bus ad says "There's probably no God, now stop worrying and live your life." -- The fact that some people actually accept that should come as no shock.
The study seems to show that the manufactured claim of preachers that all these vile atheist scientists attacking religion is frankly wrong.
There are plenty of good scientific conclusions that disagree with religion, Noah's Ark isn't real, many of the books of the Bible are wrong and portray history entirely inaccurately, and claims about demons causing illnesses and the sun revolving around the earth are patently absurd. But, this isn't really what science is about. It hardly takes much science to find something that disagrees with scripture or some religious dogma, and pointing that out is hardly an attack on religion or seen as anti religious. Largely, people don't concern themselves that heavily with people who believe crap.
There's plenty of things in science that disagree with religion, but scientists don't really concern themselves with it that much. Woopti-doo. But, then taking this as a counter attack on faux boogie-man atheists like you seem to do is downright moronic. See you atheists who don't really spend all your time fighting religion, other atheists don't do that either... so there! This somehow magically proves that science agrees with religion! -- WTF mate?!?
Evolution is an algorithm as well as a way biology works. Evolution works quite well as an algorithm and you need not look too deep to find evolutionary algorithms and evolutionary programming or evolutionary design making real progress.
Frankly as far as this thing goes the use of evolution to create and repair the molecular circuits is the most useful part. The rest of it is pretty silly and crap you could model on an a computer and find out it doesn't work in a much shorter order.
Sure, this was the thing that held AI back for a decade. Frankly AI is pretty much stuck at the very start and has been since the very start. There's been some advances in expert systems but for the most part it's been a huge failure all the way through.
It has a lot more modern control things so you can shift click and queue up the activities, but it is absolutely true that the best players will always win by microing. A few hellions can destroy your zealot army no matter how huge it is if they are properly micro'ed. And reapers are untouchable still if the person controlling them has any good ability to micro. It has a lot more stuff to watch for via terrain and such now too. Reading Art of War is probably a pretty good idea with the way it's set up, and learning to micro is absolutely essential. If you don't click 20 times for every time your opponent clicks, you suck.
And there's something to the criticism that it's SC with updated graphics. There are certainly some very nice things added to it.
No. You could use anything from an efficient spinning wheel with a lot of potential energy and very little friction (think super heavy pottery wheel with an engagable generator/motor) to a super-conductive coil (or looped superconductive powerline) to just stash the energy for a bit. And these will almost certainly be more efficient.
The larger problems is that we don't have enough wind to care right now, and the problem of energy storage has nothing to do with wind. It's a modular problem that simply deals with electricity on the grid, if electricity storage is needed for the inconsistent power on the grid, then it's needed. The fact that it's needed for wind power isn't something of any consideration. Such problems should have a healthy amount of encapsulation.
The total amount of battery power on the planet could power our electrical needs for ten minutes. That's not enough. It's a problem, who cares where the power comes from. This crap reminds me of that stupid idea of building another power grid for renewable power so people could know the power they get is from renewable sources. WTF.
If compressed air works well as a battery it works well as a battery, my guess is that it almost certainly doesn't work well as a battery and the failure that is the air car is quite telling of that point. Even when you can control for everything (unlike a hole in the ground (see carbon capture)) you still can't compress and get power back at anything close to efficient enough to give it a second thought.
It's a bit like asking what compiles our compilers. And the answer turns out to be our compiles. Compilers do all the compiling of things needing to be compiled and when they need to compile something else on a different type of system, they are recoded and recompiled.
And it all very likely dates back to the one and only compiler that was written by hand and the 100,000 man hours that took to write.
Yeah, and when ever somebody says things like it's "a million lines of code", any good coder will think about how they could have done it in a hundred thousand.
Oh pisk, it's really just a conspiracy to generate a lot of power in Antarctica so I can blow up most of the cities of the world and blame Doctor Manhattan.
In reality until we need can start using some superconductors that aren't really fragile and still need to be really cold (which makes them contract a lot and break because again their fragile) nothing really awesome is going to be very practical. Though if real room temperature superconductors came around you could actually build such ships... though you wouldn't need Antarctica for anything.
