Its metallicness was lost, and the actual hydrogen likely escaped the room in the process.
Now, how something that requires that much diamond-shattering pressure to exist in the first place will be revolutionizing anything in the consumer space before every boomer on the planet is dead, that's some hyperbole that's lost on me.
The paper said that aerodynamics are unable to explain how bumblebees fly. There were no equations at the time (may still not be) that would allow wings that small to generate enough lift to hold the bee in the air - they're using properties of turbulence and other less well understood fluid dynamics to get their lift.
I'd say that peer review is a misnomer - if you can't replicate the experiment, you're not a peer.
Not saying that all peer reviewers should replicate the experiments before approving articles for publication, but I am saying that if they are truly incapable of replicating the experiment, then they have no place judging the fitness for publication.
This would leave the "top labs" in the world "peerless" - and they could be published in separate "peerless" sections of respected publications - get their studies out faster, and encourage other labs to come up to speed in reproducing the experiments so as to both validate their results and bring up the capabilities of labs worldwide.
I think your unintentional double negative is actually forming a reasonable conclusion: chaos, upheaval, relative stability due to tidal locking, all of these may very well combine to create an environment in which self-replicating processes thrive and evolve. The garden of Eden? Definitely not, but the creatures that evolve there might have equally horrific visions of what living in a bath of aggressive bipolar solvent would do to them.
Oops, sorry, it was actually the civilization living _on_ the star periodically drawing excess power that made it look like 7 small planets circling it. The environment of the dwarf star being uniquely suited to formation of stable magnetic loop plasma codons which have evolved over the millenia much like our DNA to support a diverse ecosystem of creatures that live on the surface exploiting the temperature differential between the surface and space to perpetuate their growth, locomotion, reproduction and evolution.
Strong "manned" culture at NASA, Venus is not a near-term target for manned missions.
Agreed, JPL should be doing more science missions there, and I agree with Stephen Hawking's assessment of how much of GDP we should be spending on space exploration - but Congress doesn't.
Computer screens mess with some people differently than others. SADD is a thing, and some people living north of the Arctic Circle have a major challenge with winter, others aren't so bothered by the noon-time night.
If you have a highly sensitive "blue light neuro-regulation" system, then, yeah, wear the LED visors if there's not enough light in your life, block the blues when you need to. I suspect there are more actual gluten-sensitive people in the world than actual blue-light sensitives.
I have a pair of amber tinted glasses - meh. Blue light, schmoo light. Like any other light filter, it dilates the pupils a little, narrows the focal depth of field, seems a little more relaxed - calming. In the outdoors, there is arguably more "excess blue light" or, put another way, the blue light contains less useful information than other colors - which is why your eyes are less sensitive to it in the first place.
If the color balance on your computer monitor isn't to your liking - adjust it, they almost all have these nifty settings you can dig into to set the screen to various color mixes.
Those landers that went to Venus and died after minutes on the ground are a big part of Venus' PR problem - who wants to fund a(nother) flame-out probe that costs a billion dollars and sends back 90 seconds of video before dying. Even if we "beat the Russians" and make a lander that lasts 10x as long, that's not even two news cycles.
The gas giants feel more predictable, especially further out, mostly due to the lack of solar energy input. The resources are quite bland, and the gravity wells are deep - perhaps better to try their moons. One assumption is that if we're doing anything like this, we've cracked the next generation of energy sources (fusion?) beyond fission, so lack of solar power shouldn't be an issue.
The tiny viewing area is what ruins it for me as well. Big and bulky I can understand, but a total lack of peripheral vision input is just killing the experience. You're looking around inside a sphere with a window that maybe covers 3% of it (think about it: 45x45 degrees is 1/8 of the horizontal and 1/4 of the vertical, or 1/32 of the whole.) It's a cool toy for looking at specific stuff, but it's far from an immersive experience.
