That's a very interesting point that we often forget. I've heard mention that there are actually more bacterial cells in and on our bodies than "human" cells. Also, each of our human cells has mitochondria in it, which have their own independent DNA. The idea that we are single cognitive entities is really just self delusion.
However, it seems quite clear that humans, though certainly not the most successful species in terms of numbers, are quite *important* in the sense that we have been the first species on this planet to break into the technological paradigm. This could prove to be even more important if we are able to colonize other planets. None-the-less, you could still view us as just advanced transportation vessels through which the bacteria colonize other planets.
#1 is water, #2 is CO2. Don't say methane, because methane has much lower concentrations than CO2, and, as a result, much less of a total contribution.
Would most people be better off undiagnosed? When it comes to mental "illness", often the only (or at least the best) treatments are behavioral therapy, in which the "illness" is trained away.
If you want those shapes to actually do something, and do it reliably, engineering a good product is significantly more difficult than simply programming shapes into a CNC.
I think one point that seems to have been missed is that engineers generally design a product once (and then make small revisions as necessary), whereas marketing has to sell it over and over to many different customers. Even if the product sells itself, a sales force is needed to make sure the customer is buying the correct product for their application. Doing this effectively often requires a lot of travel.
Why do we even need screening anymore? No one will ever be allowed into the cockpit again, even if they start murdering passengers. Bomb sniffers are still useful, but at this point, an attack on a football stadium during a game would be far more detrimental, both in terms of casualties and psychologically.
I'm sure the people interested in solving this problem already know this, but they could use a high-power Q-switched laser (to allow pulsing) with a large, steerable, variable-focus lens (probably the most difficult part of this solution) to vaporize small bits of the objects, and force them into the upper atmosphere to burn up.
As said, such a system could be quite difficult and expensive to design. First of all, it would require a very large lense or mirror system to reach tightly focused beams at long distances. A mirror system might be preferable for dynamic adjustments. Next, it would need to be mounted on a gyroscopic turret, to allow aiming (or the whole satellite could turn). Finally, you would need quite a bit of power to make any significant debris course adjustments in a reasonable amount of time.
None-the-less, we have all the requisite technology. With a couple billion dollars we could probably put up a prototype system. Although, there are international treaties against space weaponization that would probably get in the way.
I am of the opinion that without economical fusion, humanity will not last more than a few thousand years. I am also of the opinion that most fusion research funding is targeted at projects with little or no application to economical fusion (I see no evidence that tokamaks or inertial confinement will ever be economical. In fact, all evidence seems to suggest they will never be economical). What are your views on the current state of fusion research? Is funding misplaced? Disproportionately allocated?
Thanks! I 'man aspiring scientist, and you're one of my personal hero's, so it's quite incredible to have the chance to ask you a question (even if it only has a small chance of being answered).
A targeted transmission search would almost certainly use directed, non-diffracting beams (they exist - google it). Meaning the necessary power would be dramatically dropped, because they would only transmit to a small number of star systems that have a chance of hosting life.
However, it's fairly likely that an advanced civilization would use neutrinos, or some other weakly interacting matter, for interstellar communications, rather than simple electromagnetic waves. Non-the-less, life is out there - like it or not. Maybe not close enough for you to meet it in your lifetime, but it's out there.
It's entirely true that faster than light travel is forbidden by general relativity. However, geometries with closed timelike curves, which can behave very much like time-machines, are not forbidden. It remains to be seen if such curves can be created and controlled. If they can, then a more complete model would be needed to include the effects of such phenomenon. As it stands, such curves could behave in several ways. In one formulation, self consistency would always be required. In another, such curves could be through another dimension, leading to self-inconsistent histories.
Most importantly, closed timelike curves are sufficiently rare that we have not observed natural occurrences. So, although such possibilites are interesting to consider, they are, ultimately, far beyond our current technologies.
Just came here to make sure someone made this point. This process is useless for high-speed electronics because it requires very low-speed drift of ions through an oxide. Why IBM made a press release about this is completely beyond me.