Yeah, but that's with distributing the production. If we could transmit the power much better then we could centralize the production to a much greater extent rather than building the production so close to the consumption.
The improvements would trickle down to improve other things, like making a computer chip to better deal with heat. The improvement itself doesn't matter much for what it actually improves but it makes a lot of other things possible like not having power plants located in residential neighborhoods and making larger solar arrays way out in the boonies, etc.
How about a large amount of nuclear power plants located in Antarctica? We could heat the ice in standard water pressure reactors and use all of the power produced to charge up massive superconductive batteries that could be stored at room temperature (room temp in Antarctica) and basically consist of a loop of superconductive material. We could then take the large loops of superconductive material by ship to various locations and feed the power into the grid. We could ship electricity everywhere with power generators that are certainly NIMBY, safe, and with enough superconductive material able to provide a massive surplus of several years worth of the world's electricity.
So you could go to the shore, and pick up a coil or two of a lot of electricity (power lines could take it losslessly to the shore from the more inland nuclear power plants). You could with enough superconductive material build up as much of a surplus as needed. You could have ships that are largely just freezers and superconductors take the power anywhere in the world where it's needed.
When you move a laser faster the tail it produces is not markedly dimmer and sure the hell isn't 1/length dimmer. Seriously, have you tried it? I just did to double check, yeah, it looks just about as bright.
Calculating the general pixel number and supposing each pixel needs to be five million times as bright is just silly. By that logic we should be using a laser able to burn things to display a page worth or projection.
They run on the principle that your eyes do sort of keep that light on record. That's why the laser trails work (or monitors for that matter). And yeah, you need a bright enough light for long enough to get the desired brightness.
A nano-projector is a radically different technology than five million laser pointers.
If a spot is flashing light at you at a several times a second you see this as a consistent light. That or a lot of our displays are screwed.
The main problem currently is that if you move modern day nanoprojectors (which could run on cell phone batteries) to 15 feet, they maintain brightness but pixelate rather dramatically.
We can already run them even with the green-light hack at 15 feet on cellphone batteries. So I'm clearly not wrong there. And we're talking the future of technology here. Wider lasers, more scanning, dispersing the beam/increased brightness, etc. There are plenty of ways to fix pixelation and none of them would take 5million x laser pointer power.
How do you figure that nanoprojectors that works on about the same power as a laser-pointer to display a page size screen are going to need 5 million times as much power to display over an area 350 times larger?
Or how do you figure that a we have lasers some 60,000 times brighter than conventional laser pointers in tiny little boxes that run on batteries for hours on end?
Your brain really does put together flashing lights into a coherent picture. Rather than a single scanning line we run a single point of light. Please, do do that laser pointer thing you suggested. Then divide the area of the light you perceive over the supposed brightness. If you were right rather than see a tail you would see the laser dim out to nothing and be invisible.
It doesn't display the entire picture at the same time. It displays one pixel of the image. A laser pointer worth, and scans through the area change color. Doing so fast enough give the impressive of an organic image.
Most of the image is simply stored in your eye, much like zipping a laser pointer around gets some rather sudden streaking impression. That same concept with a laser scanning the area while changing colors does just fine.
The only thing we've really been missing is real green light. Though there are plenty of nanoprojectors already using the green-light hack.
Slashdot people tend to know a lot about technology, you may want to Google things before assuming their impossibility.
Well, nano-projectors will be really easy to make and will be tiny. Don't be too surprised if within a few years we can project a nice 15 foot image with our cellphones and have a crystal clear image of TV without needing any power. Which probably would kind of hurt if you stared into it (a fact that holds true for current projectors).
Nanoprojectors use a single spot of laser light and move it around fast enough that it creates an organic picture. Since it uses about the same power as a laser pointer, a cellphone is a fine platform for it.
So he's discovered the Phelps effect works in video games? That if you don't technically break a rule, but are a total jackass people don't like you. Gee. Who ever could have guess... um... everybody.
