... Faust: The being of such gentlemen as you, indeed, In general, from your titles one can read. It shows itself but all too plainly when men dub You Liar or Destroyer or Beelzebub. Well now, who are you then?
Mephistopheles: Part of that Power which would The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good.
Faust: A riddle! Say what it implies!
Mephistopheles: I am the Spirit that denies! And rightly too; for all that doth begin Should rightly to destruction run; 'Twere better then that nothing were begun. Thus everything that you call Sin, Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent- That is my own, real element.
Its just great, I guess there is room for Miltons version of Satan too somewhere.
Also, don't forget that bees are on a suicide mission if they sting you. It really is your fault if you piss them off that much, and they are not some crazy religious humans. Wasps and hornets on the other hand are in a far more western position.
No it doesn't make you abnormal if you are a 12 year old who likes to kill animals for the entertainment value.
By the way the caffeine in plants is not just there for your enjoyment but as insecticide, germination inhibitor, and who knows what.
I used it just the same way on some potted plants but not all of them liked it. I figured that caffeine tablets don't do me any good yet might help with some nasty insects, however the hibiscus turned yellow despite my good intentions.
> I'm sure that LaTeX would have made more sense, but if I sent anything but Word to my instructors asking for comments, their heads would have exploded.
You could have given them a print out to comment on. That's easier to handle and way more interactive.
I also appreciate the good looks of LaTeX. Beyond that it shows that you had a few spare cycles to appreciate things like the following:
Good point, even though some regard it only as funny.
Will our silly government limit itself to censoring German language sites only or will they prevent me from posting inflammatory comments to foreign language forums? I will not test this lest I spoil my Karma.
I have my doubts though that our politicians are totally unaware of American politics as they are essentially using an emotionally loaded issue to foist censorship of a rather complex medium to a target audience that has age-wise passed beyond the capability to understand the subtleties of DNS redirection. Age may not be the only issue here but I just had to put all the problems into one sentence. Framing has been all the rage in the US,
and I guess our politicians advisers are smart enough to read those papers too.
So now we frame the internet as a "lawless chaos space" as Ms. von der Leyen puts it. The poor little internet has been framed as something worse than the space that surrounds us with all those chaotic n-body systems, it is even lawless - Gasp!
I suppose there are laws against all the nastiness worth policing on the internet but I guess it is cheaper to just close your eyes and pretend it is not there, even cheaper (just in time for the next election to prove they have done "something") than going ahead and forming some international consensus on what is objectionable and what not. I guess the world hasn't come far enough yet, for us not to pull an Iran, i.e. to fence ourself off rather than some few misfits out.
"Nedergaard knew that BBG could thwart the function of P2X7, and its similarity to a blue food dye approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1982 gave her the confidence to test it intravenously." still leaves this possibility open I guess.
The temperature on the moon if you are under ground can be around 20degrees C at the equator while in the ocean it is around 0 to 2 degrees C at higher depths.
Under water you have no to little access to solar energy, whereas you can get 10x to 3x of what you get at sealevel, on the moon.
In seawater you have also chemical stresses on equipment besides the mechanical stress. I could imagine that you will spend less on maintenance on the moon than you will on earth.
If you plan on staying longer in either location you might be able to spread out the setup cost especially if you become self sufficient. All the maintenance will eat into whatever budget you have then.
I want to see somebodies plan of how to move to the sea from zero to whatever depth start a colony and become self sufficient over 100 years and be able to start a new colony like the first without help from the land.
"At depths greater than a few hundred meters, the sun has little effect on water temperature, because the sun's energy has been absorbed by water at the surface. In the great depths of the ocean the water temperature is very cold. In fact, 75% of the water in the world ocean (the great depths) has a temperature between 0 ÂC and 2 ÂC."
The shelf is what is left to you, a bit meagre I would say.
"so at the equator T is about 296 K, or a comfortable 23 degrees C if you bury yourself sufficiently. At 60 degrees that drops to 249 K or -24 degrees C. The average subsurface temperature near the poles (85 degrees and higher) would be below 160 K or -110 degrees C."