The laws of physics are pretty clear on batteries being inferior to fuel in terms of energy density. Those quantum effects you described are already exploited in fuels (chemistry is inherently quantum mechanical).
Water desalination is a very different problem, all together. (***Water desalination is very different problem!***)
Chemical fuels cannot be beat in terms of energy density (outside of nuclear fuels). However, they could feasibly be generated from grid energy and raw material. This is the concept behind the hydrogen economy: use grid energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then store the hydrogen as a fuel. Unfortunately, hydrogen is very difficult to store. An improved storage solution would be to take the process a step further and generate a liquid fuel, such as methanol or ethanol. It's a difficult problem to do this economically, though, and it likely will not be solved until there is adequately incentive (i.e. grid energy much cheaper than petroleum).
I'm not too worried about energy. Solar photovoltaics will be at grid parity before the end of the decade. A gradual shift away from fossil fuels is inevitable, simply from a cost basis, even ignoring external costs.
Unless, of course, there's a breakthrough in fusion. Economical fusion. Not the multi-billion dollar boondoggles currently receiving funding. A true breakthrough would change everything. Forever.
There's certainly a need and place for local government, but local government is already a separate entity from the Federal government. Perhaps if the GP's idea were enacted the Federal government would focus more on fulfilling needs that everyone has in common, rather than fighting to bring pork spending to their state.
I'm surprised no one here seems to know about Printrbot. For $549, you can get a 6"x6"x6" build volume with everything included (including 1lb. of ABS, and a heated bed) except for an ATX power supply (which many people have sitting around). Hell, if you're lazy, you can get it shipped assembled for an extra $150.
Re:A good example of a bad summary
on
Qt 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I haven't tried to code something like this, but you should check out how Veusz does it, because it works perfectly.
I'm confused. Are there a lot of copyright holders in the Tennessee 7th District? Because I had this silly notion that US Congressman were supposed to represent the PEOPLE in their district, and not the highest bidder.
You forgot to include a date and context. This was part of a debate on September 18, 1858, against Stephen Douglas for Illinois senator. The debate was about whether or not slavery should be expanded to the territories. Douglas was for slavery in the territories, Lincoln was against.
Regardless of his true personal beliefs on black stature (which at the time were probably skewed by psuedo-scientific studies "proving" black inferiority), he was arguing for the now accepted morally just position. In order to not alienate his audience, he began by gaining support and confidence from the crowd. If he jumped up on stage and said, "All blacks should be set free and given citizenship and the right to vote!" he would he would have been shot.
When did Carl Sagan say that? In the Cosmos series, episode 8, he says, "... if we do not destroy ourselves, I believe that we will one day venture to the stars."
As for Fermi's Paradox, I think that one solution that is oft overlooked is that we simply haven't spent enough time looking. We've only had radio telescopes advanced enough to really detect extraterrestrial intelligence for about 50 years. It's almost comical that we would expect it to be so easy.
I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.
That depends on your particular interpretation of the principles of Christianity. Something that seems incredibly simple, such as "Thou shalt not kill", is anything but. The quakers were devoutly religious, and yet they burned innocent women for being "witches". There were also the Crusades, and the Inquisition, etc. People are certainly fully capable of cognitive dissonance, but its not even necessary for interpreting a given religious text in a completely different way than another person interprets it. All that is need is a different set of axiomatic beliefs.
The root of the problem is the belief of a class of received knowledge that is absolutely true. Once questions and doubt are forbidden, conflict ensues.
$10 from 47% of the US population would be roughly $1.5 billion, or approximately 0.1% of the federal income revenue. That's a pretty small percentage. Considering that the utility of $10 to these people is quite high, it's probably not worth it. Besides, they already get hid hard enough by local sales taxes.
Exactly. Probably the most important advancement currently being pursued is self-driving cars. Google/Stanford are getting very close. It's only a matter of time. And guess what? It started as a DARPA challenge. The first couple of contests were a complete bust, but eventually advancements were made, and then Google took over.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very interesting point that we often forget. I've heard mention that there are actually more bacterial cells in and on our bodies than "human" cells. Also, each of our human cells has mitochondria in it, which have their own independent DNA. The idea that we are single cognitive entities is really just self delusion.
