The research into castratos was specifically to see if similar patterns were seen in humans
Yes, but as I wrote above the group is already selected for those robust enough to survive the process without modern medicine which makes it more difficult to conclude whether longevity was due to the castration or if they would have lived longer than average in the first place.
We don't know what to do since we can only define AI by results at this point so we really don't know if it is far fetched or not. We don't have mechanical models of how thinking happens or alternative models of how to do it another way.
I can see AI happening the same way "hoverboards" and "nanotech" have happened - redefine to something a hell of a lot easier and then say that AI has "happened". We may see some "top-down AI" with a lot of lookup tables (or definable lookup tables such as "neural nets") acting as a modern mechanical turk with a superficial appearance of intelligence instead of something that can actually deduce or reason. With good fallbacks that may be useful just as a "hoverboard" can move people around even though it can't actually hover.
It only just hit me today why he did the symbol thing and why it actually makes sense. It was a stupid trademark fight with his record company fucking him over every time he wanted to use his stage name and the symbol plus "formerly known" was his way of telling them to go fuck themselves. At the time it just seemed stupid. In hindsight after hearing more about the record industry it actually sounds like it was a good thing to do.
Roads do need to be kept in condition for these things to work so it's worth considering those costs as well when comparing to other forms of transport such as rail, trams and weird chairlift pod things that sound less stupid every day. "Just add X to the roads we have" doesn't consider the long term and may not be the best choice, especially when it's time to try to add more road capacity.
the lifespans of choir castratos versus the unmodified monks
That's selecting for a group with the ability to have recovered from a major injury without the benefit of modern medicine versus the general population. Too many variables to assume it's all down to testicles especially since the death toll from castration was not low.
Bulls versus bullocks today would be a real comparison.
He probably read some Heinlein or Doc Smith written back when the early UN and earlier league of nations looked as if they might lead to a world government. Those guys had hope and an excuse - we have an example with some hard learned lessons as to how hard it would be and why we wouldn't want it in the first place. A mix of nepotism and global control would be a nightmare for all but a few.
I suggest you find out a little bit about how such models have been produced and how they are continually being improved and you will be better able to follow the discussion.
Sorry I didn't realise that you were the above poster who I replied to and thought it was a "drive by" bit of criticism.
My poor attempt at humour was about a cartoon dog named "snoopy" which tied into your line "protect engines against... dogs" - the dog "snoopy" was frequently pretending to be in flying WW1 "dogfights" with the Red Baron and frequently lost, using the line "Curse you Red Baron!" a few hundred times over the run of the cartoon. It's become a popular culture thing or at least it was when people read newspapers.
That article is TV weather guy 101 and not "Science 101". I suggest broadening your horizons instead of reguritating over-simplified lies to children.
His error bar bit is about accusing scientists of doing less than high school level science just because they have not included the noise along with data. Of course it's going to cause some angry shouts.
It's like accusing a fully dressed high school student of forgetting to put on their underwear like a toddler just because you can't see it from the outside.
What modifications of human industrial/consumption/energy behavior would you recommend for each of these cases, given that which is actually the case is not determinable? Implicit in this is the question of what the "right temperature" would be.
That's a political question not a science one. The science is still being ignored in order for the lazy to avoid taking responsibility for answering the political question.
How's this for a stupid conspiracy theory - Margaret Thatcher believed the experts with climate change - perhaps she destroyed the industrial economy of the UK in order to cut down on energy use! Of course reality was far less reasoned and more grubby and her transition from a UK manufacturing economy to a London based financial services economy was about rewarding donors and cronies.
I suspect what will happen is private enterprise reacting and politics taking the credit after the fact. Price gouging by electricity companies and other factors is already driving a reduction in consumption.
It's an important data point because among other things it ties in with the recent widespread coral bleaching event.
The current models are often insanely complex
Yet apparently still able to be understood and debunked by economists and bug-eyed sudoko puzzle composers. Funny how a game gets played both ways in order to deny reality. Either it's so simple we don't need the experts or it's too complicated for the experts but the science deniers are claiming both!
A bolt hitting one of those blades at speed is likely to do enough damage to crack off one of the blades and cause a cascading failure that is unlikely to be contained inside the engine (google QF-32 for what failed blades can do).
If these waste annihilating reactors can do what they claim
Third parties and clueless fanboys are claiming a lot more than anyone who knows anything about these reactors are claiming. They get more out of spent fuel and expired weapon materials than other reactor designs. It's not remotely close to a solution to some other high level waste, most medium level waste or any low level waste. So not an imaginary magic wand just another real thing in the toolbox.
It's not very active stuff, so no. Nuclear waste covers a very wide range between dangerous enough to keep away from people to active enough to actually be useful as fuel. The less active stuff, which is by far the majority, is not all that difficult to deal with it still requires some attention despite some people pretending it does not exist.
The "there is no waste only fuel" people are cynical tricksters selling something.
Every other device has grills, why not jet engines?
Way too hot for even George Foreman to cook on that grill.
More seriously a grille cuts down on air flow, adds drag, adds weight and adds an extra failure mode. A 1950s jet engine can be hooked up to generate 20MW of electricity FFS so the more recent ones move vast amounts of air so that grille would have to be able to take a lot of force so would be heavy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but as I wrote above the group is already selected for those robust enough to survive the process without modern medicine which makes it more difficult to conclude whether longevity was due to the castration or if they would have lived longer than average in the first place.
The record company put restrictions on when and where he could use his stage name of "Prince".