Also compare the solar constant of 1366 W/m^2 to the 300-100 W/m^2 we are getting here on earth.
I might even venture a guess and predict that not only will you get a better power output of any solar power collection technology but also longer lifetime because the elements are just missing. As an example check out the ATS-3 satellite that has been working for ~30 years and compare to the 10 years you might get a warranty for on earth.
Personally I could imagine that the stresses on material on the moon especially underground could be manageable whereas you would have to deal with multiple atmospheres under water constantly. Also you would have to deal with corrosive sea water.
So you might cover the ocean with artificial islands maybe, but I doubt this will give you the bang for the buck, so far only oil drilling rigs get there. Granted getting the bang on the moon may require some searching for it.
Somehow I think the Dutch have found the best way to deal with the ocean.
The ecosystem on the moon unfortunately is missing, so I can offer no comparison there. But people will try to provide you with that information too:
So finally to go to the ocean you have to take infrastructure with you and for a start you will find it difficult to support the same number of people than you can on land. Also you have to find a way to become somewhat independent from the land lubbers. You may find all mineral resources but the amount of energy available to you is similar to people on land and you have to expend more for maintenance and you also have to produce drinking water.
On the moon you have higher initial costs but over the eons they may become negligible. You have 3-10x more energy available per area covered. This will also reduce the amount of material you have to put into energy collecting technology. You may have similar maintenance but not all needed resources assuming that water may be hard to come by. You will have to do some travelling which may be easier if earth is not your destination.
For simplicity's sake I assumed that living is the goal not short term gains.
No no, you don't understand! He referred to an even older meme from the Monthy Python era through which he is referring to an even older meme from an era most people are not sure about anymore:
Sounds great! Music is a social thing after all, contrast that to being alone with your mp3 player.
I'm sure that it would help our local artists to have more concerts, not to mention the people around it like pub owners.
You can easily spend the equivalent of a couple of CDs during a concert though. Given that people have limited amounts of money I can see that going to a concert is the second option.
Then again, nowadays I think I should rather leave my money with people than some kind of opaque institution.
Well they explained the ease of use issues, but chirping only produces a certain frequency at a time while clicks cover a broader and higher frequency range.
I doubt your statement that clicks are low powered because they are short btw.
However, now that I'm thinking about chirps, if you could chirp at high frequencies and had good frequency resolution you could use this while moving and use the Doppler effect, to locate objects.
If you think about using correlation to get better time resolution by processing a chirp I would like to ask you where in my brain I could find any fitting device.
Ultimately you might want to look into active sonar pulse design and space time adaptive processing radar. But I guess this will diverge from your brains abilities in terms of implementability.
I just offered my dad to solder a fancy golden SMA connector to his cell phone for this purpose. Finally something solid looking. Since you guys like WLAN routers with detacheable antennas so much they aren't even the most expensive anymore. Besides, they go from DC to 4GHz, so why shouldn't I.
I might even decide on an efficient 48 Volts low voltage device home standard. Unfortunately the industry hasn't come my way yet, but they will figure this out some time soon.
I just don't like this trade of between civilization an liberty. I understand that living with people on a relatively small piece of land requires rules and specialization causes dependencies. But what do we get back from all the security effort. While I could see that in this age of more or less open borders it would be easier for foreign agents, criminals, or terrorists to get in, I also have to notice that I don't have a cloak that protects me from 24h surveillance. I would like to get at least something for it. How about a nuclear powered car, an RTG for heating, a bunch of nanites to kill those darn slugs eating the parsley, and other fancy dual use technologies.
There is clearly a gap there between the security mechanisms in place and the security I need. As far as I can see the last time I lived in a police state all the security couldn't prevent crime and was mainly used to give the ruling party a better night sleep. I'm just wondering what future use all the excessive security stuff will have.