However, it seems quite clear that humans, though certainly not the most successful species in terms of numbers, are quite *important* in the sense that we have been the first species on this planet to break into the technological paradigm. This could prove to be even more important if we are able to colonize other planets. None-the-less, you could still view us as just advanced transportation vessels through which the bacteria colonize other planets.
#1 is water, #2 is CO2. Don't say methane, because methane has much lower concentrations than CO2, and, as a result, much less of a total contribution.
Would most people be better off undiagnosed? When it comes to mental "illness", often the only (or at least the best) treatments are behavioral therapy, in which the "illness" is trained away.
If you want those shapes to actually do something, and do it reliably, engineering a good product is significantly more difficult than simply programming shapes into a CNC.
I think one point that seems to have been missed is that engineers generally design a product once (and then make small revisions as necessary), whereas marketing has to sell it over and over to many different customers. Even if the product sells itself, a sales force is needed to make sure the customer is buying the correct product for their application. Doing this effectively often requires a lot of travel.
Why do we even need screening anymore? No one will ever be allowed into the cockpit again, even if they start murdering passengers. Bomb sniffers are still useful, but at this point, an attack on a football stadium during a game would be far more detrimental, both in terms of casualties and psychologically.
I'm sure the people interested in solving this problem already know this, but they could use a high-power Q-switched laser (to allow pulsing) with a large, steerable, variable-focus lens (probably the most difficult part of this solution) to vaporize small bits of the objects, and force them into the upper atmosphere to burn up.
As said, such a system could be quite difficult and expensive to design. First of all, it would require a very large lense or mirror system to reach tightly focused beams at long distances. A mirror system might be preferable for dynamic adjustments. Next, it would need to be mounted on a gyroscopic turret, to allow aiming (or the whole satellite could turn). Finally, you would need quite a bit of power to make any significant debris course adjustments in a reasonable amount of time.
None-the-less, we have all the requisite technology. With a couple billion dollars we could probably put up a prototype system. Although, there are international treaties against space weaponization that would probably get in the way.
In principal, yes... as long as you don't mind the platform spontaneously detonating and vaporizing the earth when the containment field fails.
I am of the opinion that without economical fusion, humanity will not last more than a few thousand years. I am also of the opinion that most fusion research funding is targeted at projects with little or no application to economical fusion (I see no evidence that tokamaks or inertial confinement will ever be economical. In fact, all evidence seems to suggest they will never be economical). What are your views on the current state of fusion research? Is funding misplaced? Disproportionately allocated?
Thanks! I 'man aspiring scientist, and you're one of my personal hero's, so it's quite incredible to have the chance to ask you a question (even if it only has a small chance of being answered).
A targeted transmission search would almost certainly use directed, non-diffracting beams (they exist - google it). Meaning the necessary power would be dramatically dropped, because they would only transmit to a small number of star systems that have a chance of hosting life.
However, it's fairly likely that an advanced civilization would use neutrinos, or some other weakly interacting matter, for interstellar communications, rather than simple electromagnetic waves. Non-the-less, life is out there - like it or not. Maybe not close enough for you to meet it in your lifetime, but it's out there.
It's entirely true that faster than light travel is forbidden by general relativity. However, geometries with closed timelike curves, which can behave very much like time-machines, are not forbidden. It remains to be seen if such curves can be created and controlled. If they can, then a more complete model would be needed to include the effects of such phenomenon. As it stands, such curves could behave in several ways. In one formulation, self consistency would always be required. In another, such curves could be through another dimension, leading to self-inconsistent histories.
Most importantly, closed timelike curves are sufficiently rare that we have not observed natural occurrences. So, although such possibilites are interesting to consider, they are, ultimately, far beyond our current technologies.
They'd be better off adding some mask steps for power transistors, an already proven technology. This will never make it to a commercial chip.
Just came here to make sure someone made this point. This process is useless for high-speed electronics because it requires very low-speed drift of ions through an oxide. Why IBM made a press release about this is completely beyond me.
