I agree. Certainly a lot of people are unhappy about Bush, but no one has really said what they plan to do differently, but somehow it *will* be different. BTW, I'm pretty sure parent was being facetious and needs to be modded up.
Yep, it's maximum distance we can see without light getting too caught up in the early, dense universe. I guess the observable universe would be slightly smaller back then also, but probably not noticeably. It's kinda strange because it's always been "observable" as in it is potentially feasible to see this light, but we weren't "able-to-observe" until more recently...or at least distinguish it.
Thats stupid. Why would you use energy to make hydrogen to make electricity in a fuel cell to run an electric motor when you could of just used that same energy to run the motor in the first place?
Refueling time and travel range. With hydrogen, you can refuel your car quickly like you would with gasoline, and you could potentially do it anywhere water and electricity are available. An electric car would have even more places to charge, but the charging time might be hours instead of minutes. I believe the energy density is also better with hydrogen, so you can travel greater distances. Neither of these might not matter too much in most people's daily routine of driving like 40 miles a day. In addition, battery capacity, output, and charge time are all improving. I've always been a fan of hydrogen, but I do think electric is catching up and may eventually be the better choice.
Although Vista is doing comparatively worse than XP due to the fivefold increase in PC sales between their respective first years, the total Vista sales are higher, so there should be more people finding flaws. Unless that many people buy a preloaded vista PC and upgrade to XP....
I don't think your basket argument is very effective. Someone could believe in a god and just not know how he did certain things. Science would then reveal how. It seems like you are implying that by knowing how everything works up to a few billionths of a second before the big bang, the god-of-the-gaps theory is negligible. I don't think the fact that the universe is intelligible means a god is unlikely. How there just happens to be something as opposed to nothing is pretty significant. Science will never be able to tell us. Religion tells us, but we have no way to verify if religion is true. Personally, I kinda like the mystery.
I disagree. It's not about the kid, it's about the father. If he wanted to make his story available to the public, he could have. I want the ability to pass on whatever I have earned to my kids...if what I have earned is implicit in the art I create, I would want to pass that on.
Without getting into a huge debate about copyright, I will say there may be some worthy complaints about copyrighting physical inventions or really anything useful were there is only one solution, which probably would have been found by someone else eventually. But there are an infinite possible expressions for art and none of them are particularly needed.
I do think sending food to countries can help them by taking pressure off so that they can focus on setting up some sort of basic infrastructure. But that is not my point. My point is that it might be better to put resources into helping set up sustainable development in countries where people are starving (i.e. clearing land, providing farming equipment, etc) than to donate laptops to countries that have enough food.
I agree that there has to be a sort of cost/benefit analysis, at least to a point. Would you take away all the money we donate to starving countries, even if it's just for food, and put it to use developing other countries further that have food? It would probably accelerate the development of the world overall, I do see your logic, but I don't think that is such an easy choice to make. At the other end of the spectrum, I don't think we're going to spend money laying fiber optics in even more highly developed countries even if we get more bang for the buck.
I'm more of a limited government fan myself, but if a country wants to buy these laptops for their citizens, that's their choice and the OLPC foundation is doing a very good thing. But if I'm going to donate $200, I think I'd rather spend it on stuff like water purifiers, pots and pans, farming equipment, etc.
Countries don't need to wait with using technology that they make on their own, but if you're going to donate, shouldn't you start with the countries that are in most desperate need?
I agree that simply providing food will not be very effective in self-sustainability. But with people still starving, I think there are better tools than computers that we can give. The people behind the OLPC are using their skills to do a great thing...I just think it's a bit early.
"Considering that the OLPC isnt intended for demographics who have no food, people like Dvorak would be that reason..."
So instead of feeding the demographics who have no food, we should give laptops to the demographics who do?
And actually beat MIT. How cool is that! In the senior year of mechanical engineering you get to choose from over 30 projects to work on and virginia tech seriously represents in all of them.