To get back to the wilderness idea this has to be an extreme measure to achieve "actual freedom" (whatever that means). Also you need people around you to not be a total darwinian looser. You should look for a place where nobody with a lot of ambition would really like to live, a bit of hardship may be required though. Lack of natural resources would help too. You could possibly find such a place even in the US and Canada. I also remember a place in Australia where the police station had a swivel chair on the front porch, I'm sure they still will be there when you need them.
"So the area of forest per person required to fix a European output of 11 tonnes of CO2 per year is 7500 square metres per person."
However the forest also converts solar energy and CO2 into O2 and organic material. This is what CO2 storage doesn't do. Trees may not be particularly efficient at it but the storage problem should be solved by just letting them stand for some couple of hundred years until we can figure out what to do with it.
The problem with the trees is that in my country there are about 2 people living on one hectare already, so to make that work we would have to shrink in numbers, which we do, or lower our carbon footprint towards which we make half assed steps at best.
The idea with the forests might not be entirely impossible but we would have to deal with a growing amount of organic matter around us which would only be allowed to stop growing as soon as we stop using fossil fuels.
A bbc article mentions:
"He predicts that one synthetic tree could remove 90,000 tonnes of CO2 in a year
So it means the CO2 output of 8000 people could be sucked up if the numbers are correct. This thing is remarkable.
Damn and totipotency too! However, evolution has given us chainsaws and lightning fast reaction. Somehow I hope I'm not getting old enough to see how it ends.
BTW, "You can even graft different species of plants together", can I have an example please.
With enough data on the fireballs you could possibly detect the position of the satellites. Nowadays there are way more cameras directed towards the sky than some couple of years ago. If the scientists provide data to the public maybe there is some channel open for the public to figure out where the satellites are or look.
Or maybe it is just as the scientists said:
"Weeden speculates that the Pentagon may not want details of the new satellites' capabilities to be made public, or it may simply lack the expensive software needed to handle classified and declassified data simultaneously. "The decision may have been made that it was perhaps too difficult to disclose just these data," he says."
Could it be that it takes resources to track or deliver data on rocks and that they have better uses for their time all of a sudden? The world had enough time to black box the capabilities already as it seems.
There just has to be some other sort of leak. Maybe plugging potential holes takes effort too.
> That's why there's reproduction - it's a bit like a reset. Start over from scratch with a sperm and egg.
This has to be a geek friendly attempt at telling some of us to get out of the basement.
> That's not true for complex multicellular organisms like humans. A bunch of cells striking out on their own = cancer.
So the conclusion would be that we would never get as old as some much simpler tree that can get cancer but hardly has much in the way of organs that can fail. We would have to evolutionary outrun it somehow. To think that trees do produce successful offspring every year throughout their whole life (with variation) puts this idea to rest.
Slashdot Mirror
Faust: The being of such gentlemen as you, indeed,
In general, from your titles one can read.
It shows itself but all too plainly when men dub
You Liar or Destroyer or Beelzebub.
Well now, who are you then?
Mephistopheles: Part of that Power which would
The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good.
Faust: A riddle! Say what it implies!
Mephistopheles: I am the Spirit that denies!
And rightly too; for all that doth begin
Should rightly to destruction run;
'Twere better then that nothing were begun.
Thus everything that you call Sin,
Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent-
That is my own, real element.
Its just great, I guess there is room for Miltons version of Satan too somewhere.
You are one pathetic city dweller.
I demand second amendment rights for bees!
Also, don't forget that bees are on a suicide mission if they sting you. It really is your fault if you piss them off that much, and they are not some crazy religious humans. Wasps and hornets on the other hand are in a far more western position.
No it doesn't make you abnormal if you are a 12 year old who likes to kill animals for the entertainment value.
By the way the caffeine in plants is not just there for your enjoyment but as insecticide, germination inhibitor, and who knows what.
I used it just the same way on some potted plants but not all of them liked it. I figured that caffeine tablets don't do me any good yet might help with some nasty insects, however the hibiscus turned yellow despite my good intentions.
> I'm sure that LaTeX would have made more sense, but if I sent anything but Word to my instructors asking for comments, their heads would have exploded.
