"The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust."
I don't think there will be any trust issues here. Unless we're planning on selling it for more than meat and as a meat alternative. I think the scientist has the intention to sell it as ground meat, or in sausages. It would lower the cost. If anything, in ten years time, you'll be looking for genetically modified cows with green flesh as proof that they aren't serving you in-vitro meat instead of the real stuff.
I don't know... To me, that article just says that there are a lot of e-mails going back and forth between climate scientists. Which makes sense. The hacked e-mails are between co-workers after all. It says they disagreed with each other, but that the disagreements were small enough that they could agree on a common message. It says that one scientist was asked to beef up his conclusions to aid in making a bigger public splash. There's nothing wrong with that. A paper is like an essay. You make different points with different amounts of stress depending on what message you're trying to convey and what you can back up by reference or evidence.
What the article does NOT say is that there is any proof of people tampering with results. The article also doesn't say that anyone over-stated or exaggerated anything. Though, it sounds like Santax might have read another article that does have stronger proof? (Can you post that? I haven't read it)
I believe the climate change scientists know what they are doing. Group-think does exist, and entire groups of scientists have been shown to be wrong. But this is the exception, not the rule. I want to present another anecdote. The surgeon general first announced that smoking had negative effects on health in 1964. It's the surgeon general's job to announce some semblance of a consensus of the opinions of all the medical researchers in the United States. How long did it take before the majority of people believed in this message? How many decades were there doctors actively trying to 'disprove' the link between smoking and lung cancer? And, we're talking about something that's easy to prove. The effects of one object on an individual organism. There's almost no wiggle-room to throw in a wrench of doubt into that picture. It doesn't take very many people to throw mud at a consensus of ten thousand scientists.
Windmills aren't a promising as these numbers show though. For one, you pick ideal locations for your windmills. If you were to cover Ohio with windmills, you would generate very little electricity. Another thing that should be added to projections is that windmill power output is its maximum rated output, while the average output is probably 30% of the maximum. Oh, and one last point. I believe household consumption makes up less than a half of a country's power requirements since most of the electricity is used for industry. Still. Those numbers make me happy.
turbine (tûrbn, -bn)
n.
Any of various machines in which the kinetic energy of a moving fluid is converted to mechanical power by the impulse or reaction of the fluid with a series of buckets, paddles, or blades arrayed about the circumference of a wheel or cylinder.
:p
Sorry. I'm being a jerk. I suspect you are confusing 'turbine' for 'generator.' In this case, 'turbine' refers to the entire windmill including the blades. That means the Chinese are constructing the blades as well.
Really?
Without a WYSIWYG system, I'm helpless.
LaTeX is nice for typesetting. But when you're racing against the professor scrawling across the blackboard, you don't want to have to compile to double check if you wrote that last line correctly.
I second mathtype. It is VERY similar to Microsoft equation editor, but the interface is much smoother.
The menues are intuitive and expandable. Best of all, mousing over any symbol displays the shortcut keys in the status bar, so once you find the symbol you need, you can add it quickly.
You only need the mouse if you don't already know the shortcut keys. My hands don't come off the keyboard when I use it.
copy-paste works very well, and you can even save any size of hilighted section to their own menubar location and add shortcut keys to them.
I think you're mistaking medical insurance with property insurance. The question is not whether you can buy insurance for a device that you own. It's whether a medical insurance company that would pay for a medical device should be required to pay for a smart phone instead if the smart phone can be made to perform the needed task. The article uses the example of a text to speech system for someone who is mute or a picture display for someone with autism.
Right now, I could buy a $8000 special text to speech machine, and the insurance would cover the cost, or I could buy an Ipod touch and install a text to speech application for $300 but have it come out of my pocket.
The force exerted upward on the objects in the field will be matched with a force of the same magnitude downward on the magnets.
So as long as your magnets aren't inside the spaceship, it would work. But if you had giant magnets outside your ship, there are better options than using the diamagnetic (very weak) property of some materials as opposed to ferromagnetic effects (this is how normal magnets work).
Wait? Wha? Highschool physics much? How was this post modded 5+ informative when it's so wrong?
With 16T, you can levitate an object of any size so long as it predominantly consists of water.