I also transfered to tech from community college. You don't actually have to stay for both years, but it does save a lot of money. I applied after my first semester for the following year, and all I had to show them was 13 credits of straight Bs! You will love it here, these have been by far the best years of my life.
The monopoly is what irritates me. If someone set up their own ISP without the government, I think they're free to do whatever they want with it. But if we're giving them a monopoly, I think we have some say in the service.
Personally, I'm glad that the government listens in on phone calls made outside the country to suspected terrorists. I know that it has the potential for abuse, but I think that can be prevented. Someone will blow the whistle, as they already did. That being said, I do agree that it does appear to be unconstitutional. I just think it should be made constitutional.
I disagree that the people in the telecom industry are scumbags. I don't think they enjoy giving out their customers' information. They are in an awkward situation. They could have faced legal problems either by obeying or disobeying the president. I don't think you should have to be punished by obeying the president. If we decide that it truly is wrong, I think the president should be punished, not those that carried out his orders.
It's interesting to throw these numbers around, and I agree that it at least gives us an idea of what factors are involved. If the emergence of intelligent life is random, your odds might be right. It took almost 5 billion years after the formation of our solar system to form intelligent life. It could be similar everywhere. Maybe the entire universe is starting to spawn intelligent life. So I don't think you can just compare a 10,000 year history to the history of the universe.
I think the odds of life might be a lot higher than we imagine. And once life starts, I think you have to have evolution, and it is only a matter of time before intelligent life evolves. And once you have intelligence, I think it's most likely going to stay around for a while, and maybe populate other stars. I definitely would not bet on us finding anything with this project, but I don't think the odds are so low it's not worth trying. I'm not sure what you mean that the odds don't get better with more civilizations. I agree that it's more likely another civilization will discover us before we discover them, but I don't think we can realize we have been discovered without looking.
I know you're exaggerating, but we really have no idea how common intelligent life is. Maybe most solar systems have intelligent life. So far we've intermittently scanned only a few hundred stars to any significant degree. How are we going to know until we try? A few million bucks to scan at least a million stars (and provide other astronomy purposes) doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
I would say that we are looking for them looking for us. It's pretty doubtful that they're just going to show up here, we have to look for signs of them trying to communicate with us. With the electromagnetic spectrum being as fast as physically possible, I think that's a good way of doing it. Technology 40 years from now will be even better, so why not wait till then? We have no idea what the odds are on finding life, theres no way you can really say "now's a good time to start looking." Just as a guess though, I would say that being able to scan a million stars and many more in less detail sounds pretty decent. Honestly though, if I had known how few stars SETI was able to scan before this, I probably wouldn't have been for it.
I'm no expert in solar system formation, but it seems to me that it would be strange if a star didn't have any planets. I mean, what are the odds that every bit of matter in the accretion disc is pulled into the star? We only really have our own solar system to study, but I doubt we are the exception to the rule. The same principles apply to moon formation, and we have an average of 20 moons per planet and counting! If moon formation around a planet is similar enough to planet formation around a star, the little data we have would indicate that with 8 planets, we may be lower than average. With our primitive detection methods, we're finding planets around 5% of stars. These are almost always massive planets, often many times larger than jupiter, in a small orbit. So we're basically finding that 1 in 20 stars has a huge planet orbiting very close to the star. What are the odds of having a planet that big, that close? There are so many other possible formations.
As others have said, it's not really "wasting" money, but I understand your point that millions of dollars could have been used to feed the children and whatnot. Maybe I'm being a bit whimsical (if that's even the right word), but I don't think there is much point in life if all we're concerned about is making sure everyone is alive. I mean, where would you draw the line? Should we stop making art?
In addition, while it seems there is no social benefit, there will be. Our pursuits into space have produced a lot of useful technology. In addition, and more importantly, they inspire us to work harder. And who knows, maybe we'll actually find some aliens with a cure for cancer.
Haha, I'm not saying to use a generator because it will make you slower. No matter what setup you have, you're going to have to sacrifice some speed for electricity. Stocking up with batteries will add weight and slow you down, solar panels add weight and require enough batteries to last for around 12 hours for when theres no sun, and a generator will take away some sail power, in addition to adding some weight itself.