You could have given them a print out to comment on. That's easier to handle and way more interactive.
I also appreciate the good looks of LaTeX. Beyond that it shows that you had a few spare cycles to appreciate things like the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_wrap
even if it was a somewhat superficial way of appreciation.
Had you used LaTeX you could have also shown off with some sense for perfection, making some of us not feel so alone.
Good point, even though some regard it only as funny.
Will our silly government limit itself to censoring German language sites only or will they prevent me from posting inflammatory comments to foreign language forums? I will not test this lest I spoil my Karma.
I have my doubts though that our politicians are totally unaware of American politics as they are essentially using an emotionally loaded issue to foist censorship of a rather complex medium to a target audience that has age-wise passed beyond the capability to understand the subtleties of DNS redirection. Age may not be the only issue here but I just had to put all the problems into one sentence. Framing has been all the rage in the US,
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2631940
http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/?p=83
and I guess our politicians advisers are smart enough to read those papers too.
So now we frame the internet as a "lawless chaos space" as Ms. von der Leyen puts it. The poor little internet has been framed as something worse than the space that surrounds us with all those chaotic n-body systems, it is even lawless - Gasp!
I suppose there are laws against all the nastiness worth policing on the internet but I guess it is cheaper to just close your eyes and pretend it is not there, even cheaper (just in time for the next election to prove they have done "something") than going ahead and forming some international consensus on what is objectionable and what not. I guess the world hasn't come far enough yet, for us not to pull an Iran, i.e. to fence ourself off rather than some few misfits out.
Depends on the newssource:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/blue-rats-food-dye-heals-pictures/
explains:
"Fifteen minutes after researchers intentionally paralyzed this rat by dropping a weight on its back..."
I know - poor thing, and so much cuter when blue.
HA, that is funny!
"Nedergaard knew that BBG could thwart the function of P2X7, and its similarity to a blue food dye approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1982 gave her the confidence to test it intravenously." still leaves this possibility open I guess.
>the conditions there are harsh like an ET environment (no air, pressure challenges)
I just replied to someone else pondering this claim.
I believe they are harsher. The only problem is the distance to the moon for instance and maybe lack of resources like water.
The pressure difference from earth to space is one athmosphere, down at 10m into the ocean it is already two athmospheres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater
The temperature on the moon if you are under ground can be around 20degrees C at the equator while in the ocean it is around 0 to 2 degrees C
at higher depths.
http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature
Under water you have no to little access to solar energy, whereas you can get 10x to 3x of what you get at sealevel, on the moon.
In seawater you have also chemical stresses on equipment besides the mechanical stress. I could imagine that you will spend less on maintenance on the moon than you will on earth.
If you plan on staying longer in either location
you might be able to spread out the setup cost especially if you become self sufficient. All the maintenance will eat into whatever budget you have then.
I want to see somebodies plan of how to move to the sea from zero to whatever depth start a colony and become self sufficient over 100 years and be able to start a new colony like the first without help from the land.
Just looking at how nature itself is faring:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/NetProductivity.html
kilocalories/m2/year ...
Ocean close to shore 2,500
Open ocean 800
Tall-grass prairie 2,000
Desert 500
Lawn, Washington, D.C. 6,800
Sugar cane, Hawaii 25,000
Not bad but not great.
So what is more difficult protecting against zero pressure or protecting against the pressure under water:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater
Here is another good one:
"At depths greater than a few hundred meters, the sun has little effect on water temperature, because the sun's energy has been absorbed by water at the surface. In the great depths of the ocean the water temperature is very cold. In fact, 75% of the water in the world ocean (the great depths) has a temperature between 0 ÂC and 2 ÂC."
The shelf is what is left to you, a bit meagre I would say.
And there is more:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/NetProductivity.html
so you are looking at:
"Estimated Net Productivity of Certain Ecosystems (in kilocalories/m2/year)"
Ocean close to shore 2,500 ...
