Nah, you want it to get as hot as possible. Higher temperature leads to more reactions in the fuel, which in turn leads to greater effeciency. Part of the problem is getting the fuel that hot in the first place, and keeping it together long enough to fuse.
Side note: while 100 million degrees sounds awfully hot, we're talking about a tiny amount of fuel here. The usual figure quoted for a hypothetical commercial reactor is about two grams of fuel in the core at any given time. The reactor itself doesn't get anywhere near that hot, even in the event of a full loss of containment.
I neither download, nor buy music. Nothing I hear on the radio these days is worth my bandwidth or money. Furthermore, I do not have any desire to see my money go toward paying industry lawyers to sue people.
Now, if there are enough people like me, then sales will drop, right? How is that distinguishable from sales dropping due to piracy?
Moreover, there are plenty of other/.ers who claim that it's the price relative to quality that's making piracy attractive (not saying I agree with that, but it bears mentioning). Anything can be worthwhile if it's "free" (I put free in quotes because I don't consider time/bandwidth worthless, but YMMV). So the "if it sucks, why steal it" arguement really doesn't make a whole lot of sense even if the GP is a buckaneer.
Eh, FWIW I've seen the opposite trend as often as not. Little Jimmy plays Violent Attack Punch Quest and finishes within a day or two, but replays the game over and over. D&D geek buys Glom Thunderpant's Medival Adventure and plays for weeks at a time (or longer if said RPG is an MMO). All this shows is that you can't compare PC games to console games as if they were each a homogenous medium.
As a general rule of thumb, you have to go by the genre, not the platform. Compare RPGs to RPGs, and FPSs to FPSs. Using that general rule, and several years of experience, I really haven't seen one medium give longer lengths than the other (at least if you exclude MMOs, which really skew the results). There are plenty of short and long games on any platform.
You may be mixing replayability with length, which is an understandable error. A 40 hour game may take 40 hours to finish, but you could easily get hundreds of hours of use out of it over it's lifetime if it has good replay value, especially if you factor in multiplayer (online or multi-controller), mods/expansions, or instant action modes.
Actually what's really scary is that he included the apostrophe in "!7'$". What's the world coming to when 1337 speak is being done with proper grammar? Madness, I say!
Hence my use of the phrase "put forward a theory". I didn't say that such a theory had to be correct, remember.
A reactionless thruster violates conservation of momentum (for every action there is an equal, but opposite, reaction). A perpetual motion machine or free energy device violates conservation of energy (energy can never be created or destroyed, merely converted into another form).
Both are impossible according to a wealth of uncontroversial and uncontesed physical laws. That does not mean however that in proposing to violate one law, you must therefor violate the other. All that means is that they are both impossible, but for different reasons. Hence the part of my post that you quoted.
I want to stress that I am not seriously considering that the guy in TFA has a working device, rather I am pointing out that his device does not fall under the category of perpetual motion machines, as it does not meet the criteria.
Are you sure? I haven't thought too hard about it, but my immediate reaction is that it would.
Well, purely for humour value, consider a propulsion system that moves the rest of the universe around it:-) (bonus points if you can tell me where that joke originated). That would be "reactionless", but it might not neccesarily violate conservation of energy, assuming that it converted stored energy into momentum without ejecting reaction mass. As long as there is no net mass or energy increase in the system, conservation of energy is observed.
Of course, such a drive is categorically impossible according to relativity, conservation of momentum et al, even if it does not directly contradict conservation of energy. It's quite possible that in violating relativity, such a drive would force us to reconsider how conservation of energy works in the first place, since each is deeply intertwined with the other. Now, mind you, if it were possible to violate relativity, then we'd have bigger scientific problems on our collective hands to worry about, so the question is basically irrelevant.
Note that in the above example, one could argue that the entire universe becomes your reaction mass, but I'm not going to get into that. This was primarily intended as a joke after all:-)
Oh, completely agree on the peer review part. My point was more that we didn't have to adapt any fundamental theories once the Wright brothers lifted off. Our understanding of the universe was fine (or at least, no more or less incomplete), it was our understanding of what a machine could do that was in error.
Also, I'd say Faraday is early enough that he's more an example of a pioneer than anything else. He's definately a scientist, but he was establishing a new area of physics. And transatlantic radio is, like powered flight, more engineering than science.
We're routinely wrong about what engineering and technology can and can't do - see flying cars, computers, lunar colonization, etc. We're more often right about what the physical world is like - to give a counter example, Newton is still considered correct; Einstein expanded on his rules, but didn't lead to them being completely discarded.
The Wright brothers violated no physical laws. Furthermore, they had both gliders and kites to point to as a man-made example of heavier than air flight, and birds and insects to point to as proof that powered flight was physically possible. Can you, or the man in TFA, point to an equivalent phenominon as this reactionless drive? After all, we already understand radiation pressure, and it doesn't seem to allow for the drive he's suggesting.
