China, for instance, knows about the climate change problematic. However, they decided that the big CO2 producers should cut their share first. But at least they admit it is a problem which is more than the US does. Saudi Arabia, like all the countries in the middle east, accept the fact, as they a directly vulnerable to rising sea levels. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is working an solar power concepts. To be precise they buy the technology from us. But they are preparing themselves. For Russia, I don't know what they are doing at all. As far as I know they admit that CO2 is a problem and that a warmer climate may change the permafrost area in their country with positive an negative effects. So no they are not doing anything against climate change, but at least they admit it is a problem. And the point in my post was that the people accept the facts about climate change. But in the US it seams that a large percentage of the population does not accept those facts.
I wonder why this topic is so much discussed in the USA. In every other country climate change and the fact that we, humans, are causing it is accepted as a scientific fact. However, in the US, there is still a large fraction who doubt it or ignore it. And I am wondering why is that so?
First, an IT administrator is not a programmer. Second, one truck driver who become a successful programmer does not prove that all or at least a majority can be trained accordingly.
The good thing is, teaching everyone to code is impossible. Most laborers do not have the talent to think in abstract structures. They are not able to decompose and recompose concepts and problems. Programmers need this ability. Therefore, don't worry.
During the so called New Economy bubble I worked at an ISP and development shop. We tried to get more developers, but this was harder than expected. While the average CS student was more or less able to code, retrained ex-lorry drivers and bricklayers sent to us by the employment center where all unable to conceptualize problems maybe they would have been able to type in things we specified, but creative thinking was not their string side. Like, not everyone can run like Usian Bolt. Therefore, we need jobs for everyone suitable for their abilities.
Based on your information no one can give you solid advice. It highly depends on the load you expect and on the data model you will use. for a simple twitter, you can use a log file, or any NoSQL technology. If you only have a few transactions and not billions of entries, you could use PostgreSQL or even MySQL. However, PostgreSQL scales better. If you want to make complex interpretations on graph like data you may consider Neo4J as a graph DB.
"WABR" and "CBR" are different metrics and they can support to reason about different questions. While CBR allows you to compare two applied advises by their effectiveness, the WABR metrics answers to ability of people to apply one of the two advises. For example, the given Linux vs. Windows+virus scanner comparison, has two different solutions. As it is easier to apply the virus scanner advice, more people will be able to apply it. So if your goal is to reduce virus infections in general, it might be the solution which provides better results in shorter time. However, the other solution has the higher potential to get rid of problem after all. The second solution is more radical, but in the end (when implemented) the result is better.
In an engineering context you would go for the better implementation advice even if it is more expensive (more learning time, more money etc.) to switch technology. This is especially true in risky environments. However, for average people this might not be the selected route. In the end they use the easier path and end up with more complex solutions, which do not fully achieve what they need, but they are even more unwilling to change because it was so complicated to get there. So if you want to do them a favor, give them the more complicated advice and support them to get there.
BTW: The example with "eat less, exercise more" is flawed, as to be measurable to must specify limits. It is like suggesting to use more virus checkers or update more often. Furthermore, eating and living habits are hard to change as you have to change behavioral patterns. In such cases small steps, reflecting behavior patterns and avoiding situations which cause those pattern to be triggered is more helpful. In technology it is merely to help them to be brave to do the transition to a new system. They do not really have to learn new behavior.
Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Amazon, and all the other information companies do the same. They collect your data they analyze it and they try to sell your pattern to everybody who can pay for it. So why single out Facebook? Facebook most likely has the biggest problem in terms of reputation, but soon other companies reputation will be harmed too. The only problem that could happen to Facebook is another online-application which is able replace it without providing adverts to the users. Most likely Facebook would by such company to prevent it from happening.
The real problem is that people in western countries forgot to practice critical thinking which is part of the scientific method. One central question is "Why is something?" and "How does something work?". Such thinking also results in questioning yourself, criticizing your ego. For example, the recent dispute between Kay and Linus Torvalds about the use of certain kernel parameters is a perfect example.
This is different. While slashdotters might believe in the possibility of an scientific and technological advancement which is yet not realized. These pseudoscience believers think the things they believe in exist even that there is no prove or even prove that they are wrong.