Probably better to get some kind of cloud city working on Earth before attempting to go trans-solar-system with the concept. By the altitude Venus' atmosphere is more dense than Earth's, it's also highly corrosive.
Jupiter is a little too active for my taste, but perhaps Neptune or Uranus might have some attractive latitudes at which to float a city, assuming you bring your own power sources and don't rely on the sun.
How expensive would the PR fiasco of a crew death on return to the moon 50 years later be?
Apollo had its problems, but all in all, it was a very lucky program with far fewer deaths than it should have had, considering the risks that were being taken.
Sure, we can do it safer today - safer takes more time and money. Apollo was consuming money quickly, but it ran such a short span of years that it really didn't have a chance to match the budget of a modern "safer" program.
We should shred corporate taxes on income that is reinvested in a reasonable timeframe.
Corporate income that gets banked to the level of tens of billions of dollars for upwards of a decade is completely detrimental to the economy as a whole.
One less asshole in the hiring market does not make employment worse for the employed.
If there's a need for the products or services, another employer will spring up and fill the gap. If the new employer doesn't manage his people like a petulant child tyrant, so much the better.
I call BS on "US pay is higher" - anytime I've looked to move overseas, the pay was equivocal. Of course, "The US" is large and diverse, and I am comparing Florida pay to Germany or Auckland NZ. Houston pay is indeed higher than Florida, but so are their cancer rates.
Smart machines are already much better at tasks I used to do by hand.
In the 1980s I was hand-writing 6502 assembly code. I don't do that anymore. I don't even know how most of the current Skylake, et. al. x86 instruction sets work - smart machines do that for me.
I used to hand-code instructions to 16550 UART chips to feed data across RS-232 lines, I handled the framing, timing, response to interrupt when the 16 byte buffer was ready for more data, etc. Today I'm issuing packets to AMQP exchanges that distribute them over TCP/IP, my data doesn't just travel across the room, it's distributed globally, and "smart machines" handle a half dozen protocol layers between my data and the kind of things I used to program the 16550 chips to do.
People built those "robots" in the last 20 years, and because of them we're all doing more, with less work. (let's not even get into the contrast between/. and the BBS code I wrote to run over a 300 baud modem...)
Gates doesn't miss this point. He's got his billions, nobody's going to "claw back" all his money in retroactive taxes. What he's trying to say is that the next generation of multi-billionaires need to give more back up front, instead of getting to make the world's largest pile of cash and then attempting to figure out where to give away 10% of it before they die.
Society still can't afford to give them the care that they need, but with robots that care can become so much less expensive that what they can get will become better.
No, and yes. Society _can_ afford quality medical care, the delivery and compensation model in the U.S. is just so utterly twisted, inbred and corrupt that it only appears like we can't afford basic healthcare for everyone. Can every IED victim have a copy of the latest most highly developed prosthetics? No, but if we develop that tech in a responsible manner, maybe 2% of them can, and the other 98% can benefit from the much more highly developed, refined, and cost optimized 5-10 year old designs. The same goes for advanced care across the board - yes, it should be developed, no, we should not all be trying the latest theoretical cure for our incurable cancer when we might possibly benefit from it, or not - that's one of many problems with new med-tech - limited availability, unknown outcomes, astronomical costs, etc.
Will robots drive medical care costs down? Yes, but not nearly as fast as our current insanity of a care delivery and insurance system is spiraling costs upward.
Slashdot Mirror
Its metallicness was lost, and the actual hydrogen likely escaped the room in the process.
Now, how something that requires that much diamond-shattering pressure to exist in the first place will be revolutionizing anything in the consumer space before every boomer on the planet is dead, that's some hyperbole that's lost on me.
The paper said that aerodynamics are unable to explain how bumblebees fly. There were no equations at the time (may still not be) that would allow wings that small to generate enough lift to hold the bee in the air - they're using properties of turbulence and other less well understood fluid dynamics to get their lift.
