Since we are on the topic of reading history, a muslim country was one of the first to recognize the USA. Go read the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, especially Article 11.
Robots will only create more jobs for humans. We can get robots to build everyone houses in the deserts, in the oceans. On Mars, and maybe even a Jupiter moon. There will be jobs in all those places even if it's research, design, or something you can't think of.
A lot of times stuff is not replicatable (suck it spellchecker, i just invented the word) because it's fucking difficult. I mean I have spent thousands of dollars and even worse wasted many hours in the lab on getting something I thought should be straightforward, obvious, and simple to work. Sometimes you want things to work so badly, you might even see things (usually fluorescence) where there is none. It's like how Percival Lowell saw canals on Mars. As a scientist you have to fight hard against your own bias, and not take it personally when someone attacks your work. Biological systems are unreliable (or not easily modeled), it's not like a computer program where everything follows a known deterministic path. In biology, the conditions in which something happens may not be known. It may work in one lab because they are using a reagent with a trace contaminant of salt whereas in another it won't work because the conditions are too pure.
So anyway, I reckon we have 3 reasons why studies are not reproducible (here they are in order of unethicalness/immorality): 1. The actual conditions are not what the researcher thinks it is. (The reagent constituents are not normal for example). 2. The researcher wants to believe a result so badly that they see an effect that doesn't exist. (Nowadays you have to photograph your results and/or use software, so this *should* get caught in peer review). 3. The research was published due to pressure to get grants combined with confidence that a particular hypothesis is real and should work -- in spite of lab failure (which the researcher ignores, telling themselves somebody in their lab made a "pipetting error").
Obviously, #3 is the most evil of the above. None of these are an excuse for publishing bad science. In terms of mitigating effects, #1 is the hardest to avoid. #3 should be very avoidable if you have scruples.
The other thing is it won't be a half baked product. I guarantee that it will be a 5K per eye display rolling at not less than 120fps. In other words, Apple will ensure that any VR or AR headset they release shall have a retina display. A retina VR headset is what Oculus should have been. When Apple makes a their VR headset or glasses, do you honestly think it will have the ultra-annoying screen door effect or puke inducing 90fps? The soul of Steve Jobs will emerge from the grave and smack Tim Cook in the face if that were the case. The whole point is that you can watch an entire movie with the headset on and have it be just like you were sitting in the movie theater. Eventually you will be able to watch live sports in that manner too, except you will be able to virtual teleport to various locations as well on the field and off. In 2020 the Mars Rover will carry a VR camera, so you can experience what it's like sitting on Mars. Does anyone think those experiences can be had with any justice if the frame rate is horrible and the display is marred by the screen door effect ? If there is any of Steve Jobs spirit left at Apple they will remember Steve would throw any sub par VR display across the room with anger (think Steve Ballmer tossing a chair).
Except we are talking about Microsoft so the 2019 version will have 2016 technology (i.e., it will be low resolution with an annoying screen door effect, nauseous low frame rate).
For VR to be usable beyond 5 minutes of gimicky showing off, the per eye resolution needs to be at 5K and the frame rate at least 120 fps with under 50 millisecond responsiveness.
I doubt we would have those technologies by 2019, we can't get 4K working how are we going to have dual 5K displays rolling at 120 fps by 2019?
How about college students be taught what skills would be useful at a job? I mean, nobody wants to hire people straight out of college, so why not provide the work experience during college? Actually, I would let college students sit in on meetings in my company. I would do it for free, of course I am not paying them either since they aren't working for me. I mean, even if there is no work for unskilled people.. colleges should hook up deals so that individual students (maybe no more than 3 at a time) could get invited to local profession-relevant companies. A different company each week for a one or two hours. They wouldn't be allowed to ask any questions during the session, only observe others working -- watch the machines go.. maybe attend a meeting even. I feel like having students experience work environments would be valuable, for one thing it would dissuade many of them from getting a job and help them gain a much needed pessimistic futuristic outlook as to what having a career means.
I hope they didn't permanent cancel it. Once the science objectives are completed, they should attempt this maneuver. Juno doesn't have a good imager, so closer the better. Would have been nice to get some 3D close ups of the clouds.