He sidestepped that with the "formerly known as" label.
We don't know what to do since we can only define AI by results at this point so we really don't know if it is far fetched or not.
We don't have mechanical models of how thinking happens or alternative models of how to do it another way.
I can see AI happening the same way "hoverboards" and "nanotech" have happened - redefine to something a hell of a lot easier and then say that AI has "happened". We may see some "top-down AI" with a lot of lookup tables (or definable lookup tables such as "neural nets") acting as a modern mechanical turk with a superficial appearance of intelligence instead of something that can actually deduce or reason. With good fallbacks that may be useful just as a "hoverboard" can move people around even though it can't actually hover.
It only just hit me today why he did the symbol thing and why it actually makes sense.
It was a stupid trademark fight with his record company fucking him over every time he wanted to use his stage name and the symbol plus "formerly known" was his way of telling them to go fuck themselves.
At the time it just seemed stupid. In hindsight after hearing more about the record industry it actually sounds like it was a good thing to do.
I'll put it more strongly - if your English teacher read that they would cry.
Lithium batteries can be fuel but they burn pretty quickly :)
Otherwise it's just doubleplusungood word redefinition games.
Roads do need to be kept in condition for these things to work so it's worth considering those costs as well when comparing to other forms of transport such as rail, trams and weird chairlift pod things that sound less stupid every day.
"Just add X to the roads we have" doesn't consider the long term and may not be the best choice, especially when it's time to try to add more road capacity.
That's selecting for a group with the ability to have recovered from a major injury without the benefit of modern medicine versus the general population. Too many variables to assume it's all down to testicles especially since the death toll from castration was not low.
Bulls versus bullocks today would be a real comparison.
He probably read some Heinlein or Doc Smith written back when the early UN and earlier league of nations looked as if they might lead to a world government. Those guys had hope and an excuse - we have an example with some hard learned lessons as to how hard it would be and why we wouldn't want it in the first place. A mix of nepotism and global control would be a nightmare for all but a few.
The link isn't really worth a summary, but I'll try.
Given a variable speed of light and a different theory of momentum maybe it could all make sense.
Would you bother to even click on the link if that's all it leads to?
While active that stuff is nowhere up to the level of being usable as fuel - hence it it waste.
Two things - I spoke in very simple terms about nuclear waste in general, and you are citing a business fucking magazine for fucks sake?
I suggest you find out a little bit about how such models have been produced and how they are continually being improved and you will be better able to follow the discussion.
Sorry I didn't realise that you were the above poster who I replied to and thought it was a "drive by" bit of criticism.
... dogs" - the dog "snoopy" was frequently pretending to be in flying WW1 "dogfights" with the Red Baron and frequently lost, using the line "Curse you Red Baron!" a few hundred times over the run of the cartoon. It's become a popular culture thing or at least it was when people read newspapers.
My poor attempt at humour was about a cartoon dog named "snoopy" which tied into your line "protect engines against
That article is TV weather guy 101 and not "Science 101".
I suggest broadening your horizons instead of reguritating over-simplified lies to children.
His error bar bit is about accusing scientists of doing less than high school level science just because they have not included the noise along with data. Of course it's going to cause some angry shouts.
It's like accusing a fully dressed high school student of forgetting to put on their underwear like a toddler just because you can't see it from the outside.
That's a political question not a science one. The science is still being ignored in order for the lazy to avoid taking responsibility for answering the political question.
How's this for a stupid conspiracy theory - Margaret Thatcher believed the experts with climate change - perhaps she destroyed the industrial economy of the UK in order to cut down on energy use! Of course reality was far less reasoned and more grubby and her transition from a UK manufacturing economy to a London based financial services economy was about rewarding donors and cronies.
I suspect what will happen is private enterprise reacting and politics taking the credit after the fact. Price gouging by electricity companies and other factors is already driving a reduction in consumption.
Yet apparently still able to be understood and debunked by economists and bug-eyed sudoko puzzle composers. Funny how a game gets played both ways in order to deny reality. Either it's so simple we don't need the experts or it's too complicated for the experts but the science deniers are claiming both!
A bolt hitting one of those blades at speed is likely to do enough damage to crack off one of the blades and cause a cascading failure that is unlikely to be contained inside the engine (google QF-32 for what failed blades can do).
Third parties and clueless fanboys are claiming a lot more than anyone who knows anything about these reactors are claiming. They get more out of spent fuel and expired weapon materials than other reactor designs. It's not remotely close to a solution to some other high level waste, most medium level waste or any low level waste.
So not an imaginary magic wand just another real thing in the toolbox.
It's not very active stuff, so no. Nuclear waste covers a very wide range between dangerous enough to keep away from people to active enough to actually be useful as fuel. The less active stuff, which is by far the majority, is not all that difficult to deal with it still requires some attention despite some people pretending it does not exist.
The "there is no waste only fuel" people are cynical tricksters selling something.
Since you are arguing AGAINST supply meeting demand I think your idea of "basic economics" is most definitely something else, such as magic.
So a kid too young to remember Charlie Brown is evangelising in my face for some weird reason on his dad's slashdot account?
Curse you Red Baron!
Way too hot for even George Foreman to cook on that grill.
More seriously a grille cuts down on air flow, adds drag, adds weight and adds an extra failure mode. A 1950s jet engine can be hooked up to generate 20MW of electricity FFS so the more recent ones move vast amounts of air so that grille would have to be able to take a lot of force so would be heavy.
It should be pretty obvious unless there are some iron eagles flying around.