I'd say that peer review is a misnomer - if you can't replicate the experiment, you're not a peer.
Not saying that all peer reviewers should replicate the experiments before approving articles for publication, but I am saying that if they are truly incapable of replicating the experiment, then they have no place judging the fitness for publication.
This would leave the "top labs" in the world "peerless" - and they could be published in separate "peerless" sections of respected publications - get their studies out faster, and encourage other labs to come up to speed in reproducing the experiments so as to both validate their results and bring up the capabilities of labs worldwide.
For those of us who would be happy using less bandwidth stateside, can we choose to use it?
life on these planets an unlikely impossibility.
I think your unintentional double negative is actually forming a reasonable conclusion: chaos, upheaval, relative stability due to tidal locking, all of these may very well combine to create an environment in which self-replicating processes thrive and evolve. The garden of Eden? Definitely not, but the creatures that evolve there might have equally horrific visions of what living in a bath of aggressive bipolar solvent would do to them.
Oops, sorry, it was actually the civilization living _on_ the star periodically drawing excess power that made it look like 7 small planets circling it. The environment of the dwarf star being uniquely suited to formation of stable magnetic loop plasma codons which have evolved over the millenia much like our DNA to support a diverse ecosystem of creatures that live on the surface exploiting the temperature differential between the surface and space to perpetuate their growth, locomotion, reproduction and evolution.
Strong "manned" culture at NASA, Venus is not a near-term target for manned missions.
Agreed, JPL should be doing more science missions there, and I agree with Stephen Hawking's assessment of how much of GDP we should be spending on space exploration - but Congress doesn't.
That happened too...
Computer screens mess with some people differently than others. SADD is a thing, and some people living north of the Arctic Circle have a major challenge with winter, others aren't so bothered by the noon-time night.
If you have a highly sensitive "blue light neuro-regulation" system, then, yeah, wear the LED visors if there's not enough light in your life, block the blues when you need to. I suspect there are more actual gluten-sensitive people in the world than actual blue-light sensitives.
I have a pair of amber tinted glasses - meh. Blue light, schmoo light. Like any other light filter, it dilates the pupils a little, narrows the focal depth of field, seems a little more relaxed - calming. In the outdoors, there is arguably more "excess blue light" or, put another way, the blue light contains less useful information than other colors - which is why your eyes are less sensitive to it in the first place.
If the color balance on your computer monitor isn't to your liking - adjust it, they almost all have these nifty settings you can dig into to set the screen to various color mixes.
Back in CRT days, amber was one of the favored monochrome options...
Those landers that went to Venus and died after minutes on the ground are a big part of Venus' PR problem - who wants to fund a(nother) flame-out probe that costs a billion dollars and sends back 90 seconds of video before dying. Even if we "beat the Russians" and make a lander that lasts 10x as long, that's not even two news cycles.
The gas giants feel more predictable, especially further out, mostly due to the lack of solar energy input. The resources are quite bland, and the gravity wells are deep - perhaps better to try their moons. One assumption is that if we're doing anything like this, we've cracked the next generation of energy sources (fusion?) beyond fission, so lack of solar power shouldn't be an issue.
The tiny viewing area is what ruins it for me as well. Big and bulky I can understand, but a total lack of peripheral vision input is just killing the experience. You're looking around inside a sphere with a window that maybe covers 3% of it (think about it: 45x45 degrees is 1/8 of the horizontal and 1/4 of the vertical, or 1/32 of the whole.) It's a cool toy for looking at specific stuff, but it's far from an immersive experience.
Precisely.
Probably better to get some kind of cloud city working on Earth before attempting to go trans-solar-system with the concept. By the altitude Venus' atmosphere is more dense than Earth's, it's also highly corrosive.
Jupiter is a little too active for my taste, but perhaps Neptune or Uranus might have some attractive latitudes at which to float a city, assuming you bring your own power sources and don't rely on the sun.
How expensive would it be to re-create the Apollo program?
