After saying that you better not be wasting money on stuff like phones, computers, clothes, washing, makeup, cars, holidays - or any other pleasure that diverts money from those starving children.
And BTW feeding those starving children now without solving all the other issues is only making more starving children for the future.. If people are having children they cannot feed the solution is contraception not more food. I'm on the left but all the poverty in the outlying 'undeveloped' world is not out fault...
Nuclear Power - about 1000 times safer than coal. (If not including Chernobyl, then nuclear is 10,000 times safer than coal) Coal - about 100 times less regulated than nuclear. (Coal kills over a million people every year..)
The stupidity of ordinary people is depressing isn't it?
Whatever you say nuclear is still vastly safer than coal which kills something like 1 to 1.5 million people every year. Statistically since the invention of nuclear coal has killed something like 60 to 120 million people. By the same statistics the Chernobyl disaster killed some 50,000 to 200,000 people. Outside of Chernobyl nuclear in its whole history has killed less then 10,000 to 20,000 in its whole history - the rough number coal kills every week.
Statistically (by indirectly promoting coal) the nuclear protest movement itself has actually killed some 5 to 10 million people. Today the pseudo-green groups constantly promote wind turbines - but the reality is that wind needs coal or oil stations for backup. Wind is the oil industries answer to the threat of real green power and will keep them in business for the next 100 years..
Ah but when Japan turned its other nuclear plants off it largely turned to coal, the number of extra deaths from that compared to nuclear must be somewhere in the 10,000 to 30,000 range. The Japanese turned out to be another bunch of balloon headed hippies who would have thought...:)
Even in the ultimate worst case where Chernobyl killed 6 million people it would still only have taken coal about 4 to 5 years to catch up.
Chernobyl was an extreme outlier killing between 50,000 and 200,000 people. The rest of nuclear power in its whole history put together has probably killed less than 10,000 to 20,000 people - about the number coal kills globally every week. That's all basically from the official WHO and other published figures..
If you want a scientific subject where general ignorance and hubris reach towards 100% then look to general relativity in the FTL universe. You were told that General Relativity is one of the most complete and accurate theories in science? well at speeds slower than light it is. At FTL speeds there is more empirical proof for Astrology or Geocentric solar mechanics than there is for general relativity. The sun doesn't orbit the Earth and in the FTL region General Relativity is complete rubbish..
- The basic geometry of space and time predicts a universe where essentially the whole of reality only exists as an FTL region. - At FTL speeds the universe is dominated by an absolute frame creating a stable and long lived 'old' universe. The real 'Aether' is the speed of light itself. - In the FTL universe there is an FTL Simultaneity which defines the space time geometry as three Spatial Dimensions with time squeezed into a Zero Dimensional point. Time is simultaneous and synchronous throughout the universe. - The classical model black hole with a central singularity sets a minimum speed on gravity which approaches FTL instantaneous. - In the most basic convergent model of speed light impinges on the FTL space. (STL-V = C = FTL-V) This allows us to observe the FTL universe directly - in general it is flat predictable and dull.
- Without an absolute frame general relativity predicts an FTL universe that is completely unstable.. This predicts a young universe with a fake historical light cone. - If gravity is restricted to the speed of light then black holes should not exist at all because the gravity well should collapse inwards at the event horizon. - Also if gravity was restricted to the speed of light then physical objects like planets should be able to partly block gravity - this is not observed.. - If general relativity is correct and light does impinge on the FTL then light should not go in straight lines. - The final killer is a simple one. Actually proving the FTL region of general relativity was correct would break the theories logic proving it was incorrect..
Unfortunately absolutely 100% true. The Soviet Communists were just as bad as the Nazis, and probably killed on an even bigger scale. The old soviet joke was that if you did anything wrong they would send you to Siberia and you would come back as hamburgers.
Really great arguments for mining from Ceres. Another thing is that with a small gravity well mining is probably a lot easier than doing everything in true zero gee.
A great method I remember for mining water/ice on large scales is to use giant bags. The bags are filled with lumps of ice (up to 100,000 tons, ~50m diameter). Then a nuclear rocket platform is strapped to each bag to push the material into an Earth return orbit and to decelerate it at the other end. The rocket system gets its reaction mass by melting then super-heating the ice it is already carrying, and depending on use is probably reusable a number of times. (A base for such engines is that a 10 ton unit can produce about 500 megawatts / 100 KN of thrust for a total of about 10 hours, with an ISP of up to about 1100..)
Using bags to move large amounts of ice from Ceres with its 0.29 m/s^2 surface gravity would be difficult, the bag(s) could be kept in orbit and filled in sections, maybe by dedicated shuttles. - The one thing they would have plenty of there would be fuel..
