Why do you think that? What's so amazing about fusion that makes it so much better than every other technological achievement in history? Sure, it would solve all our energy problems for about a thousand years, at which point we would have burned through most of the available fuel because, having no incentive for efficiency, we would have wasted most of it. (Yes, I'm cynical about humanity.) But solar energy is equally capable of solving all our energy problems. And unlike fusion, it's a real technology that actually works today.
Tritium can be bread from lithium in a working fusion reactor, which is extremely abundant, and the deuterium present in the oceans is enough to last us hundreds of thousands of years.
That article seems to suggest that the evidence for Whitehead demonstrating the first powered flight is dubious at best. If Whitehead really did succeed first, why didn't he snatch up any of the government contracts being offered at the time?
While I agree that there is a difference between government censorship, and YouTube censoring videos on their privately owned network, the latter is still censorship. The definition does not specify 'by a governing entity'.
Clearly a troll, but for the benefit of anyone who may miss that point, I will simply state that there is no known mechanism for farts causing rain, whereas the greenhouse effect is a thoroughly understood and experimentally verified mechanism for CO2 causing warming.
I sure as hell don't. I'm a fan of Tesla's cars, but their financials are completely upside-down. They're practically a Ponzi scheme that makes cars on the side.
Three years is hardly a long term trend--coal will likely bounce back, at least a couple more times. Also, if you think oil and natural gas are going away after we just discovered how to cheaply extract it from shale, you're deluding yourself. Renewable energy continues to get cheaper, and I fully hope and expect it to continue to play an ever increasing role, but it's not ready to completely replace fossil fuels. Not yet. If the major global economies decided to internalize the currently external costs of fossil fuels, it would definitely speed things up, though.
There are probably some experiments that could be attempted on Venus, but due to the lack of life, which has been critical for stabilizing Earth's climate by sequestering CO2, many could not.
It's difficult to say if we can 'fix' it, but we can certainly influence it. It's actually pretty simple (just not cheap)--spray lots and lots of ocean water into the upper atmosphere (I'm talking on a massive scale here). This will result in the formation of clouds, which reflect incident sunlight, resulting in cooling. Based on where your spray fleets are located, you could also heavily influence local climate.
This is of course only one possible approach, and likely not the cheapest.
Be careful conflating the velocity of money with inflation. They are very different. However, I agree that all existing digital currencies that I'm aware of are doomed to failure as currencies due to their lack of any control on inflation/deflation, and particularly their inherently deflationary design (after their initial inflationary period).
When you get right down to it, the economy runs on faith.
I've never been much of a fan of this redefinition of the word faith. In my mind the fundamental definition for faith is belief without evidence, which does not really apply to the economy (there's plenty of evidence that the economy exists). I suppose you could claim that there's no evidence the economy will continue to exist in the future, but I think the word that better describes this reality is speculation. The economy runs on speculation. This is undeniable and explains why the economy is cyclical--there is an inherent instability.
I don't work in IT, but poor documentation does seem to be the standard for all of the hardware and software we purchase. The only exceptions are Stanford Research Systems (created by PhDs well versed in publishing methods) and MBE Komponenton (German precision).
I'm not an expert in this field, but my understanding is that radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) don't provide a whole lot of power. They do, however provide just as much at night, and after the rover is coated in sand. The wikipedia article says that they typically provide a few hundred Watts (or less).
Solar cells don't have great power density compared to other sources on Earth, but they aren't all that bad. For a Mars mission, they likely use ~30% efficient GaAs-based solar cells (at the worst). It looks like the daily average solar irradiance on Mars is at best ~250 W/m^2, with an average closer to ~100 W/m^2, which is fairly similar to Earth (less atmosphere, and all that jazz). So 30% of 100 W is 30 W (assuming ~1 m^2 of solar panels). So depending on the size of the RTG, they might provide a ~10x improvement in daily average power, which is pretty good. However, solar cells should still be a pretty weight efficient power source on Mars, especially if you're willing to go into standby mode at night to minimize battery weight.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he probably knew that, considering he said,
The developing world is in a far better state than it was in 1950, which seems to be a low point for what was at the time, the Third World.
Then again, I could be wrong.
People don't generally starve to death outside of conflict areas. If you want to end world hunger, you need to solve regional politics.
For $2 billion? 20 years of current revenue? For a video game? Sounds pretty brilliant to me.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Why do you think that? What's so amazing about fusion that makes it so much better than every other technological achievement in history? Sure, it would solve all our energy problems for about a thousand years, at which point we would have burned through most of the available fuel because, having no incentive for efficiency, we would have wasted most of it. (Yes, I'm cynical about humanity.) But solar energy is equally capable of solving all our energy problems. And unlike fusion, it's a real technology that actually works today.