It's not like a 1g frog will float, but a 2g frog will fall in the same magnetic field. The reason why the things floated are small is because its easier to make small magnetic fields. If you have a current going around a loop, and you double the radius of that loop, your peak magnetic field drops by a factor of 4. You do not need 150kT to levitate a human. You just need a magnet that is physically larger with the same field strength and geometry.
One more thing. It's not just the magnitude of the magnetic field that controls whether something will levitate or not. The key is that the magnetic field gets weaker as you move up. Wikipedia tells me that levitation power is proportional to B*dB/dZ. (the magnitude of the field times how quickly it diminishes as you move upward) That is to say, if you had a 150kT magnetic field, and it was constant everywhere, you wouldn't float in it.
This is VERY old, but I thought I would reply anyways. There is no ideal temperature for the planet. If some random place is filled with grasslands instead of forests, it isn't any less healthy. The problem with 'global climate change' is not that the temperature will be different. The problem is that the temperature is changing very very quickly. With a slow change in a local climate, the local fauna and flora have the chance to move, change, adapt, or at least die out slowly as they are replaced by a different species more suitable to the new climate. But in the case of rapid climate change, a smaller fraction of the species are capable of adjusting to the new environment and this results in a worldwide decrease in biodiversity.
Now let's assume for an instant that all this happens. Two hundred years from now there are half as many species as there would have been without human intervention. Is the world less healthy? Would I rather live in a world with more species and a smaller human footprint? I don't actually know the answer. Maybe the extra economic prosperity in the world with fewer species means we have starships.
The topic that is more frightening than the overall health of the planet is the results global climate change might have on humans. The models seem to predict that things will be particularly bad in the tropics. Places where the poor countries are. Crop yields are expected to drop in many places. Desserts are growing over regions that were irrigation was once unnecessary. Water shortages are likely to become issues in many places and typhoons will strike areas they've previously left alone. Shortages lead to wars. That's what happened in Darfur. Things will be A OK for us here in North America. Except that we'll have lots of international bad news to deal with.
There are a few doomsday scenarios too. I'm not sure how true they are. I've heard the brazil rainforest is at a tipping point where it could simply cease to exist if the local temperature climbs high enough. There is a certain CO2 concentration in ocean water above which it's not possible for animals to create shell or coral. If these are true, then we're in a lot more trouble.
I think the most important aspect of a digital camera is its micro controller. How quickly can it take photos? How long is the delay from when you push the button to when the photo is taken? "Ok ready? 1... 2... 3... Cheese!.. err. hold on. I think the flash is charging. Keep smiling. Fla Fla Fla Fla Fla Flash!' Most annoying thing in the universe since Yellow Punch Buggy No Return!
The fallout would be negligible.
If the asteroid is inside earth's gravity well, it's already too late to do anything. Nukes or otherwise.
We could identify a dangerous asteroid around a decade before it strikes earth. The orbits (around the sun) of the asteroid and earth would be close several times before impact. We would nudge the asteroid on one of these occasions.
If however it's a comet, then we wont know its going to impact the earth until we can see it. Which will already be way too late.
Or you could use burn glucose.
the cells in the cornea are fed not by blood vessels (which wouldn't be transparent) but get their oxygen from the air, and their nutrients and sugars from your tears. The lens could do the same thing.
Well you see Richard. These... 'molecules' you speak of.
They are like children. They lack confidence and there are many more followers than leaders.
They often need their own space and will go to great lengths to attain it. Yet, sometimes they form tight friendships and sometimes, eternal romances.
Err. Navier-Stokes equation? Mathematics? Hmmm. I never did understand why you used such a shallow language to describe such lovely things.
Slow down cowboy. I'm asking for a citation because I'm interested in reading it. Not because I want to punch holes in an argument without doing any work.
The main public aversion to sending nuclear power systems into space is not the risk they pose at their destination. We're worried that the rocket explodes during takeoff violently enough to breach containment and the radiation gets spread out down here on Earth.
We prevent containment breaches here on Earth using ten (or so) meters of concrete. Not so practical on the launch pad.
Slashdot Mirror
*double checks your math* Hun... That's funny.
Huge vats of meat do not have cloven hooves nor do they chew their cud. Alas!
"The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust."
I don't think there will be any trust issues here. Unless we're planning on selling it for more than meat and as a meat alternative. I think the scientist has the intention to sell it as ground meat, or in sausages. It would lower the cost. If anything, in ten years time, you'll be looking for genetically modified cows with green flesh as proof that they aren't serving you in-vitro meat instead of the real stuff.