I think you're confusing science with engineering. I'll readily beleive that there were people who thought the Wright brothers would never fly, but I'd bet that the objection was to the idea that something man-made could engage in powered flight, which is an engineering problem not a scientific one. It's similar to the modern debate as to whether we'll ever have the materials needed to build a space elevator - nobody is saying a space elevator is scientifically impossible, rather the debate centers around whether we could even successfully construct one.
I actually meant more that he was trying to get his idea reviewed from the outside, something the vast majority of crackpots fail to do.
One of the conditions of Shawyer's £250,000 funding from the UK's Department of Trade and Industry is that his research be independently reviewed, and he has been meticulous in cataloguing his work
Assuming that part of TFA is true, then he's already way ahead of the usual "free energy" crowds.
Typically when somebody's claims violate the laws of physics, the usual challenge is for them to provide a repeatable experiment for others to test the theory in question with. This challenge is most often met with weaseling or silence. When such theories are tested from outside, they most often do not pan out (see the cold fusion experiments as an example).
If he's willing to get outside review already, then I at least will acknowledge that he is an honest crackpot rather than a snake oil salesmen. And it's always better to actually test the blue sky ideas than it is to dismiss them out of hand.
I don't think anyone who read TFA assumed this was perpetual motion. What this claims to be is more of a reactionless thruster - a different beast. It's quite possible to put forward a theory that violates conservation of momentum without violating conservation of energy.
Now, admittedly, one is as much in violation of the laws of physics as the other. We have no theoretical basis for reactionless propulsion. In the case of two black boxes acting on each other without being physically connected, the laws of reaction still apply (ie, you can apply force to a maglev train and have it carry over to the rail, despite the fact they never come into contact with each other). I'm not sure how this hypothetical drive could hover without repelling the ground in some way.
Side note - as I mentioned in another post, we've known how to extract momentum from laser light for decades. Light sails and photon drives, both found in sci-fi and both supported by the laws of physics, use exactly that very principle. But the characteristics of these propulsion systems is nothing like what's described in TFA. Either this guy has found something new, or he's made a mistake. I would not give very good odds on the former, sadly.
Because that would be a photon drive. And we already know how well those work - the amount of energy you need to input to get even a tiny amount of thrust out of them is astronomical (pun not intended). We've had the basic idea of light propulsion for at least fifty years, and it's been a major cornerstone of hard science fiction. But it just isn't workable with modern power generation.
You could describe either a photon drive, or it's passive counterpart, the light sail, as a "relativity drive", since they too operate on the oddities of conservation of momentum as it applies to light. Doesn't mean we're going to be using them in lieu of rockets anytime in the next few centuries.
Either this guy has found a revolutionary new way to build a photon drive (and I'm more than a little skeptical), or else the device doesn't actually work. I'm more optimistic about this than I am about the usual lot of crackpot science, since from TFA it sounds like this guy is applying good scientific procedures to his work (documenting, trying to get outside review), but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Now you have to realize that there aren't any actuators that can operate like muslces in small spaces without either taking up space or be bulky.
What about electroactive polymers? I mean if you want to talk about materials engineering in prosthetics, then it makes sense to look for a solution that's similar to what we already use (namely, muscles). You might even be able to duplicate the overall shape of the hand using a mix of these polymers as "muscle", and some other material as "bone".
Admittedly, it might be neccessary to have an external battery pack to save space inside the artificial hand (since human muscles use metabolic energy, and we can't use that to power prosthetics yet), but that doesn't need to be in the same general area - a belt pack with a power cord up your sleve would do the trick and save on space.
The general terms you are looking for are physiological and psychological addiction - the former meaning there is some physical componant (like alcohol or nicotine), and the later meaning there is only a mental componant. It's generally assumed that all physical addiction entails some degree of psychological dependancy as well, whereas not all psychological addictions require an external chemical componant.
Yes it is completely possible to become addicted to damn near anything even remotely enjoyable. You name it, and if someone can get off on it, then there is somebody hooked on it. You can find many examples of TV addicts, sex addicts, or people hooked by religion in the world at large.
Often people trade one addiction for another when trying to quit - there are plenty of former drug users who "found god", it's quite common for alcoholics to switch to coffee or cigarettes, and I suspect a great many people formerly hooked on the boob tube got sucked into the internet while trying to watch less TV.
Thing is, we generally don't like to acknowledge addiction. There is a reason why you have organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous - there is a deep and inherent stigma attached to dependancy. So by and large, we don't admit to there being TV addicts in the world - for one thing, they're largely invisible since they do not harm other people, and for another we'd have to face up to the fact that one of the many activities that the majority of us engage in (watching TV) has a dark side to it.
