Yeah and when they say "DARPA Urban Challenge will go forward next November with more than $3 Million on the line"... I wonder how much the car insurance claims will be for everyone else on the road.
"The thinking is that any black holes that are created by the LHC would be so small that they would evaporate in an instant"
That assumes Stephen Hawking is correct;)... then again, if he is wrong, then no one will be around to find out... so maybe I should place a bet on it not forming a black hole, then I won't have to worry about loosing;)
"One might argue that such access to information actually decreases productivity"
What?... sorry but that is so wrong.
I find it incredible to think that anyone who needs to research something can now do more with 1 hour of running searches on Google, than is possible in a lifetime of researching though visiting libraries and working though mountains of books and science papers. (Sure it may take a time to read though everything you find from the searches on Google... but the process of finding the information is hugely faster). The Internet and search engines in general have greatly increased what is possible even though its still (relatively) early days in the evolution of the Internet.
As for my point (1) maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough, as you have misinterpreted what I was saying. I was referring to the assumption of the kinds of particle collisions that can occur. I fully accept very high energy subatomic particles do occur in nature (although their frequency of occurrence isn't very high, (by high I mean we don't seen billions of very high energy particles per square micrometre every nano second (thankfully;) but the occasional few definitely do occur).
However, we will have high concentrations of *high energy* particles in the LHC *in a very small space*
One thing I'm very interested in is the kinds of particles collision interactions that are possible.
For example, imagine two cars driving head on into each other while both are travelling at say 100 Mph... and you get to see the collision in slow motion video from a side on (say 10 metre away) perspective. Now imagine watching the video as the two cars first start to crush and crumple up into each other, as they get squashed together and torn apart by the collision. Now imagine as these two cars are mostly though the process of crushing together and getting torn apart, that a 3rd car then slams into the back of one of the cars. (Or another two car collision occurs at the side of them and their debris is spraying into each other debris).
If this were a particle accelerator and the cars were particles, then the detectors would most likely pick-up an interesting (but less frequently occurring) collision.
The frequency of this kind of interaction is less than simpler two particle collisions, however its not impossible. So you end up with showers of debris and occasionally we my see something very interesting in the debris. That "something very interesting" event could be cause by rarely occurring types of collisions. And don't forget that the extra (3rd or more) "cars" don't need to hit the first two "cars"... their debris can hit other debris etc..
So what if something dangerous was formed in one of these rare showers of collisions?
Also the whole point of particle accelerators is the beams are designed to focus into a small an area as possible, to maximise the chances of collisions.
In the interests of scientific debate, (of which critical evaluation is a vital part), I'm going to play devils advocate for a moment...
The mini Black holes issue. On the one side we have people who say black holes are not possible and on the other side, we have people who say black holes are (maybe) possible.
Right so we have theories such as for example...
(1) Higher energy collisions occur in the atmosphere.
(2) The LHC does not have the power required.
(3) Some people also bring in the concept of Hawking radiation.
With point (1) we actually have an assumption which is a fair assumption, however the conditions within the LHC are different to that of the atmosphere. For example we have a concentrated particle beam than would not occur naturally in our atmosphere (or coinciding with such high magnetic fields in our atmosphere) etc... So while we can assume these are unimportant we cannot be certain and we are going to be getting the potential for a lot of high energy collisions spraying around within the machine.
With points (2) and (3) we have theories and theories based on other theories all of which look correct. However, the LHC is being built for a number of reasons and one of the central reasons is we want to extend our knowledge to prove if our theories are 100% correct. We can also say with 100% certainty that our current theories are incomplete as they do not work in all circumstances. Hence one of the main reasons to continue to do experiments such as building the LHC is to allow us to build onto our current knowledge.
However, any theory that says the LHC is safe from creating mini black holes cannot therefore be 100% certain to be safe as the theories themselves are not 100% certain.
Therefore scientists cannot say its safe with 100% certainty.
So what concerns me more is the idea that scientists are claiming 100% certainty in its safety. That sounds at best more a political statement than science. And at worse, it shows the potential for flawed thinking on the part of the scientists who naturally wish to seek the goal of learning more.
We cannot know its truly 100% safe and we cannot know any percentage figure that gives the degree of its safety. Any such figure would be based on assumptions and feelings and not based on science.
Therefore while I deeply share the excitement and desire to discover and continuously learn all we can about science, I have to ask, is our desire to learn worth any risk?... Especially as this risk isn't just person risk or even local risk, its potentially a global risk, so the stakes are as high as it can get. If we are wrong about the ability to create a mini black hole that proved to be sustainable, then in such an event, there would be no way to contain it or stop it.