In a competition like this it's usually just going to be whoever actually finishes, wins. With that in mind I would probably go with batteries, at least because they're more reliable, if not also faster.
I would think that the amount of batteries required for a multi-week trip would be pretty heavy. Maybe you could use a small generator with a small turbine in the water (I guess air couldn't work here). Although you would lose some speed, I don't think it would compare to the speed lost with battery weight.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Certainly a lot of people are unhappy about Bush, but no one has really said what they plan to do differently, but somehow it *will* be different. BTW, I'm pretty sure parent was being facetious and needs to be modded up.
Yep, it's maximum distance we can see without light getting too caught up in the early, dense universe. I guess the observable universe would be slightly smaller back then also, but probably not noticeably. It's kinda strange because it's always been "observable" as in it is potentially feasible to see this light, but we weren't "able-to-observe" until more recently...or at least distinguish it.
By letting me know I'm not quite the biggest nerd in the world by not playing it. It's always been the last frontier to me....
It wasn't true just a few decades ago.
Thats stupid. Why would you use energy to make hydrogen to make electricity in a fuel cell to run an electric motor when you could of just used that same energy to run the motor in the first place?
Refueling time and travel range. With hydrogen, you can refuel your car quickly like you would with gasoline, and you could potentially do it anywhere water and electricity are available. An electric car would have even more places to charge, but the charging time might be hours instead of minutes. I believe the energy density is also better with hydrogen, so you can travel greater distances. Neither of these might not matter too much in most people's daily routine of driving like 40 miles a day. In addition, battery capacity, output, and charge time are all improving. I've always been a fan of hydrogen, but I do think electric is catching up and may eventually be the better choice.
If they're going all the way to Antarctica, can't they bring some bigger telescopes?
Although Vista is doing comparatively worse than XP due to the fivefold increase in PC sales between their respective first years, the total Vista sales are higher, so there should be more people finding flaws. Unless that many people buy a preloaded vista PC and upgrade to XP....
"there isn't even a mathematical possibility that there is any god" huh?
I don't think your basket argument is very effective. Someone could believe in a god and just not know how he did certain things. Science would then reveal how. It seems like you are implying that by knowing how everything works up to a few billionths of a second before the big bang, the god-of-the-gaps theory is negligible. I don't think the fact that the universe is intelligible means a god is unlikely. How there just happens to be something as opposed to nothing is pretty significant. Science will never be able to tell us. Religion tells us, but we have no way to verify if religion is true. Personally, I kinda like the mystery.
Without getting into a huge debate about copyright, I will say there may be some worthy complaints about copyrighting physical inventions or really anything useful were there is only one solution, which probably would have been found by someone else eventually. But there are an infinite possible expressions for art and none of them are particularly needed.
I do think sending food to countries can help them by taking pressure off so that they can focus on setting up some sort of basic infrastructure. But that is not my point. My point is that it might be better to put resources into helping set up sustainable development in countries where people are starving (i.e. clearing land, providing farming equipment, etc) than to donate laptops to countries that have enough food.
I agree that there has to be a sort of cost/benefit analysis, at least to a point. Would you take away all the money we donate to starving countries, even if it's just for food, and put it to use developing other countries further that have food? It would probably accelerate the development of the world overall, I do see your logic, but I don't think that is such an easy choice to make. At the other end of the spectrum, I don't think we're going to spend money laying fiber optics in even more highly developed countries even if we get more bang for the buck.
I'm more of a limited government fan myself, but if a country wants to buy these laptops for their citizens, that's their choice and the OLPC foundation is doing a very good thing. But if I'm going to donate $200, I think I'd rather spend it on stuff like water purifiers, pots and pans, farming equipment, etc.
Countries don't need to wait with using technology that they make on their own, but if you're going to donate, shouldn't you start with the countries that are in most desperate need?