Furthermore, even if your argument would be true, that both believes are structural identical. This would not make your argument valid. As it is a problem that people believe in pseudoscience, it is also a problem when another group believes in some other hokum. They do not cancel each other out.
Not. VR is definitely cool for games and art, but in many other cases it is overrated. Data analysis, science, or medicine will not really benefit from it in the form of VR headsets. This is different with augmented reality. This is can really be helpful for many people.
I assume that the people are not like dead fish in a freezer. There must be monitoring equipment and other tools to support people. Furthermore, while it is cold in space (3 kelvin background radiation), there is no atmosphere so transporting energy away is also a big issue.
The present proposal in this thread is, that if a problem arises some humans get out of stasis and fix it. During that time the ship must be habitable. Ergo it must be warm. And all the equipment must work in that ship which will benefit from suitable conditions. 200 W is not really that much energy if you think in a monitoring device, controls, communications etc. then you will need much more energy.
If you are referring to this model of a warp bubble proposed by Alcubierre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... then yes we have such knowledge. However, it requires things we have never seen and which may not exist. And if it would only be an engineering problem, then lets talk again when they have a prototype. From the prototype to a real engine outside the lab it will be approx. 40 years.
In the end it will also not matter, because when these people reach the distant location, there will be no compatible civilization on earth left. If any at all.
Who cares? Why is this important? If it takes you 10000 years to get to some other planet, you're probably not worried about going back to Earth. The point is to start a new civilization elsewhere.
Normally people want to have some way of staying in contact. They even did when the US was colonized.
Third, all that requires energy, which has to be brought with you.
That's what nuclear power is for. Once a ship is at speed, the ship's systems won't need much power, and that can be provided by nuclear fuel which lasts for thousands of years easily.
You need a lot of energy to support lets say 100 000 stasis pods and you want to support those for 30 000 years. Lets assume that on pod requires 200 W per hour. So you need 20 MW/h output for that. Approx. 7 g Uranium is needed for 1kW/h. So you need 140 kg/h (at least if Yahoo is right). 30 000 years are 262.8 Mh. This will result in 36792 kt (kilo ton/Gg giga gram) Uranium. Alone the transfer to earth orbit at present (19 Mio $ ton) makes it impossible to realize financially. Not to mention the proper storage. for all the Uranium. And it decays on the trip making it worthless over time. Maybe with fusion, but this is another technological dream.
Therefore, the suspended animation must last that long without chemical decay of cellular structure.
Various animals have been found well-preserved in ice for thousands of years. Properly done, it should be possible to preserve tissue indefinitely with cryogenics. The key of course is the "properly done" part, which we haven't quite figured out. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
Well preserved? they had real trouble isolating intact DNA. But ok, maybe they can put the people in cold storage without cell damage.
The main problem is, as you state, keeping the ship's technology in working order for that long. That's an engineering problem, and definitely not an insurmountable one. Lots of sci-fi stories have even postulated such missions with automated ships which would revive some humans if they detected a problem, so the humans could repair it and go back to cryonic suspension.
True in sci-fi. In reality we are not able to run factories without hazards. Yes we have monitoring systems, but they are not perfect. And beside repair team you need tools and materials to repair the machinery. Therefore, for every used technology you need all the factory capabilities to produce such parts.
Sci-fi is good to discuss such long travel issues, however, it is always a simplification on various parts of such an endeavor. Therefore you cannot really assume that, because it is possible in sci-fi, it would be possible in future.
The scenario for this that we travel with some sub-light vehicle to another start system which will take ten-thousands years. And it is therefore very unlikely that we ever use that technology for an endeavor which will include such time frames. Technology and physics strongly suggest that we are never able to produce technology which lasts for decades without maintenance or even centuries. Therefore, we will never go on such missions. Exception is: We wreck earth completely, but are able at that point to build something which is that sophisticated.
BTW: Unlikely is not the same as impossible. For the near future (e.g. 5 years) we will not build such device. In my lifetime (e.g. 40 years) we will not build such device. We need some new physics tricks to be able to build such ship (sub light) and we need to be able to create technology which is able to self-repair. As both are not available and actual approaches are in early stages that it will take more than 50 years for them to mature.