Not so with the 'net. There's a Douglas Adams quote to the effect that "Anything that existed when you were born is a natural part of the world. Anything that comes into existance when you're growing up is an exicting new career path. Anything that comes into existance after you're 35 is unnatural, and probably bad for you." (Paraphrased). Hence the glut of fear mongering about internet addiction, game addiction, and the evils of the modern age.
It's not that the internet is any more, or any less, addictive than the millions of other potential things people can get hooked on; it's that the 'net makes a tempting boogeyman for people peddling snake oil, and politicians and lawyers trying to make a career.
#2) Show me a 1/2 elf, 1/4 dwarf, 1/8 orc and 1/16 sprite and 1/16 centaur character and then we'll be a little closer to an apples to apples race discussion.
Presumably that would have to have been a female centaur and a male sprite...:-)
Side note: "race" in the context of fantasy games really boils down to what we would call "species" in reality. I suspect the main reason for using the term "race" is because it sounds more old-fashioned and less scientific.
So really, the whole RPG race = RL race (ethnicity/nationality/ancestry) is somewhat silly. As you say, it's apples and oranges.
Just because you haven't personally seen a WOW addiction doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Wha? Uh, reread my post buddy. Specifically the part where I said, and I quote, "intellectually I don't have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of game addiction". In other words, I believe that it exists.
However, I don't think it's common among MMO players. In my entire cross-section of people who play MMOs, I've never met an addict. So, my stance would be that addiction exists, but isn't prevalent, contrary to any rumors or stereotypes that say all serious players are hooked. I will readily beleive you when you say you know an addict, but against that one addict whose story you can relate, I know dozens of non-addicts whose story I can relate. Your friend is in a small minority.
To draw a comparison, it's like booze. I know a couple of alcoholics, neither of whom can drink safely or in moderation. I also know dozens of people who drink regularly who are not alcoholics. From this I can (correctly) conclude that it is possible to get hooked on booze, but that only a minority of those who drink do so.
Furthermore, my experience with alcoholics and how they talk about their problem leads me to the conclusion that dependancy is symptomatic of larger problems. It should be noted that one of my friends, who has been through the AA program, says that this is the view espoused by AA - they state that there are key differences between regular drinking and addictive drinking. It's not about how much you drink, it's about why you drink.
So to me, game addiction is like alcoholism, in that the majority of people who drink/play MMOs aren't addicts, but it is nonetheless possible to get hooked. I suspect (but cannot prove), that in the case of MMO addiction the addict is experiencing larger problems in life and is using the game as a form of pseudo self-medication. It's not about how much you play, it's about why you play.
However, what I take issue with is people who assume that all players must be addicts. They view MMOs as being less like booze and more like cigarettes or hard drugs, where the user is a de facto addict after a certain amount of time ingesting/injecting/inhaling. That innaccurate stereotype is what I'm trying to debunk. There is a big difference between the stance that "there are MMO addicts" and "most MMO players are addicts" - the former is true, I think, and the latter is blatantly false.
Eh, I keep hearing these "OMG, [EQ/WoW/DaoC/MMOs in general] is/are as addicting as crack]!" remarks. You know what? I've never seen it.
I used to play WoW. I don't think I was a casual player, but I wasn't heavily into it either. My GF also played, and in fact was the person who introduced me to it. We were part of a small guild, that later turned big (named "Morbo", after the Futurama character of the same name), and I got to know a few of my fellow players.
Nowhere did I see addiction. I don't just mean I didn't see anyone hooked - I didn't even know anyone by proxy that fit the "MMO-addict" profile that people keep touting. I knew raiders and PvPers, and plenty of dedicated players but none of them had any trouble logging off. You'd figure that between the in-game chat, guild chat/forums, game forums and outside community you'd hear from a few addicts...
I know that it's quite possible to get psychologically addicted to pretty much anything, so intellectually I don't have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of game addiction. I mean, I can see how somebody with dependancy problems could get into that in a big way if they didn't have the support they needed in life. But all I've ever seen of such people are horror stories reported on places like slashdot. They must exist, but by the same token they can't be common.
I should point out that I was playing for a more than half a year, and have since quit. And I don't mean I pried myself away kicking and screaming, or that I went cold turkey and coped with the withdrawl - I just lost interest and stopped playing shortly after my GF did. We said goodbye to the guild, shut down our accounts, and uninstalled the game from our computers. The accounts still exist, and I could get back in easily enough, but I just don't feel the urge, and as far as I know neither does she (for one thing, we don't have the free time available we used to).
Actually, I've never met a WoW player who fits your given description. Ie, the people I've known about IRL who play the game show no signs of depression. Neither have the people I ran into online while I was still playing it myself. Nor have I seen any compelling evidence to support such a sweeping generalization. And yes, I do know people who suffer from actual clinical depression, so I do have a fairly good picture of what that mental state entails.