I agree that simply providing food will not be very effective in self-sustainability. But with people still starving, I think there are better tools than computers that we can give. The people behind the OLPC are using their skills to do a great thing...I just think it's a bit early.
"Considering that the OLPC isnt intended for demographics who have no food, people like Dvorak would be that reason..." So instead of feeding the demographics who have no food, we should give laptops to the demographics who do?
I also transfered to tech from community college. You don't actually have to stay for both years, but it does save a lot of money. I applied after my first semester for the following year, and all I had to show them was 13 credits of straight Bs! You will love it here, these have been by far the best years of my life.
The monopoly is what irritates me. If someone set up their own ISP without the government, I think they're free to do whatever they want with it. But if we're giving them a monopoly, I think we have some say in the service.
I disagree that the people in the telecom industry are scumbags. I don't think they enjoy giving out their customers' information. They are in an awkward situation. They could have faced legal problems either by obeying or disobeying the president. I don't think you should have to be punished by obeying the president. If we decide that it truly is wrong, I think the president should be punished, not those that carried out his orders.
I think the odds of life might be a lot higher than we imagine. And once life starts, I think you have to have evolution, and it is only a matter of time before intelligent life evolves. And once you have intelligence, I think it's most likely going to stay around for a while, and maybe populate other stars. I definitely would not bet on us finding anything with this project, but I don't think the odds are so low it's not worth trying. I'm not sure what you mean that the odds don't get better with more civilizations. I agree that it's more likely another civilization will discover us before we discover them, but I don't think we can realize we have been discovered without looking.
I know you're exaggerating, but we really have no idea how common intelligent life is. Maybe most solar systems have intelligent life. So far we've intermittently scanned only a few hundred stars to any significant degree. How are we going to know until we try? A few million bucks to scan at least a million stars (and provide other astronomy purposes) doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
I would say that we are looking for them looking for us. It's pretty doubtful that they're just going to show up here, we have to look for signs of them trying to communicate with us. With the electromagnetic spectrum being as fast as physically possible, I think that's a good way of doing it. Technology 40 years from now will be even better, so why not wait till then? We have no idea what the odds are on finding life, theres no way you can really say "now's a good time to start looking." Just as a guess though, I would say that being able to scan a million stars and many more in less detail sounds pretty decent. Honestly though, if I had known how few stars SETI was able to scan before this, I probably wouldn't have been for it.
I'm no expert in solar system formation, but it seems to me that it would be strange if a star didn't have any planets. I mean, what are the odds that every bit of matter in the accretion disc is pulled into the star? We only really have our own solar system to study, but I doubt we are the exception to the rule. The same principles apply to moon formation, and we have an average of 20 moons per planet and counting! If moon formation around a planet is similar enough to planet formation around a star, the little data we have would indicate that with 8 planets, we may be lower than average. With our primitive detection methods, we're finding planets around 5% of stars. These are almost always massive planets, often many times larger than jupiter, in a small orbit. So we're basically finding that 1 in 20 stars has a huge planet orbiting very close to the star. What are the odds of having a planet that big, that close? There are so many other possible formations.
In addition, while it seems there is no social benefit, there will be. Our pursuits into space have produced a lot of useful technology. In addition, and more importantly, they inspire us to work harder. And who knows, maybe we'll actually find some aliens with a cure for cancer.
Haha, I'm not saying to use a generator because it will make you slower. No matter what setup you have, you're going to have to sacrifice some speed for electricity. Stocking up with batteries will add weight and slow you down, solar panels add weight and require enough batteries to last for around 12 hours for when theres no sun, and a generator will take away some sail power, in addition to adding some weight itself. In a competition like this it's usually just going to be whoever actually finishes, wins. With that in mind I would probably go with batteries, at least because they're more reliable, if not also faster.
I would think that the amount of batteries required for a multi-week trip would be pretty heavy. Maybe you could use a small generator with a small turbine in the water (I guess air couldn't work here). Although you would lose some speed, I don't think it would compare to the speed lost with battery weight.
Well if 10,000 cameras cost 200 million pounds...they're probably just as grainy.