"This graph shows the amount spent by the United States on piloted spaceflight from 1959 to 2015. It shows the importance of the Apollo program ($100 billion spent over ten years) and of the Space Shuttle ($200 billion over 40 years)". A quick search suggests that NASA's total annual budget for this year is something around $19 billion for context, so Apollo would consume a little over half NASA's total budget per year over the same ten-year period. (That $100 Bn figure is inflation adjusted as far as I can see, and yes, that's assuming that it hasn't become more expensive in real terms to do the same thing.)
Awesome article - please upvote!
How expensive would the PR fiasco of a crew death on return to the moon 50 years later be?
Apollo had its problems, but all in all, it was a very lucky program with far fewer deaths than it should have had, considering the risks that were being taken.
Sure, we can do it safer today - safer takes more time and money. Apollo was consuming money quickly, but it ran such a short span of years that it really didn't have a chance to match the budget of a modern "safer" program.
Habitation of Venus would be "cloud cities" for the next several centuries, unless you've got a better Terraforming plan than any I've read.
We should shred corporate taxes on income that is reinvested in a reasonable timeframe.
Corporate income that gets banked to the level of tens of billions of dollars for upwards of a decade is completely detrimental to the economy as a whole.
One less asshole in the hiring market does not make employment worse for the employed.
If there's a need for the products or services, another employer will spring up and fill the gap. If the new employer doesn't manage his people like a petulant child tyrant, so much the better.
Exactly - so many champions of the free market point to lottery winners as justification for their policy ideas.
Not only healthcare and education, but also retirement - US Social Security sucks, as does the perpetual message that it may bankrupt at any time.
I call BS on "US pay is higher" - anytime I've looked to move overseas, the pay was equivocal. Of course, "The US" is large and diverse, and I am comparing Florida pay to Germany or Auckland NZ. Houston pay is indeed higher than Florida, but so are their cancer rates.
Smart machines are already much better at tasks I used to do by hand.
In the 1980s I was hand-writing 6502 assembly code. I don't do that anymore. I don't even know how most of the current Skylake, et. al. x86 instruction sets work - smart machines do that for me.
I used to hand-code instructions to 16550 UART chips to feed data across RS-232 lines, I handled the framing, timing, response to interrupt when the 16 byte buffer was ready for more data, etc. Today I'm issuing packets to AMQP exchanges that distribute them over TCP/IP, my data doesn't just travel across the room, it's distributed globally, and "smart machines" handle a half dozen protocol layers between my data and the kind of things I used to program the 16550 chips to do.
People built those "robots" in the last 20 years, and because of them we're all doing more, with less work. (let's not even get into the contrast between /. and the BBS code I wrote to run over a 300 baud modem...)
Gates doesn't miss this point. He's got his billions, nobody's going to "claw back" all his money in retroactive taxes. What he's trying to say is that the next generation of multi-billionaires need to give more back up front, instead of getting to make the world's largest pile of cash and then attempting to figure out where to give away 10% of it before they die.
Society still can't afford to give them the care that they need, but with robots that care can become so much less expensive that what they can get will become better.
No, and yes. Society _can_ afford quality medical care, the delivery and compensation model in the U.S. is just so utterly twisted, inbred and corrupt that it only appears like we can't afford basic healthcare for everyone. Can every IED victim have a copy of the latest most highly developed prosthetics? No, but if we develop that tech in a responsible manner, maybe 2% of them can, and the other 98% can benefit from the much more highly developed, refined, and cost optimized 5-10 year old designs. The same goes for advanced care across the board - yes, it should be developed, no, we should not all be trying the latest theoretical cure for our incurable cancer when we might possibly benefit from it, or not - that's one of many problems with new med-tech - limited availability, unknown outcomes, astronomical costs, etc.
Will robots drive medical care costs down? Yes, but not nearly as fast as our current insanity of a care delivery and insurance system is spiraling costs upward.