I very much agree about the free trade issues. For the past year, I've been working in the UK gambling industry (non-internet gambling), and there isn't a hope in hell of getting into the US market. They have import barriers on gambling machines set so high (multi-millions of dollars high!) they know that no non-US company can enter the market.
Its effectively a closed market, yet they can freely enter European countries. Yet the US endlessly talks about the importance of free trade.
This news story is also interesting from a freedom point of view. In a country that prides itself of freedom and "land of the free" and free thinking etc... its fascinating how many times the land of the free isn't at all free to choose how to live.
What next, the trainspotters wiki... hmm... now there's an idea... and maybe I can earn some serious money from it?!... I could sell train tickets or something... maybe they'll even think they are getting souvenirs!
Or maybe I can start the fungal spores wiki... hmm... I could sell spores and things.
Come to think of it, maybe I should just setup the wiki wiki... page 1, the entire Internet. page 2, err?... goto page 1?
It could be they are building up to push other projects at the same time as having a high profile launch of Vista. That way, their other projects benefit from the higher profile of Microsoft in the press etc..
"I'm sorry, but with an error like that in the second sentence, I'm guessing the author is not an informed source and likely not an authority on predicting future console market trends"
That's interesting. So if they make a mistake, then their whole argument is, in your opinion, wrong. So working by your theory, if for example, a cab driver makes a spelling mistake, then he cannot find his way, driving across a city?
Your logic is flawed. I suspect you don't like what is said, and so want a reason to hang onto that belief.
Personally, I think its unlikely Sony could fail, but I also think the article is right in showing the extra cost of the PS3 could hurt Sony's chances.
From a longer term perspective, what if a PC/Console machine becomes the centre multimedia player in the living room. A machine that could combine e.g. IPTV, Web radio, Voice over IP, MP3 player, Games machine, Video recorder etc...
Then they will be in direct competition with Sony in other markets. That could most likely be the longer term goals for consoles which both Sony and Microsoft are working and aiming towards. The so called "technology convergence".
Why is it everything I post these days is automatically modded as 0 points as soon as I post it?... I make one Microsoft joke and I'm forever condemned to be at karma bad, 0 points. (Bill Gates makes a living out of it!;)
So much for the current generation of bio mod-bots, I think some of them have bugs. We need mod-bots V2.0;)
Sony's Aibo and especially Qrio appears to be more intelegent that it is, as it uses animation techniques similar to video games. Thats shown most clearly when Qrio dances. It still needs recognition AI but its not progressed as far as learning to understand its world in any great detail.
Some chatbots are trying to develop understanding of higher concepts. In a way, to get even more progress, you need to combine speech recognition with a chatbots AI and then combine them with the techniques used so far to create robots like Qrio etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually a 10 year old loaf of bread isn't worth that much. (Unless you sell it on eBay as a paper weight).
"Texas wants to let them be aided with lasers"
Why?, is it so they can blind the sighted hunters as well?!?
Yeah and when they say "DARPA Urban Challenge will go forward next November with more than $3 Million on the line" ... I wonder how much the car insurance claims will be for everyone else on the road.
I, for one, say cheers! to our new Alcoholic overlords.
... I was drunk so I had to say it.
"What the hell does a Hummer have to do with Nazis?"
I was more interested in finding out more about this meta-self-referential wank wank rule.
ok I ran lightbulb(lightbulb()) and it gave the answer 42
... so life is a stack crash ... I guess that explains the hangovers I have in the mornings.
Then again, it could just be a stack overflow
"The thinking is that any black holes that are created by the LHC would be so small that they would evaporate in an instant"
;) ... then again, if he is wrong, then no one will be around to find out ... so maybe I should place a bet on it not forming a black hole, then I won't have to worry about loosing ;)
That assumes Stephen Hawking is correct
"One might argue that such access to information actually decreases productivity"
... sorry but that is so wrong.
... but the process of finding the information is hugely faster). The Internet and search engines in general have greatly increased what is possible even though its still (relatively) early days in the evolution of the Internet.
What?
I find it incredible to think that anyone who needs to research something can now do more with 1 hour of running searches on Google, than is possible in a lifetime of researching though visiting libraries and working though mountains of books and science papers. (Sure it may take a time to read though everything you find from the searches on Google
Ok, first, thanks for taking the time to reply.
;) but the occasional few definitely do occur).
... and you get to see the collision in slow motion video from a side on (say 10 metre away) perspective. Now imagine watching the video as the two cars first start to crush and crumple up into each other, as they get squashed together and torn apart by the collision. Now imagine as these two cars are mostly though the process of crushing together and getting torn apart, that a 3rd car then slams into the back of one of the cars. (Or another two car collision occurs at the side of them and their debris is spraying into each other debris).
... their debris can hit other debris etc..