There may be a certain type of gaming addict who fits the description you give. But I think they're a tiny, tiny minority. Perhaps you know somone like this yourself? If so, I suspect you're projecting their mental state to the rest of the gaming population.
And I suspect the mentally healthy majority playing WoW would take exception to your statement that depression is what really motivates them.
True, but (at least in a just society), we don't punish thought, we only punish action. While there are some people on the planet who want to make thinking certain thoughts illegal, thankfully the law isn't on their side yet.
Ergo, somebody who has actually commited rape is considered monsterous, whereas someone who's merely thought about it is not. And moreover, the rapist has proven through action that they are willing to commit such a crime - in other words, they have identified themselves as dangerous.
While I think that the way many sex offender registries are handled is hair brained (there is no way on Earth that public nudity and child mollestation should be in the same list), the basic idea is sound. By violating the rights of others, the convicted person has in turn had some of their own rights stripped, such as to make it difficult for them to reoffend. There should be no penalty beyond this, though unfortunately there usually is in the form of social stigma.
Actually, genetic safeguards are potentially more important than immune response in many ways.
The immune system is handicapped by the fact that with at least some types of cancer, there is comparatively little difference between the malignant and healthy cells. If it can't tell them apart, it can't stop the cancer from developing or spreading. You're right in that the immune system can sometimes stop cancer, but from a survival standpoint it's better not to get it in the first place.
So we have genes in place to limit cell replication. It's been suggested that aging is an inevitable side effect of these limits (take a look at telomeres for instance). Just the immune system by itself, or just the genetic protections by themselves, isn't enough; you really want both defenses.
Oversimplified, the genetic element is why some cancers run in family lines, and the immune element accounts for why some cancers develop when the immune system is weakened (like KS in AIDS patients).
Just for the record, my own position is that people have the right and responsibility to make their own decisions, good or bad. I beleive that the law should work to protect more rights than it denies, on balance.
So I don't have a problem with booze, drugs or smoking. Or pornography, or violent games/movies/music, or kinky sex, or (insert something someone wants to ban here). These things are the business of those who enjoy them. Life would be a great deal duller if the puritans of the world had their way.
I'm fine with drunk driving laws though. For me, it isn't a matter of the booze being the problem, it's the bozo behind the wheel. Perhaps the legal limit where you live is unfair; perhaps the reason for this is puritanical nitwits wanting to harrass drinkers - I have no idea. Whether it is or not, your problem sounds like it's with the particulars of the law, not the principle behind it.
But it is definately possible to oppose something for good reasons, without having ulterior ones.
Well, just to point out the obvious, corporate policy =! law, no matter how much the corporations want you to think otherwise. I mention this because of the example you gave of "Scotts" employee policy. FWIW, I disagree with such policies too, and with employee drug testing, but bad policy and bad laws are two seperate problems.
While I agree with you that smoking bylaws aren't a perfect solution, I don't see a lot of good alternatives. Stuff like air quality laws would be fundamentally unenforcable. Smoking/nonsmoking sections of a restaraunt wouldn't help the employees. What does that leave?
Ultimately, if the law is geared toward protecting smokers rights, then the presumed rights of others not to be subjected to smoke are ignored. Conversely, if the law restricts smoking, then the smokers have their rights violated. There isn't a good solution here, leaving us with a compromise at best. And since the laws vary from place to place, you and I cannot make sweeping statements about the fairness of those laws - we'd have to examine each in detail.
I would argue that the rights of non-smokers should take some precident, but that conversely the smokers should be given the opportunity to smoke somewhere safe. I do not know if any existing law mandates this however.
The people who are legally drunk but not actually impaired (or only a little impaired) are not the ones that make the roads dangerous anyway. It's the people who were at 2x the legal limit before they lowered it. They cause the accidents......I'm not arguing against drunk driving laws. Put the levels back where they were 5 years ago. Make "I wasn't a danger to anyone and I can prove it" a defense. Then I'm all for it. The laws should be based on protecting people from harm, not satisfying the prohibitionists at MADD.
You have a valid arguement here. However, your point seems to be more that the limit set on blood alcohol is too low, not that there should be no limit at all. In which case, while I may not agree with you, I do not neccesarily disagree either (since we undoubtably are subject to different laws, and the legally impaired limit where I live may not be the same as were you live).
My point was more that there is fundamentally a difference in principle between drunk driving laws and prohibition laws. One is based on interfering with a drinkers life "for his own good", and the other is based on interfering with a drunk drivers life "to protect others". I see an important distinction here. If you're only arguing against the legal limit where you live, then I can't argue with you (as I do not have enough information).