Don't tax it, own it. Humans8 should invest in robot companies and live off the revenue thereof. Robots will make things cheap. Robotic indoor farming. Basic math shows that one large indoor farming skyscraper like they are building in Singapore or even an underground facility powered by a large solar array or other power plant (nuclear fusion, maybe in 25 years) would be able to provide all the food for a large city. For security purposes obviously you would want these spread out over neighborhoods like Freight Farms is trying to do. I personally wish to expand my own high yield indoor vegetable farm so that I won't need to purchase tomatoes or potatoes ever. I already automated lighting and watering with an arduino and raspberry pi.. I could easily envision the fertilizing, harvest, and planting could be automated.
You people do realize that the CRISPR genes of the type to do gene editing are present in strep pyogenes and also staph aureus? These bacteria, especially staph aureus, are found everywhere. That means that anyone can extract these genes and put them into a plasmid quite easily using technology such as PCR (which can be done with a thermometer, stove, and a cup of ice). The only difficult part is making oligonucleotide sequences -- which are dirt cheap to buy though not trivial for someone to make at home but if I really thought about it I am sure there is a way to do it with just household chemicals and a small lab.
What I am saying is, if you ban this thing it will do nothing other than prevent its good use. The bad use will still be possible -- although there are tons of much easier and more effective ways to cause harm than genetic engineering -- it's rather sad to watch people get so paranoid about something like this. I mean people it's easier to cure late stage IV cancer and diabetes than it is to do something bad with genetic engineering -- yet there are tons of much easier ways to hurt people.
Yeah i see the sarcasm. You seem to know who all these companies should hire. Yet none of you geniuses who say Google, Apple, Microsoft and others don't need to hire foreigners have ever made a billion dollar technology company (real estate, oil, and businesses profiting off monopolization of resources don't count).
There is a reason many of the patents on the original iPhone have foreign names.
The average person doesn't think to that level. It appears to be that the reason for lack of adoption is that the average person doesn't know it's a thing, plus it's non-intuitive, and their email providers don't do it for them.
Use some other language. There are better languages out there. Sun, which developed Java, made it freely available so that it would get popular. That's why people chose it -- that's why it got the traction and support to evolve to where it is today. Ultimately though, people were only willing to pay what it was worth.
No. Causing thousands of persons to waste a few minutes of their life is not the same as killing somebody! For one thing their is no individual subject to extreme suffering. Your mind is warped, emotion driven, and cruel if you think a murderer and a spammer deserve the same punishment. Hey reading your comment wasted a lot of people's time how are you going to compensate them? Should makers of bad movies be convicted of murder too? You are a sicko if you want people killed for spamming you.
You can breed two different species of plants together and get a new gene that never existed in either one -- even without mutation. I know of at least 5 or 6 ways offhand --- there is often massive chromosomal rearrangement --a lot of which is random.
Apparently it's you thats disqualified to speak her.
You're an idiot. You truly are. You clearly have no background in this field. I mean, GMO doesn't even necessarily mean swapping in a new gene. It could also be knocking out an existing gene. Second, you act like GMO is dangerous when hybridizing and artificial selection can have the same result if not worse than any GMO ever cooked up to date.
No because the number of years people are over 65 is higher than 5 years. Meaning, the sum of people 65 to, i dunno, 85 (that's about 20 years) is greater than the number of people aged under 5. That means the number of people born in those years could be much less than the people being born nowadays, even adjusting for deaths.
I hate gravity as much as the next guy, but we're stuck with it. Flying cars are impossible unless we have a mechanism of propulsion that doesn't involve shoving air downwards at a high velocity. Forget flying cars, let's focus on getting the following technologies within the next 20 years (in order of difficulty):
1. Batteries with 3x the capacity of today's best. -- We are clueless how to do this. 2. Fusion Energy -- should be possible, theoretically 3. Developing in-vivo gene editing technology. -- difficult, especially to do it safely 4. Improving cellular drug delivery systems -- hard but not impossible 5. Curing Type 1 diabetes -- we are close 6. Level 5 autonomous vehicles. -- feasible 7. VR with 5K per eye -- plausible 8. Passive WiFi -- tech has already been demonstrated.
Slashdot Mirror
Since we are on the topic of reading history, a muslim country was one of the first to recognize the USA. Go read the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, especially Article 11.
They must be the bad cousin, cause they never get invited to Aryan Nations meetings.