Tritium can be bread from lithium in a working fusion reactor, which is extremely abundant, and the deuterium present in the oceans is enough to last us hundreds of thousands of years.
That article seems to suggest that the evidence for Whitehead demonstrating the first powered flight is dubious at best. If Whitehead really did succeed first, why didn't he snatch up any of the government contracts being offered at the time?
Since this seems to be the pedantic thread... it was actually 66 years later.
While I agree that there is a difference between government censorship, and YouTube censoring videos on their privately owned network, the latter is still censorship. The definition does not specify 'by a governing entity'.
I'll just leave this here.
Clearly a troll, but for the benefit of anyone who may miss that point, I will simply state that there is no known mechanism for farts causing rain, whereas the greenhouse effect is a thoroughly understood and experimentally verified mechanism for CO2 causing warming.
I sure as hell don't. I'm a fan of Tesla's cars, but their financials are completely upside-down. They're practically a Ponzi scheme that makes cars on the side.
Three years is hardly a long term trend--coal will likely bounce back, at least a couple more times. Also, if you think oil and natural gas are going away after we just discovered how to cheaply extract it from shale, you're deluding yourself. Renewable energy continues to get cheaper, and I fully hope and expect it to continue to play an ever increasing role, but it's not ready to completely replace fossil fuels. Not yet. If the major global economies decided to internalize the currently external costs of fossil fuels, it would definitely speed things up, though.
There are probably some experiments that could be attempted on Venus, but due to the lack of life, which has been critical for stabilizing Earth's climate by sequestering CO2, many could not.
It's difficult to say if we can 'fix' it, but we can certainly influence it. It's actually pretty simple (just not cheap)--spray lots and lots of ocean water into the upper atmosphere (I'm talking on a massive scale here). This will result in the formation of clouds, which reflect incident sunlight, resulting in cooling. Based on where your spray fleets are located, you could also heavily influence local climate.
This is of course only one possible approach, and likely not the cheapest.
Be careful conflating the velocity of money with inflation. They are very different. However, I agree that all existing digital currencies that I'm aware of are doomed to failure as currencies due to their lack of any control on inflation/deflation, and particularly their inherently deflationary design (after their initial inflationary period).
When you get right down to it, the economy runs on faith.
I've never been much of a fan of this redefinition of the word faith. In my mind the fundamental definition for faith is belief without evidence, which does not really apply to the economy (there's plenty of evidence that the economy exists). I suppose you could claim that there's no evidence the economy will continue to exist in the future, but I think the word that better describes this reality is speculation. The economy runs on speculation. This is undeniable and explains why the economy is cyclical--there is an inherent instability.
C# pioneered lambda's.
Whaaaaaat? C# was created in 1999/2000. Lisp, which was based on lambda calculus, was first specified in 1958.
I don't work in IT, but poor documentation does seem to be the standard for all of the hardware and software we purchase. The only exceptions are Stanford Research Systems (created by PhDs well versed in publishing methods) and MBE Komponenton (German precision).
What's the difference, again?
Agreed. Effective at reducing particle count, but not at removing harmful chemicals from the air. Still, much better than nothing.
I'm not an expert in this field, but my understanding is that radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) don't provide a whole lot of power. They do, however provide just as much at night, and after the rover is coated in sand. The wikipedia article says that they typically provide a few hundred Watts (or less).
Solar cells don't have great power density compared to other sources on Earth, but they aren't all that bad. For a Mars mission, they likely use ~30% efficient GaAs-based solar cells (at the worst). It looks like the daily average solar irradiance on Mars is at best ~250 W/m^2, with an average closer to ~100 W/m^2, which is fairly similar to Earth (less atmosphere, and all that jazz). So 30% of 100 W is 30 W (assuming ~1 m^2 of solar panels). So depending on the size of the RTG, they might provide a ~10x improvement in daily average power, which is pretty good. However, solar cells should still be a pretty weight efficient power source on Mars, especially if you're willing to go into standby mode at night to minimize battery weight.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Older computers have the distinct advantage of being far less susceptible to EMP.
I blame the Latin and Greek languages. They have too many antonyms that are near homophones.
I thought the American Dream was a house with a lawn, a wife, 2.5 kids, and a dog. When did it become hitting the lottery?
Depends how many people attended, and how much you charged per plate.