And there ARE "shades of grey".
On that we agree. And I apologise for assuming you were opposed to all forms of drunk driving laws.
If I can make phony "collateral damage" claims on online gambling, then it's not prohibition either. Here's one: People addicted to gambling steal money to pay their gambling debts.
Nice strawman. Except that, in that particular case, the gambling isn't the problem. The robbery is. The law would be broken regardless of gambling.
If someone breaks the law, by violating the rights of another person, then punish them for that. That is perfectly fine in my books. A robbery is a robbery, regardless of motive. You cannot blame a bad habit for bad behaviour.
Where drunk driving laws differ is in their function. You can drink all you want. Hell, you can drink yourself to death if it suits you - it's none of my concern. The moment you endanger someone while drunk the situation changes. The rights of the other person take precedence over your own.
Fundamentally, this is the difference between liberty and anarchy. The concept of my right to swing my fist ending at the boundery of your face is taken into account in a free society, and absent in an anarchic one.
If you don't want prohibition, you have to be against ALL of it. You can't pick and choose.
If there are no shades of grey in your worldview, then I feel sorry for you. Someone who sees the world only in black and white is doomed to fanaticism, no matter what values they assign to "black" and "white".
Slashdot Mirror
This is a fusion reactor. There is no nuclear pile - that would be a feature of a fission reactor, which is a different technology altogether.
Nah, you want it to get as hot as possible. Higher temperature leads to more reactions in the fuel, which in turn leads to greater effeciency. Part of the problem is getting the fuel that hot in the first place, and keeping it together long enough to fuse.
Side note: while 100 million degrees sounds awfully hot, we're talking about a tiny amount of fuel here. The usual figure quoted for a hypothetical commercial reactor is about two grams of fuel in the core at any given time. The reactor itself doesn't get anywhere near that hot, even in the event of a full loss of containment.
Perhaps they had it on a line? :-)
Where did he say he downloaded it?
/.ers who claim that it's the price relative to quality that's making piracy attractive (not saying I agree with that, but it bears mentioning). Anything can be worthwhile if it's "free" (I put free in quotes because I don't consider time/bandwidth worthless, but YMMV). So the "if it sucks, why steal it" arguement really doesn't make a whole lot of sense even if the GP is a buckaneer.
I neither download, nor buy music. Nothing I hear on the radio these days is worth my bandwidth or money. Furthermore, I do not have any desire to see my money go toward paying industry lawyers to sue people.
Now, if there are enough people like me, then sales will drop, right? How is that distinguishable from sales dropping due to piracy?
Moreover, there are plenty of other
Eh, FWIW I've seen the opposite trend as often as not. Little Jimmy plays Violent Attack Punch Quest and finishes within a day or two, but replays the game over and over. D&D geek buys Glom Thunderpant's Medival Adventure and plays for weeks at a time (or longer if said RPG is an MMO). All this shows is that you can't compare PC games to console games as if they were each a homogenous medium.
As a general rule of thumb, you have to go by the genre, not the platform. Compare RPGs to RPGs, and FPSs to FPSs. Using that general rule, and several years of experience, I really haven't seen one medium give longer lengths than the other (at least if you exclude MMOs, which really skew the results). There are plenty of short and long games on any platform.
You may be mixing replayability with length, which is an understandable error. A 40 hour game may take 40 hours to finish, but you could easily get hundreds of hours of use out of it over it's lifetime if it has good replay value, especially if you factor in multiplayer (online or multi-controller), mods/expansions, or instant action modes.
Actually what's really scary is that he included the apostrophe in "!7'$". What's the world coming to when 1337 speak is being done with proper grammar? Madness, I say!
Hence my use of the phrase "put forward a theory". I didn't say that such a theory had to be correct, remember.
A reactionless thruster violates conservation of momentum (for every action there is an equal, but opposite, reaction). A perpetual motion machine or free energy device violates conservation of energy (energy can never be created or destroyed, merely converted into another form).
Both are impossible according to a wealth of uncontroversial and uncontesed physical laws. That does not mean however that in proposing to violate one law, you must therefor violate the other. All that means is that they are both impossible, but for different reasons. Hence the part of my post that you quoted.
I want to stress that I am not seriously considering that the guy in TFA has a working device, rather I am pointing out that his device does not fall under the category of perpetual motion machines, as it does not meet the criteria.
Of course, such a drive is categorically impossible according to relativity, conservation of momentum et al, even if it does not directly contradict conservation of energy. It's quite possible that in violating relativity, such a drive would force us to reconsider how conservation of energy works in the first place, since each is deeply intertwined with the other. Now, mind you, if it were possible to violate relativity, then we'd have bigger scientific problems on our collective hands to worry about, so the question is basically irrelevant.