Robots will only create more jobs for humans. We can get robots to build everyone houses in the deserts, in the oceans. On Mars, and maybe even a Jupiter moon. There will be jobs in all those places even if it's research, design, or something you can't think of.
When a company grows, they usually end up hiring an MBA for $300K who will tell them they can save $250K by firing two developers.
A lot of times stuff is not replicatable (suck it spellchecker, i just invented the word) because it's fucking difficult. I mean I have spent thousands of dollars and even worse wasted many hours in the lab on getting something I thought should be straightforward, obvious, and simple to work. Sometimes you want things to work so badly, you might even see things (usually fluorescence) where there is none. It's like how Percival Lowell saw canals on Mars. As a scientist you have to fight hard against your own bias, and not take it personally when someone attacks your work. Biological systems are unreliable (or not easily modeled), it's not like a computer program where everything follows a known deterministic path. In biology, the conditions in which something happens may not be known. It may work in one lab because they are using a reagent with a trace contaminant of salt whereas in another it won't work because the conditions are too pure.
So anyway, I reckon we have 3 reasons why studies are not reproducible (here they are in order of unethicalness/immorality):
1. The actual conditions are not what the researcher thinks it is. (The reagent constituents are not normal for example).
2. The researcher wants to believe a result so badly that they see an effect that doesn't exist. (Nowadays you have to photograph your results and/or use software, so this *should* get caught in peer review).
3. The research was published due to pressure to get grants combined with confidence that a particular hypothesis is real and should work -- in spite of lab failure (which the researcher ignores, telling themselves somebody in their lab made a "pipetting error").
Obviously, #3 is the most evil of the above. None of these are an excuse for publishing bad science. In terms of mitigating effects, #1 is the hardest to avoid. #3 should be very avoidable if you have scruples.
The other thing is it won't be a half baked product. I guarantee that it will be a 5K per eye display rolling at not less than 120fps. In other words, Apple will ensure that any VR or AR headset they release shall have a retina display. A retina VR headset is what Oculus should have been. When Apple makes a their VR headset or glasses, do you honestly think it will have the ultra-annoying screen door effect or puke inducing 90fps? The soul of Steve Jobs will emerge from the grave and smack Tim Cook in the face if that were the case. The whole point is that you can watch an entire movie with the headset on and have it be just like you were sitting in the movie theater. Eventually you will be able to watch live sports in that manner too, except you will be able to virtual teleport to various locations as well on the field and off. In 2020 the Mars Rover will carry a VR camera, so you can experience what it's like sitting on Mars. Does anyone think those experiences can be had with any justice if the frame rate is horrible and the display is marred by the screen door effect ? If there is any of Steve Jobs spirit left at Apple they will remember Steve would throw any sub par VR display across the room with anger (think Steve Ballmer tossing a chair).
Except we are talking about Microsoft so the 2019 version will have 2016 technology (i.e., it will be low resolution with an annoying screen door effect, nauseous low frame rate).
For VR to be usable beyond 5 minutes of gimicky showing off, the per eye resolution needs to be at 5K and the frame rate at least 120 fps with under 50 millisecond responsiveness.
I doubt we would have those technologies by 2019, we can't get 4K working how are we going to have dual 5K displays rolling at 120 fps by 2019?
so it must be possible. Movie writers are scientists.
How about college students be taught what skills would be useful at a job? I mean, nobody wants to hire people straight out of college, so why not provide the work experience during college? Actually, I would let college students sit in on meetings in my company. I would do it for free, of course I am not paying them either since they aren't working for me. I mean, even if there is no work for unskilled people .. colleges should hook up deals so that individual students (maybe no more than 3 at a time) could get invited to local profession-relevant companies. A different company each week for a one or two hours. They wouldn't be allowed to ask any questions during the session, only observe others working -- watch the machines go .. maybe attend a meeting even. I feel like having students experience work environments would be valuable, for one thing it would dissuade many of them from getting a job and help them gain a much needed pessimistic futuristic outlook as to what having a career means.
If they can do that to a mere doll, what would they do to an Echo?
I hope they didn't permanent cancel it. Once the science objectives are completed, they should attempt this maneuver. Juno doesn't have a good imager, so closer the better. Would have been nice to get some 3D close ups of the clouds.
