I share your point. But there is even worse, and I can't understand how nobody cares about it: even IF clean energy (look toward fusion reactors, more than air or water energy extracting devices, inefficient and costly) was to happen, it couldn't be a worse news regarding climate changes! Yes, green house effects are worrysome. But increasing the global energy (ie temperature!) of the planet would lead to boiling the oceans. Earth, as a system, shares intrants and emissions. One can suppose (hope?) that they are equal, and thus that the system equilibrium remains still. But cheap "clean energy" (ie not only re-introducing stock energy from the past, what we do nowadays burning oil and coal, but CREATING new sources) would put awry this equilibrium, and... Venus is at hand! 400C, for those who don't know...
You/we could say exactly the same about many other people in history. Maybe even one or more of your ancestors, which means that you would not be there, telling whoâ(TM)s in right to live. Just blow up your point to extremum: kill everybody on earth, and I guess there will be no more wars. Would you pay that price? Why should others do?
The fact is that the process described here, wich is not such a new hypothesis, extends itself to the relationship between words, the brain building permanently and in a parallel way plausible meanings for the sentence being read. The same occurs for letter recognition (see D. Hofstadter for that), and, more generally even, is a strong hypothesis for every pattern recognition. The main obstacle in understanding this way of functionning is the naive similarity between thinking and the flood of a river, with a"before" and an "after" spatialy divided. In fact, the brain working appears to be rather a mutual information and corrections interchange between neural networks, oscillating until they have "found" a state of equilibrium, i.e of less energy.
Slashdot Mirror
I share your point. But there is even worse, and I can't understand how nobody cares about it: even IF clean energy (look toward fusion reactors, more than air or water energy extracting devices, inefficient and costly) was to happen, it couldn't be a worse news regarding climate changes! Yes, green house effects are worrysome. But increasing the global energy (ie temperature!) of the planet would lead to boiling the oceans. Earth, as a system, shares intrants and emissions. One can suppose (hope?) that they are equal, and thus that the system equilibrium remains still. But cheap "clean energy" (ie not only re-introducing stock energy from the past, what we do nowadays burning oil and coal, but CREATING new sources) would put awry this equilibrium, and ... Venus is at hand! 400C, for those who don't know...
You/we could say exactly the same about many other people in history. Maybe even one or more of your ancestors, which means that you would not be there, telling whoâ(TM)s in right to live.
Just blow up your point to extremum: kill everybody on earth, and I guess there will be no more wars. Would you pay that price? Why should others do?
The fact is that the process described here, wich is not such a new hypothesis, extends itself to the relationship between words, the brain building permanently and in a parallel way plausible meanings for the sentence being read. The same occurs for letter recognition (see D. Hofstadter for that), and, more generally even, is a strong hypothesis for every pattern recognition. The main obstacle in understanding this way of functionning is the naive similarity between thinking and the flood of a river, with a"before" and an "after" spatialy divided. In fact, the brain working appears to be rather a mutual information and corrections interchange between neural networks, oscillating until they have "found" a state of equilibrium, i.e of less energy.