The laws of physics are pretty clear on batteries being inferior to fuel in terms of energy density. Those quantum effects you described are already exploited in fuels (chemistry is inherently quantum mechanical).
Water desalination is a very different problem, all together. (***Water desalination is very different problem!***)
Chemical fuels cannot be beat in terms of energy density (outside of nuclear fuels). However, they could feasibly be generated from grid energy and raw material. This is the concept behind the hydrogen economy: use grid energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then store the hydrogen as a fuel. Unfortunately, hydrogen is very difficult to store. An improved storage solution would be to take the process a step further and generate a liquid fuel, such as methanol or ethanol. It's a difficult problem to do this economically, though, and it likely will not be solved until there is adequately incentive (i.e. grid energy much cheaper than petroleum).
I'm not too worried about energy. Solar photovoltaics will be at grid parity before the end of the decade. A gradual shift away from fossil fuels is inevitable, simply from a cost basis, even ignoring external costs.
Unless, of course, there's a breakthrough in fusion. Economical fusion. Not the multi-billion dollar boondoggles currently receiving funding. A true breakthrough would change everything. Forever.
There's certainly a need and place for local government, but local government is already a separate entity from the Federal government. Perhaps if the GP's idea were enacted the Federal government would focus more on fulfilling needs that everyone has in common, rather than fighting to bring pork spending to their state.
Already been done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ
And, yes, it was a hoax (aka viral marketing).
I think you're probably a troll, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraction_osteogenesis
It's a miracle!
I'm surprised no one here seems to know about Printrbot. For $549, you can get a 6"x6"x6" build volume with everything included (including 1lb. of ABS, and a heated bed) except for an ATX power supply (which many people have sitting around). Hell, if you're lazy, you can get it shipped assembled for an extra $150.
I haven't tried to code something like this, but you should check out how Veusz does it, because it works perfectly.
I'm confused. Are there a lot of copyright holders in the Tennessee 7th District? Because I had this silly notion that US Congressman were supposed to represent the PEOPLE in their district, and not the highest bidder.
You forgot to include a date and context. This was part of a debate on September 18, 1858, against Stephen Douglas for Illinois senator. The debate was about whether or not slavery should be expanded to the territories. Douglas was for slavery in the territories, Lincoln was against.
Regardless of his true personal beliefs on black stature (which at the time were probably skewed by psuedo-scientific studies "proving" black inferiority), he was arguing for the now accepted morally just position. In order to not alienate his audience, he began by gaining support and confidence from the crowd. If he jumped up on stage and said, "All blacks should be set free and given citizenship and the right to vote!" he would he would have been shot.
When did Carl Sagan say that? In the Cosmos series, episode 8, he says, "... if we do not destroy ourselves, I believe that we will one day venture to the stars."
As for Fermi's Paradox, I think that one solution that is oft overlooked is that we simply haven't spent enough time looking. We've only had radio telescopes advanced enough to really detect extraterrestrial intelligence for about 50 years. It's almost comical that we would expect it to be so easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy
I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.
That depends on your particular interpretation of the principles of Christianity. Something that seems incredibly simple, such as "Thou shalt not kill", is anything but. The quakers were devoutly religious, and yet they burned innocent women for being "witches". There were also the Crusades, and the Inquisition, etc. People are certainly fully capable of cognitive dissonance, but its not even necessary for interpreting a given religious text in a completely different way than another person interprets it. All that is need is a different set of axiomatic beliefs.
The root of the problem is the belief of a class of received knowledge that is absolutely true. Once questions and doubt are forbidden, conflict ensues.
$10 from 47% of the US population would be roughly $1.5 billion, or approximately 0.1% of the federal income revenue. That's a pretty small percentage. Considering that the utility of $10 to these people is quite high, it's probably not worth it. Besides, they already get hid hard enough by local sales taxes.
Exactly. Probably the most important advancement currently being pursued is self-driving cars. Google/Stanford are getting very close. It's only a matter of time. And guess what? It started as a DARPA challenge. The first couple of contests were a complete bust, but eventually advancements were made, and then Google took over.