Don't tax it, own it. Humans8 should invest in robot companies and live off the revenue thereof. Robots will make things cheap. Robotic indoor farming. Basic math shows that one large indoor farming skyscraper like they are building in Singapore or even an underground facility powered by a large solar array or other power plant (nuclear fusion, maybe in 25 years) would be able to provide all the food for a large city. For security purposes obviously you would want these spread out over neighborhoods like Freight Farms is trying to do. I personally wish to expand my own high yield indoor vegetable farm so that I won't need to purchase tomatoes or potatoes ever. I already automated lighting and watering with an arduino and raspberry pi .. I could easily envision the fertilizing, harvest, and planting could be automated.
Is that why it was the US that actually developed it and not the UK?
You people do realize that the CRISPR genes of the type to do gene editing are present in strep pyogenes and also staph aureus? These bacteria, especially staph aureus, are found everywhere. That means that anyone can extract these genes and put them into a plasmid quite easily using technology such as PCR (which can be done with a thermometer, stove, and a cup of ice). The only difficult part is making oligonucleotide sequences -- which are dirt cheap to buy though not trivial for someone to make at home but if I really thought about it I am sure there is a way to do it with just household chemicals and a small lab.
What I am saying is, if you ban this thing it will do nothing other than prevent its good use. The bad use will still be possible -- although there are tons of much easier and more effective ways to cause harm than genetic engineering -- it's rather sad to watch people get so paranoid about something like this. I mean people it's easier to cure late stage IV cancer and diabetes than it is to do something bad with genetic engineering -- yet there are tons of much easier ways to hurt people.
Can we switch out of ARM please? Let's go with RISC-V or something super open source.
Are they going to make a passive wifi chip or at least support ambient wifi ? Smartwatches badly need passive wifi chips (or passive bluetooth).
Yeah i see the sarcasm. You seem to know who all these companies should hire. Yet none of you geniuses who say Google, Apple, Microsoft and others don't need to hire foreigners have ever made a billion dollar technology company (real estate, oil, and businesses profiting off monopolization of resources don't count).
There is a reason many of the patents on the original iPhone have foreign names.
The average person doesn't think to that level. It appears to be that the reason for lack of adoption is that the average person doesn't know it's a thing, plus it's non-intuitive, and their email providers don't do it for them.
Use some other language. There are better languages out there.
Sun, which developed Java, made it freely available so that it would get popular. That's why people chose it -- that's why it got the traction and support to evolve to where it is today. Ultimately though, people were only willing to pay what it was worth.
No. Causing thousands of persons to waste a few minutes of their life is not the same as killing somebody! For one thing their is no individual subject to extreme suffering. Your mind is warped, emotion driven, and cruel if you think a murderer and a spammer deserve the same punishment. Hey reading your comment wasted a lot of people's time how are you going to compensate them? Should makers of bad movies be convicted of murder too? You are a sicko if you want people killed for spamming you.
I'm afraid I can't do that Dave..
You can breed two different species of plants together and get a new gene that never existed in either one -- even without mutation. I know of at least 5 or 6 ways offhand --- there is often massive chromosomal rearrangement --a lot of which is random.
Apparently it's you thats disqualified to speak her.
You're an idiot. You truly are. You clearly have no background in this field. I mean, GMO doesn't even necessarily mean swapping in a new gene. It could also be knocking out an existing gene. Second, you act like GMO is dangerous when hybridizing and artificial selection can have the same result if not worse than any GMO ever cooked up to date.
No because the number of years people are over 65 is higher than 5 years. Meaning, the sum of people 65 to, i dunno, 85 (that's about 20 years) is greater than the number of people aged under 5. That means the number of people born in those years could be much less than the people being born nowadays, even adjusting for deaths.
I hate gravity as much as the next guy, but we're stuck with it. Flying cars are impossible unless we have a mechanism of propulsion that doesn't involve shoving air downwards at a high velocity. Forget flying cars, let's focus on getting the following technologies within the next 20 years (in order of difficulty):
1. Batteries with 3x the capacity of today's best. -- We are clueless how to do this.
2. Fusion Energy -- should be possible, theoretically
3. Developing in-vivo gene editing technology. -- difficult, especially to do it safely
4. Improving cellular drug delivery systems -- hard but not impossible
5. Curing Type 1 diabetes -- we are close
6. Level 5 autonomous vehicles. -- feasible
7. VR with 5K per eye -- plausible
8. Passive WiFi -- tech has already been demonstrated.