Maintenance crew is out of the question if you want to bridge the distance to another star. Alpha Centauri is approx 30000 years away. So you need auto maintenance.
Ok. If you think in independent colonies. In that case you need above the previous requirements a really large group to go to the new destination for two reasons. First, to be able to survive in an alien environment you need technology. To understand and maintain such technology you need educated people. Knowledge is already that diverse today that a small group of 1000 people would not suffice. And you should not only send telephone disinfectors;-) Second, to have a stable population you need genetic diversity which also includes larger groups of people. However, if you managed putting people in stasis and build ships which last thousands of years, you easily can build multiple ships to transport enough people to the new location. Leaving you only with one problem: A large group of people to be willing to leave earth. This only will happen when we fuck up earth totally which we are actually working on.
It is very unlikely that we will ever be able to use this technology for deep space travel. First, the distance that grate that you need thousands of years to get there. Therefore, the suspended animation must last that long without chemical decay of cellular structure. Second, all the technology in the ship must last that long. We have no technology which is usable without maintenance for that long. Therefore, self-repair ability for everything including the ship itself must be part of the mission. This looks very much, like the man who wanted to travel around the world in a straight line from Peter Bichsel. Third, all that requires energy, which has to be brought with you.
In the end it will also not matter, because when these people reach the distant location, there will be no compatible civilization on earth left. If any at all. 10000 years ago we were sitting in caves. Reading books from medieval time in their original writing is almost impossible to most people today and that is only 500-1000 years. There is no point in deep space travel as long as we are not able to go faster than light or at least close to light speed.
The whole starting impulse for industrialization (focal point UK) was the expensive labor due to labor shortage in the UK. This made mechanization an option to lower production prices. True this results in fewer jobs if production is not extended or in a larger production. In the UK it resulted in the larger production and in better worker conditions. Subsequently, it also resulted in a job shortage decades later.
Nowadays we are in a difficult situation. There is, depending on the local economy, a minimal income requirement for a person, so that this person can live and can participate in society. The income must be high enough for food, housing, medical care, education, cultural participation, etc. On that basis you can calculate a minimal income. Also it has been determined that is not very healthy to work more than 40 hours a week (average). Also we know how income taxes are calculated. Based on theses values you can determine the minimal income of a person.
If that person is part of a family and that family comprises of one parent and one child, which is not working, then the income must be high enough to finance both.
To fulfill these income requirements you have two options. A) You implement a social benefit system which supports people who earn too less or B) you implement minimal wage. The first option will rise state-based spending, which requires higher taxes. The second option will result in some job reduction, however, only in areas where machines can do the job. These areas, however, will be automated anyway even if you do not rise the minimum wage, as technology for their automation becomes cheaper. The third solution is a combination of both, which is practiced in many European countries to some extend.
The term Communism is a widely overloaded term. Especially in the USA. In general Communism is a economical concept where all resources are owned by those who work there. In some contexts this is translated to owned by the state, but it is not a necessity. Furthermore, the theory requires a democratic political system, because otherwise the control of the public over the production resources is not guaranteed. The eastern European countries where all dictatorships and were therefore never able to fulfill the requirements for a communistic society. Furthermore, they never ever used a proper management cycle in their businesses. Even in Communism you have to do. What they did was defining a goal for the company, defining the means to implement it and then they started. They never checked if the goals where really met. Or if the goals match with reality, because they did not have the necessary information. And they could not get it because that would have meant for workers or farmers to speak up. So they failed. They also failed because they believed that computers are evil and are only used to reduce labor force.
Really, why is this creationists nonsense so much discussed in the US? It is not science. They claim to have a theory, but it is not testable. Therefore, by definition it is not a theory. And it is not really about religion. As the last pope pointed out, religion is about why are we here and science is about how did it happen. Furthermore, religion is about believe and science is the opposite. Thanks god they are not that prominent in Europe at the moment and I hope we are protected from them. However, I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is, they did that by switching from coal to gas power plants. So fracking has a positive contribution to the CO2 balance of the US.
On a per person scale they are far behind the EU or the USA. But true, they should start reducing as they are already over 1.5 t CO2 per person.