Open ocean 800
Lawn, Washington, D.C. 6,800
Now compare this to the moons surface:
Surface temperature
"During the lunar day, the surface temperature averages 107ÂC, and during the lunar night, it averages -153ÂC."
At least it does get warm sometime and has negligible convection loss.
And it gets better:
http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature
"so at the equator T is about 296 K, or a comfortable 23 degrees C if you bury yourself sufficiently. At 60 degrees that drops to 249 K or -24 degrees C. The average subsurface temperature near the poles (85 degrees and higher) would be below 160 K or -110 degrees C."
Also compare the solar constant of 1366 W/m^2 to the 300-100 W/m^2 we are getting here on earth.
I might even venture a guess and predict that not only will you get a better power output of any solar power collection technology but also longer lifetime because the elements are just missing. As an example check out the ATS-3 satellite that has been working for ~30 years and compare to the 10 years you might get a warranty for on earth.
Personally I could imagine that the stresses on material on the moon especially underground could be manageable whereas you would have to deal with multiple atmospheres under water constantly. Also you would have to deal with corrosive sea water.
So you might cover the ocean with artificial islands maybe, but I doubt this will give you the bang for the buck, so far only oil drilling rigs get there. Granted getting the bang on the moon may require some searching for it.
Somehow I think the Dutch have found the best way to deal with the ocean.
The ecosystem on the moon unfortunately is missing, so I can offer no comparison there. But people will try to provide you with that information too:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/28/0238200
So finally to go to the ocean you have to take infrastructure with you and for a start you will find it difficult to support the same number of people than you can on land. Also you have to find a way to become somewhat independent from the land lubbers. You may find all mineral resources but the amount of energy available to you is similar to people on land and you have to expend more for maintenance and you also have to produce drinking water.
On the moon you have higher initial costs but over the eons they may become negligible. You have 3-10x more energy available per area covered. This will also reduce the amount of material you have to put into energy collecting technology. You may have similar maintenance but not all needed resources assuming that water may be hard to come by. You will have to do some travelling which may be easier if earth is not your destination.
For simplicity's sake I assumed that living is the goal not short term gains.
No no, you don't understand! He referred to an even older meme from the Monthy Python era through which he is referring to an even older meme from an era most people are not sure about anymore:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=408989
Sounds great! Music is a social thing after all, contrast that to being alone with your mp3 player.
I'm sure that it would help our local artists to have more concerts, not to mention the people around it like pub owners.
You can easily spend the equivalent of a couple of CDs during a concert though. Given that people have limited amounts of money I can see that going to a concert is the second option.
Then again, nowadays I think I should rather leave my money with people than some kind of opaque institution.
Constant smiling is bad for you:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/wearing-smile-masks-all-day-at-work-may-lead-to-depression_10016884.html
I wear my scowl with pride.
This seems to be an interesting book on the topic:
Title: Blip, ping & buzz: making sense of radar and sonar
Author: Mark Denny
Edition: illustrated
Publisher: JHU Press, 2007
ISBN: 0801886651, 9780801886652
Length: 274 pages
Google books offers a preview.
Well they explained the ease of use issues, but chirping only produces a certain frequency at a time while clicks cover a broader and higher frequency range.
I doubt your statement that clicks are low powered because they are short btw.
However, now that I'm thinking about chirps, if you could chirp at high frequencies and had good frequency resolution you could use this while moving and use the Doppler effect, to locate objects.
If you think about using correlation to get better time resolution by processing a chirp I would like to ask you where in my brain I could find any fitting device.
Ultimately you might want to look into active sonar pulse design and space time adaptive processing radar. But I guess this will diverge from your brains abilities in terms of implementability.
I just offered my dad to solder a fancy golden SMA connector to his cell phone for this purpose. Finally something solid looking. Since you guys like WLAN routers with detacheable antennas so much they aren't even the most expensive anymore. Besides, they go from DC to 4GHz, so why shouldn't I.
I might even decide on an efficient 48 Volts low voltage device home standard. Unfortunately the industry hasn't come my way yet, but they will figure this out some time soon.
Something makes me think that the Chinese government helped some of you.