The same thing that happens to them when you wash with antibacterial soap.
I don't know... To me, that article just says that there are a lot of e-mails going back and forth between climate scientists. Which makes sense. The hacked e-mails are between co-workers after all. It says they disagreed with each other, but that the disagreements were small enough that they could agree on a common message.
It says that one scientist was asked to beef up his conclusions to aid in making a bigger public splash. There's nothing wrong with that. A paper is like an essay. You make different points with different amounts of stress depending on what message you're trying to convey and what you can back up by reference or evidence.
What the article does NOT say is that there is any proof of people tampering with results. The article also doesn't say that anyone over-stated or exaggerated anything. Though, it sounds like Santax might have read another article that does have stronger proof? (Can you post that? I haven't read it)
I believe the climate change scientists know what they are doing. Group-think does exist, and entire groups of scientists have been shown to be wrong. But this is the exception, not the rule. I want to present another anecdote.
The surgeon general first announced that smoking had negative effects on health in 1964. It's the surgeon general's job to announce some semblance of a consensus of the opinions of all the medical researchers in the United States. How long did it take before the majority of people believed in this message? How many decades were there doctors actively trying to 'disprove' the link between smoking and lung cancer? And, we're talking about something that's easy to prove. The effects of one object on an individual organism. There's almost no wiggle-room to throw in a wrench of doubt into that picture.
It doesn't take very many people to throw mud at a consensus of ten thousand scientists.
Cool!
Windmills aren't a promising as these numbers show though. For one, you pick ideal locations for your windmills. If you were to cover Ohio with windmills, you would generate very little electricity. Another thing that should be added to projections is that windmill power output is its maximum rated output, while the average output is probably 30% of the maximum. Oh, and one last point. I believe household consumption makes up less than a half of a country's power requirements since most of the electricity is used for industry.
Still. Those numbers make me happy.
turbine (tûrbn, -bn)
:p
n.
Any of various machines in which the kinetic energy of a moving fluid is converted to mechanical power by the impulse or reaction of the fluid with a series of buckets, paddles, or blades arrayed about the circumference of a wheel or cylinder.
Sorry. I'm being a jerk. I suspect you are confusing 'turbine' for 'generator.' In this case, 'turbine' refers to the entire windmill including the blades. That means the Chinese are constructing the blades as well.
Dunno. Maybe there's too much data to transmit, so they do much of the data processing on the satellite.
Really? Without a WYSIWYG system, I'm helpless. LaTeX is nice for typesetting. But when you're racing against the professor scrawling across the blackboard, you don't want to have to compile to double check if you wrote that last line correctly.
I second mathtype. It is VERY similar to Microsoft equation editor, but the interface is much smoother. The menues are intuitive and expandable. Best of all, mousing over any symbol displays the shortcut keys in the status bar, so once you find the symbol you need, you can add it quickly. You only need the mouse if you don't already know the shortcut keys. My hands don't come off the keyboard when I use it. copy-paste works very well, and you can even save any size of hilighted section to their own menubar location and add shortcut keys to them.
I think you're mistaking medical insurance with property insurance. The question is not whether you can buy insurance for a device that you own. It's whether a medical insurance company that would pay for a medical device should be required to pay for a smart phone instead if the smart phone can be made to perform the needed task. The article uses the example of a text to speech system for someone who is mute or a picture display for someone with autism.
Right now, I could buy a $8000 special text to speech machine, and the insurance would cover the cost, or I could buy an Ipod touch and install a text to speech application for $300 but have it come out of my pocket.
:p
Here's one.
The force exerted upward on the objects in the field will be matched with a force of the same magnitude downward on the magnets. So as long as your magnets aren't inside the spaceship, it would work. But if you had giant magnets outside your ship, there are better options than using the diamagnetic (very weak) property of some materials as opposed to ferromagnetic effects (this is how normal magnets work).
Wait? Wha? Highschool physics much? How was this post modded 5+ informative when it's so wrong?
With 16T, you can levitate an object of any size so long as it predominantly consists of water. It's not like a 1g frog will float, but a 2g frog will fall in the same magnetic field. The reason why the things floated are small is because its easier to make small magnetic fields. If you have a current going around a loop, and you double the radius of that loop, your peak magnetic field drops by a factor of 4. You do not need 150kT to levitate a human. You just need a magnet that is physically larger with the same field strength and geometry.