China, for instance, knows about the climate change problematic. However, they decided that the big CO2 producers should cut their share first. But at least they admit it is a problem which is more than the US does. Saudi Arabia, like all the countries in the middle east, accept the fact, as they a directly vulnerable to rising sea levels. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is working an solar power concepts. To be precise they buy the technology from us. But they are preparing themselves. For Russia, I don't know what they are doing at all. As far as I know they admit that CO2 is a problem and that a warmer climate may change the permafrost area in their country with positive an negative effects. So no they are not doing anything against climate change, but at least they admit it is a problem. And the point in my post was that the people accept the facts about climate change. But in the US it seams that a large percentage of the population does not accept those facts.
I wonder why this topic is so much discussed in the USA. In every other country climate change and the fact that we, humans, are causing it is accepted as a scientific fact. However, in the US, there is still a large fraction who doubt it or ignore it. And I am wondering why is that so?
First, an IT administrator is not a programmer. Second, one truck driver who become a successful programmer does not prove that all or at least a majority can be trained accordingly.
The good thing is, teaching everyone to code is impossible. Most laborers do not have the talent to think in abstract structures. They are not able to decompose and recompose concepts and problems. Programmers need this ability. Therefore, don't worry.
During the so called New Economy bubble I worked at an ISP and development shop. We tried to get more developers, but this was harder than expected. While the average CS student was more or less able to code, retrained ex-lorry drivers and bricklayers sent to us by the employment center where all unable to conceptualize problems maybe they would have been able to type in things we specified, but creative thinking was not their string side. Like, not everyone can run like Usian Bolt. Therefore, we need jobs for everyone suitable for their abilities.
Based on your information no one can give you solid advice. It highly depends on the load you expect and on the data model you will use. for a simple twitter, you can use a log file, or any NoSQL technology. If you only have a few transactions and not billions of entries, you could use PostgreSQL or even MySQL. However, PostgreSQL scales better. If you want to make complex interpretations on graph like data you may consider Neo4J as a graph DB.
"WABR" and "CBR" are different metrics and they can support to reason about different questions. While CBR allows you to compare two applied advises by their effectiveness, the WABR metrics answers to ability of people to apply one of the two advises. For example, the given Linux vs. Windows+virus scanner comparison, has two different solutions. As it is easier to apply the virus scanner advice, more people will be able to apply it. So if your goal is to reduce virus infections in general, it might be the solution which provides better results in shorter time. However, the other solution has the higher potential to get rid of problem after all. The second solution is more radical, but in the end (when implemented) the result is better.
In an engineering context you would go for the better implementation advice even if it is more expensive (more learning time, more money etc.) to switch technology. This is especially true in risky environments. However, for average people this might not be the selected route. In the end they use the easier path and end up with more complex solutions, which do not fully achieve what they need, but they are even more unwilling to change because it was so complicated to get there. So if you want to do them a favor, give them the more complicated advice and support them to get there.
BTW: The example with "eat less, exercise more" is flawed, as to be measurable to must specify limits. It is like suggesting to use more virus checkers or update more often. Furthermore, eating and living habits are hard to change as you have to change behavioral patterns. In such cases small steps, reflecting behavior patterns and avoiding situations which cause those pattern to be triggered is more helpful. In technology it is merely to help them to be brave to do the transition to a new system. They do not really have to learn new behavior.
Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Amazon, and all the other information companies do the same. They collect your data they analyze it and they try to sell your pattern to everybody who can pay for it. So why single out Facebook? Facebook most likely has the biggest problem in terms of reputation, but soon other companies reputation will be harmed too. The only problem that could happen to Facebook is another online-application which is able replace it without providing adverts to the users. Most likely Facebook would by such company to prevent it from happening.
True! Including critical thinking. And that you have to question things where you only have believe in but no prove.
The real problem is that people in western countries forgot to practice critical thinking which is part of the scientific method. One central question is "Why is something?" and "How does something work?". Such thinking also results in questioning yourself, criticizing your ego. For example, the recent dispute between Kay and Linus Torvalds about the use of certain kernel parameters is a perfect example.