Note that in the above example, one could argue that the entire universe becomes your reaction mass, but I'm not going to get into that. This was primarily intended as a joke after all
Oh, completely agree on the peer review part. My point was more that we didn't have to adapt any fundamental theories once the Wright brothers lifted off. Our understanding of the universe was fine (or at least, no more or less incomplete), it was our understanding of what a machine could do that was in error.
Also, I'd say Faraday is early enough that he's more an example of a pioneer than anything else. He's definately a scientist, but he was establishing a new area of physics. And transatlantic radio is, like powered flight, more engineering than science.
We're routinely wrong about what engineering and technology can and can't do - see flying cars, computers, lunar colonization, etc. We're more often right about what the physical world is like - to give a counter example, Newton is still considered correct; Einstein expanded on his rules, but didn't lead to them being completely discarded.
The Wright brothers violated no physical laws. Furthermore, they had both gliders and kites to point to as a man-made example of heavier than air flight, and birds and insects to point to as proof that powered flight was physically possible. Can you, or the man in TFA, point to an equivalent phenominon as this reactionless drive? After all, we already understand radiation pressure, and it doesn't seem to allow for the drive he's suggesting.
I think you're confusing science with engineering. I'll readily beleive that there were people who thought the Wright brothers would never fly, but I'd bet that the objection was to the idea that something man-made could engage in powered flight, which is an engineering problem not a scientific one. It's similar to the modern debate as to whether we'll ever have the materials needed to build a space elevator - nobody is saying a space elevator is scientifically impossible, rather the debate centers around whether we could even successfully construct one.
Assuming that part of TFA is true, then he's already way ahead of the usual "free energy" crowds.
Typically when somebody's claims violate the laws of physics, the usual challenge is for them to provide a repeatable experiment for others to test the theory in question with. This challenge is most often met with weaseling or silence. When such theories are tested from outside, they most often do not pan out (see the cold fusion experiments as an example).
If he's willing to get outside review already, then I at least will acknowledge that he is an honest crackpot rather than a snake oil salesmen. And it's always better to actually test the blue sky ideas than it is to dismiss them out of hand.
I don't think anyone who read TFA assumed this was perpetual motion. What this claims to be is more of a reactionless thruster - a different beast. It's quite possible to put forward a theory that violates conservation of momentum without violating conservation of energy.
Now, admittedly, one is as much in violation of the laws of physics as the other. We have no theoretical basis for reactionless propulsion. In the case of two black boxes acting on each other without being physically connected, the laws of reaction still apply (ie, you can apply force to a maglev train and have it carry over to the rail, despite the fact they never come into contact with each other). I'm not sure how this hypothetical drive could hover without repelling the ground in some way.
Side note - as I mentioned in another post, we've known how to extract momentum from laser light for decades. Light sails and photon drives, both found in sci-fi and both supported by the laws of physics, use exactly that very principle. But the characteristics of these propulsion systems is nothing like what's described in TFA. Either this guy has found something new, or he's made a mistake. I would not give very good odds on the former, sadly.
Because that would be a photon drive. And we already know how well those work - the amount of energy you need to input to get even a tiny amount of thrust out of them is astronomical (pun not intended). We've had the basic idea of light propulsion for at least fifty years, and it's been a major cornerstone of hard science fiction. But it just isn't workable with modern power generation.
You could describe either a photon drive, or it's passive counterpart, the light sail, as a "relativity drive", since they too operate on the oddities of conservation of momentum as it applies to light. Doesn't mean we're going to be using them in lieu of rockets anytime in the next few centuries.
Either this guy has found a revolutionary new way to build a photon drive (and I'm more than a little skeptical), or else the device doesn't actually work. I'm more optimistic about this than I am about the usual lot of crackpot science, since from TFA it sounds like this guy is applying good scientific procedures to his work (documenting, trying to get outside review), but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Admittedly, it might be neccessary to have an external battery pack to save space inside the artificial hand (since human muscles use metabolic energy, and we can't use that to power prosthetics yet), but that doesn't need to be in the same general area - a belt pack with a power cord up your sleve would do the trick and save on space.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroactive_polyme
The general terms you are looking for are physiological and psychological addiction - the former meaning there is some physical componant (like alcohol or nicotine), and the later meaning there is only a mental componant. It's generally assumed that all physical addiction entails some degree of psychological dependancy as well, whereas not all psychological addictions require an external chemical componant.
Yes it is completely possible to become addicted to damn near anything even remotely enjoyable. You name it, and if someone can get off on it, then there is somebody hooked on it. You can find many examples of TV addicts, sex addicts, or people hooked by religion in the world at large.
Often people trade one addiction for another when trying to quit - there are plenty of former drug users who "found god", it's quite common for alcoholics to switch to coffee or cigarettes, and I suspect a great many people formerly hooked on the boob tube got sucked into the internet while trying to watch less TV.