One more thing. It's not just the magnitude of the magnetic field that controls whether something will levitate or not. The key is that the magnetic field gets weaker as you move up. Wikipedia tells me that levitation power is proportional to B*dB/dZ. (the magnitude of the field times how quickly it diminishes as you move upward) That is to say, if you had a 150kT magnetic field, and it was constant everywhere, you wouldn't float in it.
When you blew your nose yesterday, did you use a Kleenex(R) or a tissue?
This is VERY old, but I thought I would reply anyways.
There is no ideal temperature for the planet. If some random place is filled with grasslands instead of forests, it isn't any less healthy. The problem with 'global climate change' is not that the temperature will be different. The problem is that the temperature is changing very very quickly. With a slow change in a local climate, the local fauna and flora have the chance to move, change, adapt, or at least die out slowly as they are replaced by a different species more suitable to the new climate. But in the case of rapid climate change, a smaller fraction of the species are capable of adjusting to the new environment and this results in a worldwide decrease in biodiversity.
Now let's assume for an instant that all this happens. Two hundred years from now there are half as many species as there would have been without human intervention. Is the world less healthy? Would I rather live in a world with more species and a smaller human footprint? I don't actually know the answer. Maybe the extra economic prosperity in the world with fewer species means we have starships.
The topic that is more frightening than the overall health of the planet is the results global climate change might have on humans. The models seem to predict that things will be particularly bad in the tropics. Places where the poor countries are. Crop yields are expected to drop in many places. Desserts are growing over regions that were irrigation was once unnecessary. Water shortages are likely to become issues in many places and typhoons will strike areas they've previously left alone. Shortages lead to wars. That's what happened in Darfur. Things will be A OK for us here in North America. Except that we'll have lots of international bad news to deal with.
There are a few doomsday scenarios too. I'm not sure how true they are. I've heard the brazil rainforest is at a tipping point where it could simply cease to exist if the local temperature climbs high enough. There is a certain CO2 concentration in ocean water above which it's not possible for animals to create shell or coral. If these are true, then we're in a lot more trouble.
I second mgblst! Megapixles Don't Matter!
I think the most important aspect of a digital camera is its micro controller. How quickly can it take photos? How long is the delay from when you push the button to when the photo is taken? "Ok ready? 1... 2... 3... Cheese!.. err. hold on. I think the flash is charging. Keep smiling. Fla Fla Fla Fla Fla Flash!'
Most annoying thing in the universe since Yellow Punch Buggy No Return!
The fallout would be negligible.
If the asteroid is inside earth's gravity well, it's already too late to do anything. Nukes or otherwise.
We could identify a dangerous asteroid around a decade before it strikes earth. The orbits (around the sun) of the asteroid and earth would be close several times before impact. We would nudge the asteroid on one of these occasions.
If however it's a comet, then we wont know its going to impact the earth until we can see it. Which will already be way too late.
Or you could use burn glucose.
the cells in the cornea are fed not by blood vessels (which wouldn't be transparent) but get their oxygen from the air, and their nutrients and sugars from your tears. The lens could do the same thing.
Well you see Richard. These... 'molecules' you speak of.
They are like children. They lack confidence and there are many more followers than leaders.
They often need their own space and will go to great lengths to attain it. Yet, sometimes they form tight friendships and sometimes, eternal romances.
Err. Navier-Stokes equation? Mathematics? Hmmm. I never did understand why you used such a shallow language to describe such lovely things.
At least, thats how I picture the conversation.
Ironically enough "piracy" is justified in this case...
You may be right. But be careful. ANYTHING can be justified when the only person who needs to be convinced is yourself.
Slow down cowboy. I'm asking for a citation because I'm interested in reading it. Not because I want to punch holes in an argument without doing any work.
Wow! That's an awesome PubMed article.
I always just assumed that non-ionizing meant no DNA damage. I never considered a catalyst system.
Really???
Any chance you can find a citation? I would have never guessed that rods of enriched radioactive fuel were safe to touch.
The main public aversion to sending nuclear power systems into space is not the risk they pose at their destination. We're worried that the rocket explodes during takeoff violently enough to breach containment and the radiation gets spread out down here on Earth.
We prevent containment breaches here on Earth using ten (or so) meters of concrete. Not so practical on the launch pad.