This is different. While slashdotters might believe in the possibility of an scientific and technological advancement which is yet not realized. These pseudoscience believers think the things they believe in exist even that there is no prove or even prove that they are wrong.
Furthermore, even if your argument would be true, that both believes are structural identical. This would not make your argument valid. As it is a problem that people believe in pseudoscience, it is also a problem when another group believes in some other hokum. They do not cancel each other out.
Not. VR is definitely cool for games and art, but in many other cases it is overrated. Data analysis, science, or medicine will not really benefit from it in the form of VR headsets.
This is different with augmented reality. This is can really be helpful for many people.
I assume that the people are not like dead fish in a freezer. There must be monitoring equipment and other tools to support people. Furthermore, while it is cold in space (3 kelvin background radiation), there is no atmosphere so transporting energy away is also a big issue.
The present proposal in this thread is, that if a problem arises some humans get out of stasis and fix it. During that time the ship must be habitable. Ergo it must be warm. And all the equipment must work in that ship which will benefit from suitable conditions. 200 W is not really that much energy if you think in a monitoring device, controls, communications etc. then you will need much more energy.
If you are referring to this model of a warp bubble proposed by Alcubierre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... then yes we have such knowledge. However, it requires things we have never seen and which may not exist. And if it would only be an engineering problem, then lets talk again when they have a prototype. From the prototype to a real engine outside the lab it will be approx. 40 years.
In the end it will also not matter, because when these people reach the distant location, there will be no compatible civilization on earth left. If any at all.
Who cares? Why is this important? If it takes you 10000 years to get to some other planet, you're probably not worried about going back to Earth. The point is to start a new civilization elsewhere.
Normally people want to have some way of staying in contact. They even did when the US was colonized.
Third, all that requires energy, which has to be brought with you.
That's what nuclear power is for. Once a ship is at speed, the ship's systems won't need much power, and that can be provided by nuclear fuel which lasts for thousands of years easily.
You need a lot of energy to support lets say 100 000 stasis pods and you want to support those for 30 000 years. Lets assume that on pod requires 200 W per hour. So you need 20 MW/h output for that. Approx. 7 g Uranium is needed for 1kW/h. So you need 140 kg/h (at least if Yahoo is right). 30 000 years are 262.8 Mh. This will result in 36792 kt (kilo ton/Gg giga gram) Uranium. Alone the transfer to earth orbit at present (19 Mio $ ton) makes it impossible to realize financially. Not to mention the proper storage. for all the Uranium. And it decays on the trip making it worthless over time. Maybe with fusion, but this is another technological dream.
Therefore, the suspended animation must last that long without chemical decay of cellular structure.
Various animals have been found well-preserved in ice for thousands of years. Properly done, it should be possible to preserve tissue indefinitely with cryogenics. The key of course is the "properly done" part, which we haven't quite figured out. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
Well preserved? they had real trouble isolating intact DNA. But ok, maybe they can put the people in cold storage without cell damage.
The main problem is, as you state, keeping the ship's technology in working order for that long. That's an engineering problem, and definitely not an insurmountable one. Lots of sci-fi stories have even postulated such missions with automated ships which would revive some humans if they detected a problem, so the humans could repair it and go back to cryonic suspension.
True in sci-fi. In reality we are not able to run factories without hazards. Yes we have monitoring systems, but they are not perfect. And beside repair team you need tools and materials to repair the machinery. Therefore, for every used technology you need all the factory capabilities to produce such parts.
Sci-fi is good to discuss such long travel issues, however, it is always a simplification on various parts of such an endeavor. Therefore you cannot really assume that, because it is possible in sci-fi, it would be possible in future.
The scenario for this that we travel with some sub-light vehicle to another start system which will take ten-thousands years. And it is therefore very unlikely that we ever use that technology for an endeavor which will include such time frames. Technology and physics strongly suggest that we are never able to produce technology which lasts for decades without maintenance or even centuries. Therefore, we will never go on such missions. Exception is: We wreck earth completely, but are able at that point to build something which is that sophisticated.