Dumbass. The technology to do most of it was invented by the late 1960's early 70's. The only reason we didn't do it then was because of the cost of the Vietnam war. Pretty much the same holds today. The money spent on the Iraq war could have put people on Mars, set up asteroid mining, and a dozen other things..
"Not at all. Sending stuff up the elevator just slows the Earth down slightly."
No sending stuff up the elevator slows the top of the elevator down strongly. This creates an extra unwanted motion 'backwards' and increases the strain on the cable. Send enough up and you can wrap it around the Earth and even push it out of orbit. In a lot of ways space elevators are not actually a very good idea. - A much better solution is large scale nuclear rockets, probably using Gas core Closed cycle engines which don't put radioactive gasses into the atmosphere..
Some chemical processes / factories already have to have everything made out of platinum. If they work with chemicals like fluorine gas or hydrofluoric acid platinum is sometimes about the only option.. If there were more of it the metal has a vast potential number of industrial and tech uses...
There is a point in economics of scale where it currently becomes cheaper to send humans into space than robots. The real problem is that robots that do heavy complex work like mining will tend to need constant servicing.
Its the same as the general argument as against Strong AI (which I work on). An advanced humanoid type robot might have a base cost of $500,000 to $2 million, and for versions certified for space expect to at least double that cost. - The shear delicacy and complexity of such robots means that, if doing what we humans call 'heavy' or 'medium' physical work, the robot will expect to need repair on average once per week to several times every day.. And that's with a machine carefully designed to do that kind of work. For extremely heavy, dirty, and dusty work like mining the time between repairs could fall to minutes. The joke is that because of their complexity repairing such machines requires human hands anyway.
Now this technology will improve but it has a long way to go and it will take a long time - at least 20 to 40 years. The current best long term solution to building such complex robots here on Earth looks to be using 'biological' 'synthetic' systems. Muscles and bones are incredibly resilient and critically they constantly self-repair, and the whole biological power chain is very efficient, and if you can engineer the growth process you can make them almost for free. Skin and flesh also have incredible sensitivity, and biological animals can take enormous abuse and survive... Obviously for use in space any biological synthetic is very likely to need fairly similar life-support as people, and the simple truth is that people are simpler and easier.. and ultimately cheaper..
Just a boast by a teenage kid... Someone needs to question the basic intelligence of these people over-reacting so hugely in this way... Maybe if they cant react more sensibly school personnel should simply be banned completely from reading their pupils tweets..
Shakes head.. I bet I'm a lot more anti-ISIS than you. If I had power we would go back in - with an army - totally eradicate them. Then we would stay there for twenty years, and hold Iraq until it was genuinely stable and able to defend itself.. BTW paedophilia and slavery are pretty minor crimes compared to the worst crimes ISIS has/is committing - like Genocide...
Everything that has happened there is (at least partly) our fault. Invading Iraq destabilised the whole Middle East, then pulling out with the job half done and leaving a total imbalance between Shia and Sunny left things worse. And then failing to help the pro-democracy rebels in Syria while the jihadi side poured aid in. America created ISIS, Bush and Obama created ISIS, Cameron in the UK created ISIS, our 'ally' Saudi Arabia created ISIS. No amount of right wing blathering or self-deceit will change that..
"As for your attempt at ditinguishing between pedophiles & the fanatics willing to sacrifice themselves for an afterlife with 72 virgins, well given the common age at which they marry in most of the countries in which Isis holds sway (& are no longer virgins), by occidental definitions they are pedophiles."
Annnnnd when did Paedophilia become a crime here? (UK) around the 1880's. In the Christian period sex with children was illegal - unless you married them first. For something like 1600 years Christians have been porking kids - seems a little hypocritical to criticise Islam for Paedophilia.
Then I suggest you do a course on network infrastructure. Ethernet is a low level basic transfer protocol, the error correction is all done in the layers above.
Even if they were navigating by camera, those cameras tend to be wide angle and relatively low resolution and there's a heck of a lot of information to process at once... I highly doubt they even saw the shotgun..
Slashdot Mirror
After saying that you better not be wasting money on stuff like phones, computers, clothes, washing, makeup, cars, holidays - or any other pleasure that diverts money from those starving children.
And BTW feeding those starving children now without solving all the other issues is only making more starving children for the future.. If people are having children they cannot feed the solution is contraception not more food. I'm on the left but all the poverty in the outlying 'undeveloped' world is not out fault...
'I see into the future.' I see people still arguing about this is one hundred years...
Pretty much every point you make is valid - and they know it.. Especially point 6..