Two issues. First, that "needle gate" thing is just made up bullsh!t with absolutely no historical bearing at all and reading the text it seems pretty obvious that it means what it says. "Give away all your stuff and go off and preach".
Secondly, the word for "camel" in Aramaic is exactly the same as the word for rope: gmla. Further, the Greek words are kamilos ('camel') and kamÃlos ('rope').
So, made up shit vs. picking the wrong word when translating.
According to a number of Christian sites, in reality pi really does equal 3 and in the future we're going to get better mathematics that proves it. This would be a funny joke if it weren't really a sad reality.
At this time the Greeks had it down to 3.142 or so.
Not to nitpick but due to the failures of AI, not even AI programmers are AI programmers. At best they are expert systems programmers. Programming something that falls under the heading should make you part of the crowd. At least you have something to show for your work. There's plenty of folks with gray hair and a life dedicated to AI who have significantly less to show for it.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't. It's not really your job to go around investigating the options of every fantasy mythology, conspiracy theory, or untestable hogwash that comes your way. Religion doesn't offer a lick of evidence, well then boo-hoo for religion. I don't see any evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, it doesn't mean I should waste my time weighing the options. If there's no evidence and the claims are rather absurd then you don't accept it. A self-sacrificing zombie God who cleans away your inherited ancestral sins by sacrificing himself to himself, isn't worth your time.
I'm not an atheist because I believe there is no God. I'm an atheist because I realize the evidence for God is on par with the evidence for werewolves!
Nobody looks to science as a way to deny religion, science suggests that things need to make a reasonable case before they are accepted and religion has always failed to do that. Scientists don't typically go around rocking the boat about silly things the general population believes, it's hard to do and difficult and unrewarding. The fact that people believe false things typically doesn't cause much of an issue, when they tread on actual questions for science it's a problem, but typically it's just a nuisance at best.
The majority of scientists are not religious and openly agnostic and atheist in numbers on the order of ten times greater than the typical population. So people who are very concerned with the truth, don't accept religion much at all. There's something to take away from that, but it's certainly not what you'd think.
I don't know who this discordant "they" are but I don't think "they" really exist. As far as the militant new atheist movement goes, having the audacity to pay money to put words on buses that say things like 'it's okay to not believe in God', that's rather silly. The fact is the myth of discord is a myth. Atheists are really nice people for the most part, and the only people I've heard crying havoc and demanding that these vile attacks stop are preachers and the like. I mean, the most strident atheists seem to pretty much be saying that religion isn't true. Oh, the humanity!
The fact that many scientists are not strident anti-religion people has a lot more to do with typical atheists not being strident anti-religious people. As the evil anti-religious strident satanic atheist bus ad says "There's probably no God, now stop worrying and live your life." -- The fact that some people actually accept that should come as no shock.
The study seems to show that the manufactured claim of preachers that all these vile atheist scientists attacking religion is frankly wrong.
There are plenty of good scientific conclusions that disagree with religion, Noah's Ark isn't real, many of the books of the Bible are wrong and portray history entirely inaccurately, and claims about demons causing illnesses and the sun revolving around the earth are patently absurd. But, this isn't really what science is about. It hardly takes much science to find something that disagrees with scripture or some religious dogma, and pointing that out is hardly an attack on religion or seen as anti religious. Largely, people don't concern themselves that heavily with people who believe crap.
There's plenty of things in science that disagree with religion, but scientists don't really concern themselves with it that much. Woopti-doo. But, then taking this as a counter attack on faux boogie-man atheists like you seem to do is downright moronic. See you atheists who don't really spend all your time fighting religion, other atheists don't do that either... so there! This somehow magically proves that science agrees with religion! -- WTF mate?!?
Evolution is an algorithm as well as a way biology works. Evolution works quite well as an algorithm and you need not look too deep to find evolutionary algorithms and evolutionary programming or evolutionary design making real progress.
Frankly as far as this thing goes the use of evolution to create and repair the molecular circuits is the most useful part. The rest of it is pretty silly and crap you could model on an a computer and find out it doesn't work in a much shorter order.