Thing is, we generally don't like to acknowledge addiction. There is a reason why you have organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous - there is a deep and inherent stigma attached to dependancy. So by and large, we don't admit to there being TV addicts in the world - for one thing, they're largely invisible since they do not harm other people, and for another we'd have to face up to the fact that one of the many activities that the majority of us engage in (watching TV) has a dark side to it.
Not so with the 'net. There's a Douglas Adams quote to the effect that "Anything that existed when you were born is a natural part of the world. Anything that comes into existance when you're growing up is an exicting new career path. Anything that comes into existance after you're 35 is unnatural, and probably bad for you." (Paraphrased). Hence the glut of fear mongering about internet addiction, game addiction, and the evils of the modern age.
It's not that the internet is any more, or any less, addictive than the millions of other potential things people can get hooked on; it's that the 'net makes a tempting boogeyman for people peddling snake oil, and politicians and lawyers trying to make a career.
Side note: "race" in the context of fantasy games really boils down to what we would call "species" in reality. I suspect the main reason for using the term "race" is because it sounds more old-fashioned and less scientific.
So really, the whole RPG race = RL race (ethnicity/nationality/ancestry) is somewhat silly. As you say, it's apples and oranges.
However, I don't think it's common among MMO players. In my entire cross-section of people who play MMOs, I've never met an addict. So, my stance would be that addiction exists, but isn't prevalent, contrary to any rumors or stereotypes that say all serious players are hooked. I will readily beleive you when you say you know an addict, but against that one addict whose story you can relate, I know dozens of non-addicts whose story I can relate. Your friend is in a small minority.
To draw a comparison, it's like booze. I know a couple of alcoholics, neither of whom can drink safely or in moderation. I also know dozens of people who drink regularly who are not alcoholics. From this I can (correctly) conclude that it is possible to get hooked on booze, but that only a minority of those who drink do so.
Furthermore, my experience with alcoholics and how they talk about their problem leads me to the conclusion that dependancy is symptomatic of larger problems. It should be noted that one of my friends, who has been through the AA program, says that this is the view espoused by AA - they state that there are key differences between regular drinking and addictive drinking. It's not about how much you drink, it's about why you drink.
So to me, game addiction is like alcoholism, in that the majority of people who drink/play MMOs aren't addicts, but it is nonetheless possible to get hooked. I suspect (but cannot prove), that in the case of MMO addiction the addict is experiencing larger problems in life and is using the game as a form of pseudo self-medication. It's not about how much you play, it's about why you play.
However, what I take issue with is people who assume that all players must be addicts. They view MMOs as being less like booze and more like cigarettes or hard drugs, where the user is a de facto addict after a certain amount of time ingesting/injecting/inhaling. That innaccurate stereotype is what I'm trying to debunk. There is a big difference between the stance that "there are MMO addicts" and "most MMO players are addicts" - the former is true, I think, and the latter is blatantly false.
Eh, I keep hearing these "OMG, [EQ/WoW/DaoC/MMOs in general] is/are as addicting as crack]!" remarks. You know what? I've never seen it.
I used to play WoW. I don't think I was a casual player, but I wasn't heavily into it either. My GF also played, and in fact was the person who introduced me to it. We were part of a small guild, that later turned big (named "Morbo", after the Futurama character of the same name), and I got to know a few of my fellow players.
Nowhere did I see addiction. I don't just mean I didn't see anyone hooked - I didn't even know anyone by proxy that fit the "MMO-addict" profile that people keep touting. I knew raiders and PvPers, and plenty of dedicated players but none of them had any trouble logging off. You'd figure that between the in-game chat, guild chat/forums, game forums and outside community you'd hear from a few addicts...
I know that it's quite possible to get psychologically addicted to pretty much anything, so intellectually I don't have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of game addiction. I mean, I can see how somebody with dependancy problems could get into that in a big way if they didn't have the support they needed in life. But all I've ever seen of such people are horror stories reported on places like slashdot. They must exist, but by the same token they can't be common.
I should point out that I was playing for a more than half a year, and have since quit. And I don't mean I pried myself away kicking and screaming, or that I went cold turkey and coped with the withdrawl - I just lost interest and stopped playing shortly after my GF did. We said goodbye to the guild, shut down our accounts, and uninstalled the game from our computers. The accounts still exist, and I could get back in easily enough, but I just don't feel the urge, and as far as I know neither does she (for one thing, we don't have the free time available we used to).
Actually, I've never met a WoW player who fits your given description. Ie, the people I've known about IRL who play the game show no signs of depression. Neither have the people I ran into online while I was still playing it myself. Nor have I seen any compelling evidence to support such a sweeping generalization. And yes, I do know people who suffer from actual clinical depression, so I do have a fairly good picture of what that mental state entails.