Not that I like the idea but - I can be pragmatic.
I would rather like to have a RealCar.
I will read the article now.
Do Canada and Australia still count?
I just don't like this trade of between civilization an liberty. I understand that living with people on a relatively small piece of land requires rules and specialization causes dependencies. But what do we get back from all the security effort. While I could see that in this age of more or less open borders it would be easier for foreign agents, criminals, or terrorists to get in, I also have to notice that I don't have a cloak that protects me from 24h surveillance. I would like to get at least something for it. How about a nuclear powered car, an RTG for heating, a bunch of nanites to kill those darn slugs eating the parsley, and other fancy dual use technologies.
There is clearly a gap there between the security mechanisms in place and the security I need. As far as I can see the last time I lived in a police state all the security couldn't prevent crime and was mainly used to give the ruling party a better night sleep. I'm just wondering what future use all the excessive security stuff will have.
To get back to the wilderness idea this has to be an extreme measure to achieve "actual freedom" (whatever that means). Also you need people around you to not be a total darwinian looser. You should look for a place where nobody with a lot of ambition would really like to live, a bit of hardship may be required though. Lack of natural resources would help too. You could possibly find such a place even in the US and Canada. I also remember a place in Australia where the police station had a swivel chair on the front porch, I'm sure they still will be there when you need them.
Ever thought about pollen, and the plain old dirt (i.e. soot) that falls with the rain.
At 1000 trees per hectare you might end up with 6 to 8 million trees the thing is replacing, depending on your CO2 output.
To put it differently according to the following article:
http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2008/06/last-thing-we-should-talk-about.html
"So the area of forest per person required to fix a European output of 11 tonnes of CO2 per year is 7500 square metres per person."
However the forest also converts solar energy and CO2 into O2 and organic material. This is what CO2 storage doesn't do. Trees may not be particularly efficient at it but the storage problem should be solved by just letting them stand for some couple of hundred years until we can figure out what to do with it.
The problem with the trees is that in my country there are about 2 people living on one hectare already, so to make that work we would have to shrink in numbers, which we do, or lower our carbon footprint towards which we make half assed steps at best.
The idea with the forests might not be entirely impossible but we would have to deal with a growing amount of organic matter around us which would only be allowed to stop growing as soon as we stop using fossil fuels.
A bbc article mentions:
"He predicts that one synthetic tree could remove 90,000 tonnes of CO2 in a year
So it means the CO2 output of 8000 people could be sucked up if the numbers are correct. This thing is remarkable.
Damn and totipotency too! However, evolution has given us chainsaws and lightning fast reaction. Somehow I hope I'm not getting old enough to see how it ends.
BTW, "You can even graft different species of plants together", can I have an example please.
With enough data on the fireballs you could possibly detect the position of the satellites. Nowadays there are way more cameras directed towards the sky than some couple of years ago. If the scientists provide data to the public maybe there is some channel open for the public to figure out where the satellites are or look.
Or maybe it is just as the scientists said:
"Weeden speculates that the Pentagon may not want details of the new satellites' capabilities to be made public, or it may simply lack the expensive software needed to handle classified and declassified data simultaneously. "The decision may have been made that it was perhaps too difficult to disclose just these data," he says."
Or maybe they want to rather be safe than sorry.
Could it be that it takes resources to track or deliver data on rocks and that they have better uses for their time all of a sudden?
The world had enough time to black box the capabilities already as it seems.
There just has to be some other sort of leak. Maybe plugging potential holes takes effort too.
> That's why there's reproduction - it's a bit like a reset. Start over from scratch with a sperm and egg.
This has to be a geek friendly attempt at telling some of us to get out of the basement.
> That's not true for complex multicellular organisms like humans. A bunch of cells striking out on their own = cancer.
So the conclusion would be that we would never get as old as some much simpler tree that can get cancer but
hardly has much in the way of organs that can fail. We would have to evolutionary outrun it somehow.
To think that trees do produce successful offspring every year throughout their whole life (with variation)
puts this idea to rest.