Sure, this was the thing that held AI back for a decade. Frankly AI is pretty much stuck at the very start and has been since the very start. There's been some advances in expert systems but for the most part it's been a huge failure all the way through.
It has a lot more modern control things so you can shift click and queue up the activities, but it is absolutely true that the best players will always win by microing. A few hellions can destroy your zealot army no matter how huge it is if they are properly micro'ed. And reapers are untouchable still if the person controlling them has any good ability to micro. It has a lot more stuff to watch for via terrain and such now too. Reading Art of War is probably a pretty good idea with the way it's set up, and learning to micro is absolutely essential. If you don't click 20 times for every time your opponent clicks, you suck.
And there's something to the criticism that it's SC with updated graphics. There are certainly some very nice things added to it.
No. You could use anything from an efficient spinning wheel with a lot of potential energy and very little friction (think super heavy pottery wheel with an engagable generator/motor) to a super-conductive coil (or looped superconductive powerline) to just stash the energy for a bit. And these will almost certainly be more efficient.
The larger problems is that we don't have enough wind to care right now, and the problem of energy storage has nothing to do with wind. It's a modular problem that simply deals with electricity on the grid, if electricity storage is needed for the inconsistent power on the grid, then it's needed. The fact that it's needed for wind power isn't something of any consideration. Such problems should have a healthy amount of encapsulation.
The total amount of battery power on the planet could power our electrical needs for ten minutes. That's not enough. It's a problem, who cares where the power comes from. This crap reminds me of that stupid idea of building another power grid for renewable power so people could know the power they get is from renewable sources. WTF.
If compressed air works well as a battery it works well as a battery, my guess is that it almost certainly doesn't work well as a battery and the failure that is the air car is quite telling of that point. Even when you can control for everything (unlike a hole in the ground (see carbon capture)) you still can't compress and get power back at anything close to efficient enough to give it a second thought.
You replace it with something else. I recommend singing "It's a small world..."
It's a bit like asking what compiles our compilers. And the answer turns out to be our compiles. Compilers do all the compiling of things needing to be compiled and when they need to compile something else on a different type of system, they are recoded and recompiled.
And it all very likely dates back to the one and only compiler that was written by hand and the 100,000 man hours that took to write.
Yeah, and when ever somebody says things like it's
"a million lines of code", any good coder will think about how they could have done it in a hundred thousand.
I don't know, if the Star Wars holiday Special existed it would probably be as terrible as the chemistry between Padmé and Anakin if they existed.
I've always though it strange that Highlander went from 1 to 3,4,5.
Nah the two that really look similar are "A" and "A" -- Damn you identity principle.
Yeah, the only thing about a font that wou1d make code more readab1e is making 'l' and '1' not look like the same thing. Everything e1se is icing.
Oh pisk, it's really just a conspiracy to generate a lot of power in Antarctica so I can blow up most of the cities of the world and blame Doctor Manhattan.
In reality until we need can start using some superconductors that aren't really fragile and still need to be really cold (which makes them contract a lot and break because again their fragile) nothing really awesome is going to be very practical. Though if real room temperature superconductors came around you could actually build such ships... though you wouldn't need Antarctica for anything.
Yeah, but that's with distributing the production. If we could transmit the power much better then we could centralize the production to a much greater extent rather than building the production so close to the consumption.
The improvements would trickle down to improve other things, like making a computer chip to better deal with heat. The improvement itself doesn't matter much for what it actually improves but it makes a lot of other things possible like not having power plants located in residential neighborhoods and making larger solar arrays way out in the boonies, etc.
How about a large amount of nuclear power plants located in Antarctica? We could heat the ice in standard water pressure reactors and use all of the power produced to charge up massive superconductive batteries that could be stored at room temperature (room temp in Antarctica) and basically consist of a loop of superconductive material. We could then take the large loops of superconductive material by ship to various locations and feed the power into the grid. We could ship electricity everywhere with power generators that are certainly NIMBY, safe, and with enough superconductive material able to provide a massive surplus of several years worth of the world's electricity.