There may be a certain type of gaming addict who fits the description you give. But I think they're a tiny, tiny minority. Perhaps you know somone like this yourself? If so, I suspect you're projecting their mental state to the rest of the gaming population.
And I suspect the mentally healthy majority playing WoW would take exception to your statement that depression is what really motivates them.
True, but (at least in a just society), we don't punish thought, we only punish action. While there are some people on the planet who want to make thinking certain thoughts illegal, thankfully the law isn't on their side yet.
Ergo, somebody who has actually commited rape is considered monsterous, whereas someone who's merely thought about it is not. And moreover, the rapist has proven through action that they are willing to commit such a crime - in other words, they have identified themselves as dangerous.
While I think that the way many sex offender registries are handled is hair brained (there is no way on Earth that public nudity and child mollestation should be in the same list), the basic idea is sound. By violating the rights of others, the convicted person has in turn had some of their own rights stripped, such as to make it difficult for them to reoffend. There should be no penalty beyond this, though unfortunately there usually is in the form of social stigma.
Actually, genetic safeguards are potentially more important than immune response in many ways.
The immune system is handicapped by the fact that with at least some types of cancer, there is comparatively little difference between the malignant and healthy cells. If it can't tell them apart, it can't stop the cancer from developing or spreading. You're right in that the immune system can sometimes stop cancer, but from a survival standpoint it's better not to get it in the first place.
So we have genes in place to limit cell replication. It's been suggested that aging is an inevitable side effect of these limits (take a look at telomeres for instance). Just the immune system by itself, or just the genetic protections by themselves, isn't enough; you really want both defenses.
Oversimplified, the genetic element is why some cancers run in family lines, and the immune element accounts for why some cancers develop when the immune system is weakened (like KS in AIDS patients).
Just for the record, my own position is that people have the right and responsibility to make their own decisions, good or bad. I beleive that the law should work to protect more rights than it denies, on balance.
So I don't have a problem with booze, drugs or smoking. Or pornography, or violent games/movies/music, or kinky sex, or (insert something someone wants to ban here). These things are the business of those who enjoy them. Life would be a great deal duller if the puritans of the world had their way.
I'm fine with drunk driving laws though. For me, it isn't a matter of the booze being the problem, it's the bozo behind the wheel. Perhaps the legal limit where you live is unfair; perhaps the reason for this is puritanical nitwits wanting to harrass drinkers - I have no idea. Whether it is or not, your problem sounds like it's with the particulars of the law, not the principle behind it.
But it is definately possible to oppose something for good reasons, without having ulterior ones.
Well, just to point out the obvious, corporate policy =! law, no matter how much the corporations want you to think otherwise. I mention this because of the example you gave of "Scotts" employee policy. FWIW, I disagree with such policies too, and with employee drug testing, but bad policy and bad laws are two seperate problems.
While I agree with you that smoking bylaws aren't a perfect solution, I don't see a lot of good alternatives. Stuff like air quality laws would be fundamentally unenforcable. Smoking/nonsmoking sections of a restaraunt wouldn't help the employees. What does that leave?
Ultimately, if the law is geared toward protecting smokers rights, then the presumed rights of others not to be subjected to smoke are ignored. Conversely, if the law restricts smoking, then the smokers have their rights violated. There isn't a good solution here, leaving us with a compromise at best. And since the laws vary from place to place, you and I cannot make sweeping statements about the fairness of those laws - we'd have to examine each in detail.
I would argue that the rights of non-smokers should take some precident, but that conversely the smokers should be given the opportunity to smoke somewhere safe. I do not know if any existing law mandates this however.
My point was more that there is fundamentally a difference in principle between drunk driving laws and prohibition laws. One is based on interfering with a drinkers life "for his own good", and the other is based on interfering with a drunk drivers life "to protect others". I see an important distinction here. If you're only arguing against the legal limit where you live, then I can't argue with you (as I do not have enough information).
On that we agree. And I apologise for assuming you were opposed to all forms of drunk driving laws.
If someone breaks the law, by violating the rights of another person, then punish them for that. That is perfectly fine in my books. A robbery is a robbery, regardless of motive. You cannot blame a bad habit for bad behaviour.
Where drunk driving laws differ is in their function. You can drink all you want. Hell, you can drink yourself to death if it suits you - it's none of my concern. The moment you endanger someone while drunk the situation changes. The rights of the other person take precedence over your own.
Fundamentally, this is the difference between liberty and anarchy. The concept of my right to swing my fist ending at the boundery of your face is taken into account in a free society, and absent in an anarchic one.
If there are no shades of grey in your worldview, then I feel sorry for you. Someone who sees the world only in black and white is doomed to fanaticism, no matter what values they assign to "black" and "white".