Like I said I see people still arguing about this in 100 years.
Nuclear Power - about 1000 times safer than coal. (If not including Chernobyl, then nuclear is 10,000 times safer than coal)
Coal - about 100 times less regulated than nuclear. (Coal kills over a million people every year..)
The stupidity of ordinary people is depressing isn't it?
Whatever you say nuclear is still vastly safer than coal which kills something like 1 to 1.5 million people every year.
Statistically since the invention of nuclear coal has killed something like 60 to 120 million people.
By the same statistics the Chernobyl disaster killed some 50,000 to 200,000 people.
Outside of Chernobyl nuclear in its whole history has killed less then 10,000 to 20,000 in its whole history - the rough number coal kills every week.
Statistically (by indirectly promoting coal) the nuclear protest movement itself has actually killed some 5 to 10 million people.
Today the pseudo-green groups constantly promote wind turbines - but the reality is that wind needs coal or oil stations for backup.
Wind is the oil industries answer to the threat of real green power and will keep them in business for the next 100 years..
Ah but when Japan turned its other nuclear plants off it largely turned to coal, the number of extra deaths from that compared to nuclear must be somewhere in the 10,000 to 30,000 range. The Japanese turned out to be another bunch of balloon headed hippies who would have thought... :)
Even in the ultimate worst case where Chernobyl killed 6 million people it would still only have taken coal about 4 to 5 years to catch up.
Chernobyl was an extreme outlier killing between 50,000 and 200,000 people. The rest of nuclear power in its whole history put together has probably killed less than 10,000 to 20,000 people - about the number coal kills globally every week. That's all basically from the official WHO and other published figures..
If you want a scientific subject where general ignorance and hubris reach towards 100% then look to general relativity in the FTL universe.
You were told that General Relativity is one of the most complete and accurate theories in science? well at speeds slower than light it is.
At FTL speeds there is more empirical proof for Astrology or Geocentric solar mechanics than there is for general relativity. The sun doesn't orbit the Earth and in the FTL region General Relativity is complete rubbish..
- The basic geometry of space and time predicts a universe where essentially the whole of reality only exists as an FTL region.
- At FTL speeds the universe is dominated by an absolute frame creating a stable and long lived 'old' universe. The real 'Aether' is the speed of light itself.
- In the FTL universe there is an FTL Simultaneity which defines the space time geometry as three Spatial Dimensions with time squeezed into a Zero Dimensional point. Time is simultaneous and synchronous throughout the universe.
- The classical model black hole with a central singularity sets a minimum speed on gravity which approaches FTL instantaneous.
- In the most basic convergent model of speed light impinges on the FTL space. (STL-V = C = FTL-V) This allows us to observe the FTL universe directly - in general it is flat predictable and dull.
- Without an absolute frame general relativity predicts an FTL universe that is completely unstable.. This predicts a young universe with a fake historical light cone.
- If gravity is restricted to the speed of light then black holes should not exist at all because the gravity well should collapse inwards at the event horizon.
- Also if gravity was restricted to the speed of light then physical objects like planets should be able to partly block gravity - this is not observed..
- If general relativity is correct and light does impinge on the FTL then light should not go in straight lines.
- The final killer is a simple one. Actually proving the FTL region of general relativity was correct would break the theories logic proving it was incorrect..
K.I.S.S. Keep. It. Simple. Stupid.
Unfortunately absolutely 100% true. The Soviet Communists were just as bad as the Nazis, and probably killed on an even bigger scale.
The old soviet joke was that if you did anything wrong they would send you to Siberia and you would come back as hamburgers.
Really great arguments for mining from Ceres. Another thing is that with a small gravity well mining is probably a lot easier than doing everything in true zero gee.
A great method I remember for mining water /ice on large scales is to use giant bags. The bags are filled with lumps of ice (up to 100,000 tons, ~50m diameter). Then a nuclear rocket platform is strapped to each bag to push the material into an Earth return orbit and to decelerate it at the other end. The rocket system gets its reaction mass by melting then super-heating the ice it is already carrying, and depending on use is probably reusable a number of times. (A base for such engines is that a 10 ton unit can produce about 500 megawatts / 100 KN of thrust for a total of about 10 hours, with an ISP of up to about 1100..)
Using bags to move large amounts of ice from Ceres with its 0.29 m/s^2 surface gravity would be difficult, the bag(s) could be kept in orbit and filled in sections, maybe by dedicated shuttles. - The one thing they would have plenty of there would be fuel..
Dumbass. The technology to do most of it was invented by the late 1960's early 70's. The only reason we didn't do it then was because of the cost of the Vietnam war. Pretty much the same holds today. The money spent on the Iraq war could have put people on Mars, set up asteroid mining, and a dozen other things..