So you could go to the shore, and pick up a coil or two of a lot of electricity (power lines could take it losslessly to the shore from the more inland nuclear power plants). You could with enough superconductive material build up as much of a surplus as needed. You could have ships that are largely just freezers and superconductors take the power anywhere in the world where it's needed.
When you move a laser faster the tail it produces is not markedly dimmer and sure the hell isn't 1/length dimmer. Seriously, have you tried it? I just did to double check, yeah, it looks just about as bright.
Calculating the general pixel number and supposing each pixel needs to be five million times as bright is just silly. By that logic we should be using a laser able to burn things to display a page worth or projection.
They run on the principle that your eyes do sort of keep that light on record. That's why the laser trails work (or monitors for that matter). And yeah, you need a bright enough light for long enough to get the desired brightness.
A nano-projector is a radically different technology than five million laser pointers.
If a spot is flashing light at you at a several times a second you see this as a consistent light. That or a lot of our displays are screwed.
The main problem currently is that if you move modern day nanoprojectors (which could run on cell phone batteries) to 15 feet, they maintain brightness but pixelate rather dramatically.
We can already run them even with the green-light hack at 15 feet on cellphone batteries. So I'm clearly not wrong there. And we're talking the future of technology here. Wider lasers, more scanning, dispersing the beam/increased brightness, etc. There are plenty of ways to fix pixelation and none of them would take 5million x laser pointer power.
How do you figure that nanoprojectors that works on about the same power as a laser-pointer to display a page size screen are going to need 5 million times as much power to display over an area 350 times larger?
Or how do you figure that a we have lasers some 60,000 times brighter than conventional laser pointers in tiny little boxes that run on batteries for hours on end?
Your brain really does put together flashing lights into a coherent picture. Rather than a single scanning line we run a single point of light. Please, do do that laser pointer thing you suggested. Then divide the area of the light you perceive over the supposed brightness. If you were right rather than see a tail you would see the laser dim out to nothing and be invisible.
It doesn't display the entire picture at the same time. It displays one pixel of the image. A laser pointer worth, and scans through the area change color. Doing so fast enough give the impressive of an organic image.
Most of the image is simply stored in your eye, much like zipping a laser pointer around gets some rather sudden streaking impression. That same concept with a laser scanning the area while changing colors does just fine.
The only thing we've really been missing is real green light. Though there are plenty of nanoprojectors already using the green-light hack.
Slashdot people tend to know a lot about technology, you may want to Google things before assuming their impossibility.
Well, nano-projectors will be really easy to make and will be tiny. Don't be too surprised if within a few years we can project a nice 15 foot image with our cellphones and have a crystal clear image of TV without needing any power. Which probably would kind of hurt if you stared into it (a fact that holds true for current projectors).
Nanoprojectors use a single spot of laser light and move it around fast enough that it creates an organic picture. Since it uses about the same power as a laser pointer, a cellphone is a fine platform for it.
So he's discovered the Phelps effect works in video games? That if you don't technically break a rule, but are a total jackass people don't like you. Gee. Who ever could have guess... um... everybody.
ASCII 13 was a break... breaks are not conducive to effective condoms.
Two issues. First, that "needle gate" thing is just made up bullsh!t with absolutely no historical bearing at all and reading the text it seems pretty obvious that it means what it says. "Give away all your stuff and go off and preach".
Secondly, the word for "camel" in Aramaic is exactly the same as the word for rope: gmla. Further, the Greek words are kamilos ('camel') and kamÃlos ('rope').
So, made up shit vs. picking the wrong word when translating.
According to a number of Christian sites, in reality pi really does equal 3 and in the future we're going to get better mathematics that proves it. This would be a funny joke if it weren't really a sad reality.
At this time the Greeks had it down to 3.142 or so.
The Bible says Pi = 3, in the 1st Kings (7:23). That's OT, not NT.
Not to nitpick but due to the failures of AI, not even AI programmers are AI programmers. At best they are expert systems programmers. Programming something that falls under the heading should make you part of the crowd. At least you have something to show for your work. There's plenty of folks with gray hair and a life dedicated to AI who have significantly less to show for it.