BTW: Unlikely is not the same as impossible. For the near future (e.g. 5 years) we will not build such device. In my lifetime (e.g. 40 years) we will not build such device. We need some new physics tricks to be able to build such ship (sub light) and we need to be able to create technology which is able to self-repair. As both are not available and actual approaches are in early stages that it will take more than 50 years for them to mature.
Maintenance crew is out of the question if you want to bridge the distance to another star. Alpha Centauri is approx 30000 years away. So you need auto maintenance.
Ok. If you think in independent colonies. In that case you need above the previous requirements a really large group to go to the new destination for two reasons. First, to be able to survive in an alien environment you need technology. To understand and maintain such technology you need educated people. Knowledge is already that diverse today that a small group of 1000 people would not suffice. And you should not only send telephone disinfectors ;-) Second, to have a stable population you need genetic diversity which also includes larger groups of people. However, if you managed putting people in stasis and build ships which last thousands of years, you easily can build multiple ships to transport enough people to the new location. Leaving you only with one problem: A large group of people to be willing to leave earth. This only will happen when we fuck up earth totally which we are actually working on.
Yes let it out your racist impulses.
It is very unlikely that we will ever be able to use this technology for deep space travel. First, the distance that grate that you need thousands of years to get there. Therefore, the suspended animation must last that long without chemical decay of cellular structure. Second, all the technology in the ship must last that long. We have no technology which is usable without maintenance for that long. Therefore, self-repair ability for everything including the ship itself must be part of the mission. This looks very much, like the man who wanted to travel around the world in a straight line from Peter Bichsel. Third, all that requires energy, which has to be brought with you.
In the end it will also not matter, because when these people reach the distant location, there will be no compatible civilization on earth left. If any at all. 10000 years ago we were sitting in caves. Reading books from medieval time in their original writing is almost impossible to most people today and that is only 500-1000 years. There is no point in deep space travel as long as we are not able to go faster than light or at least close to light speed.
The whole starting impulse for industrialization (focal point UK) was the expensive labor due to labor shortage in the UK. This made mechanization an option to lower production prices. True this results in fewer jobs if production is not extended or in a larger production. In the UK it resulted in the larger production and in better worker conditions. Subsequently, it also resulted in a job shortage decades later.
Nowadays we are in a difficult situation. There is, depending on the local economy, a minimal income requirement for a person, so that this person can live and can participate in society. The income must be high enough for food, housing, medical care, education, cultural participation, etc. On that basis you can calculate a minimal income. Also it has been determined that is not very healthy to work more than 40 hours a week (average). Also we know how income taxes are calculated. Based on theses values you can determine the minimal income of a person.
If that person is part of a family and that family comprises of one parent and one child, which is not working, then the income must be high enough to finance both.
To fulfill these income requirements you have two options. A) You implement a social benefit system which supports people who earn too less or B) you implement minimal wage. The first option will rise state-based spending, which requires higher taxes. The second option will result in some job reduction, however, only in areas where machines can do the job. These areas, however, will be automated anyway even if you do not rise the minimum wage, as technology for their automation becomes cheaper. The third solution is a combination of both, which is practiced in many European countries to some extend.
The term Communism is a widely overloaded term. Especially in the USA. In general Communism is a economical concept where all resources are owned by those who work there. In some contexts this is translated to owned by the state, but it is not a necessity. Furthermore, the theory requires a democratic political system, because otherwise the control of the public over the production resources is not guaranteed. The eastern European countries where all dictatorships and were therefore never able to fulfill the requirements for a communistic society. Furthermore, they never ever used a proper management cycle in their businesses. Even in Communism you have to do. What they did was defining a goal for the company, defining the means to implement it and then they started. They never checked if the goals where really met. Or if the goals match with reality, because they did not have the necessary information. And they could not get it because that would have meant for workers or farmers to speak up. So they failed. They also failed because they believed that computers are evil and are only used to reduce labor force.
Really, why is this creationists nonsense so much discussed in the US? It is not science. They claim to have a theory, but it is not testable. Therefore, by definition it is not a theory. And it is not really about religion. As the last pope pointed out, religion is about why are we here and science is about how did it happen. Furthermore, religion is about believe and science is the opposite. Thanks god they are not that prominent in Europe at the moment and I hope we are protected from them. However, I could be wrong.