"Not at all. Sending stuff up the elevator just slows the Earth down slightly."
No sending stuff up the elevator slows the top of the elevator down strongly. This creates an extra unwanted motion 'backwards' and increases the strain on the cable. Send enough up and you can wrap it around the Earth and even push it out of orbit.
In a lot of ways space elevators are not actually a very good idea. - A much better solution is large scale nuclear rockets, probably using Gas core Closed cycle engines which don't put radioactive gasses into the atmosphere..
Some chemical processes / factories already have to have everything made out of platinum. If they work with chemicals like fluorine gas or hydrofluoric acid platinum is sometimes about the only option.. If there were more of it the metal has a vast potential number of industrial and tech uses...
There is a point in economics of scale where it currently becomes cheaper to send humans into space than robots. The real problem is that robots that do heavy complex work like mining will tend to need constant servicing.
Its the same as the general argument as against Strong AI (which I work on). An advanced humanoid type robot might have a base cost of $500,000 to $2 million, and for versions certified for space expect to at least double that cost. - The shear delicacy and complexity of such robots means that, if doing what we humans call 'heavy' or 'medium' physical work, the robot will expect to need repair on average once per week to several times every day.. And that's with a machine carefully designed to do that kind of work. For extremely heavy, dirty, and dusty work like mining the time between repairs could fall to minutes. The joke is that because of their complexity repairing such machines requires human hands anyway.
Now this technology will improve but it has a long way to go and it will take a long time - at least 20 to 40 years. The current best long term solution to building such complex robots here on Earth looks to be using 'biological' 'synthetic' systems. Muscles and bones are incredibly resilient and critically they constantly self-repair, and the whole biological power chain is very efficient, and if you can engineer the growth process you can make them almost for free. Skin and flesh also have incredible sensitivity, and biological animals can take enormous abuse and survive... Obviously for use in space any biological synthetic is very likely to need fairly similar life-support as people, and the simple truth is that people are simpler and easier.. and ultimately cheaper..
Just a boast by a teenage kid... Someone needs to question the basic intelligence of these people over-reacting so hugely in this way... Maybe if they cant react more sensibly school personnel should simply be banned completely from reading their pupils tweets..
Just sounds like a typical kids boast to me. Do you remember being at school - being truthful about sex??? ever..
Shakes head.. I bet I'm a lot more anti-ISIS than you. If I had power we would go back in - with an army - totally eradicate them. Then we would stay there for twenty years, and hold Iraq until it was genuinely stable and able to defend itself.. BTW paedophilia and slavery are pretty minor crimes compared to the worst crimes ISIS has/is committing - like Genocide...
Everything that has happened there is (at least partly) our fault. Invading Iraq destabilised the whole Middle East, then pulling out with the job half done and leaving a total imbalance between Shia and Sunny left things worse. And then failing to help the pro-democracy rebels in Syria while the jihadi side poured aid in. America created ISIS, Bush and Obama created ISIS, Cameron in the UK created ISIS, our 'ally' Saudi Arabia created ISIS. No amount of right wing blathering or self-deceit will change that..
At 260 feet / 80m high that would be one hell of a hose - the drone had a GPS altimeter.
"As for your attempt at ditinguishing between pedophiles & the fanatics willing to sacrifice themselves for an afterlife with 72 virgins, well given the common age at which they marry in most of the countries in which Isis holds sway (& are no longer virgins), by occidental definitions they are pedophiles."
Annnnnd when did Paedophilia become a crime here? (UK) around the 1880's. In the Christian period sex with children was illegal - unless you married them first. For something like 1600 years Christians have been porking kids - seems a little hypocritical to criticise Islam for Paedophilia.
Every Adam Sandler movie is a war crime. What do you think they play to terrorists who don't crack under water boarding?
Actually vegans are pretty good eating... You've eaten cow haven't you? essentially vegan (eats grass).
At 260ft ~ 80 m height that means she must have had her bedroom on about the twentieth floor... :)
He did fire three or four times before he hit it...
Then I suggest you do a course on network infrastructure. Ethernet is a low level basic transfer protocol, the error correction is all done in the layers above.
Or an asshole takes one to an airport and brings down something like a 747 or just does tens of millions worth of property damage...
Even if they were navigating by camera, those cameras tend to be wide angle and relatively low resolution and there's a heck of a lot of information to process at once... I highly doubt they even saw the shotgun..
At least one real problem with shooting a drone out of the sky is that if you penetrate the battery it could become a fire or explosion hazard.