... its still currently a theory and holes in that theory have been already suggested.l em
As for my point (1) maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough, as you have misinterpreted what I was saying. I was referring to the assumption of the kinds of particle collisions that can occur. I fully accept very high energy subatomic particles do occur in nature (although their frequency of occurrence isn't very high, (by high I mean we don't seen billions of very high energy particles per square micrometre every nano second (thankfully
However, we will have high concentrations of *high energy* particles in the LHC *in a very small space*
One thing I'm very interested in is the kinds of particles collision interactions that are possible.
For example, imagine two cars driving head on into each other while both are travelling at say 100 Mph
If this were a particle accelerator and the cars were particles, then the detectors would most likely pick-up an interesting (but less frequently occurring) collision.
The frequency of this kind of interaction is less than simpler two particle collisions, however its not impossible. So you end up with showers of debris and occasionally we my see something very interesting in the debris. That "something very interesting" event could be cause by rarely occurring types of collisions. And don't forget that the extra (3rd or more) "cars" don't need to hit the first two "cars"
So what if something dangerous was formed in one of these rare showers of collisions?
Also the whole point of particle accelerators is the beams are designed to focus into a small an area as possible, to maximise the chances of collisions.
Also Hawking radiation is not 100% proven as fact
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Planckian_prob
In the interests of scientific debate, (of which critical evaluation is a vital part), I'm going to play devils advocate for a moment...
... Especially as this risk isn't just person risk or even local risk, its potentially a global risk, so the stakes are as high as it can get. If we are wrong about the ability to create a mini black hole that proved to be sustainable, then in such an event, there would be no way to contain it or stop it.
The mini Black holes issue. On the one side we have people who say black holes are not possible and on the other side, we have people who say black holes are (maybe) possible.
Right so we have theories such as for example...
(1) Higher energy collisions occur in the atmosphere.
(2) The LHC does not have the power required.
(3) Some people also bring in the concept of Hawking radiation.
With point (1) we actually have an assumption which is a fair assumption, however the conditions within the LHC are different to that of the atmosphere. For example we have a concentrated particle beam than would not occur naturally in our atmosphere (or coinciding with such high magnetic fields in our atmosphere) etc... So while we can assume these are unimportant we cannot be certain and we are going to be getting the potential for a lot of high energy collisions spraying around within the machine.
With points (2) and (3) we have theories and theories based on other theories all of which look correct. However, the LHC is being built for a number of reasons and one of the central reasons is we want to extend our knowledge to prove if our theories are 100% correct. We can also say with 100% certainty that our current theories are incomplete as they do not work in all circumstances. Hence one of the main reasons to continue to do experiments such as building the LHC is to allow us to build onto our current knowledge.
However, any theory that says the LHC is safe from creating mini black holes cannot therefore be 100% certain to be safe as the theories themselves are not 100% certain.
Therefore scientists cannot say its safe with 100% certainty.
So what concerns me more is the idea that scientists are claiming 100% certainty in its safety. That sounds at best more a political statement than science. And at worse, it shows the potential for flawed thinking on the part of the scientists who naturally wish to seek the goal of learning more.
We cannot know its truly 100% safe and we cannot know any percentage figure that gives the degree of its safety. Any such figure would be based on assumptions and feelings and not based on science.
Therefore while I deeply share the excitement and desire to discover and continuously learn all we can about science, I have to ask, is our desire to learn worth any risk?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yawn/
;)
.
I really hope thats a joke! ... then again, as you're giving links, then it looks like you've already googled for it?!?!
I very much agree about the free trade issues. For the past year, I've been working in the UK gambling industry (non-internet gambling), and there isn't a hope in hell of getting into the US market. They have import barriers on gambling machines set so high (multi-millions of dollars high!) they know that no non-US company can enter the market.
Its effectively a closed market, yet they can freely enter European countries. Yet the US endlessly talks about the importance of free trade.
This news story is also interesting from a freedom point of view. In a country that prides itself of freedom and "land of the free" and free thinking etc... its fascinating how many times the land of the free isn't at all free to choose how to live.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing ... like why?!?
... hmm... now there's an idea ... and maybe I can earn some serious money from it?! ... I could sell train tickets or something ... maybe they'll even think they are getting souvenirs!
... hmm... I could sell spores and things.
... page 1, the entire Internet. page 2, err? ... goto page 1?
What next, the trainspotters wiki
Or maybe I can start the fungal spores wiki
Come to think of it, maybe I should just setup the wiki wiki
I hope they have a way of scraping the poor sods off the back wall! :)
It could be they are building up to push other projects at the same time as having a high profile launch of Vista. That way, their other projects benefit from the higher profile of Microsoft in the press etc..
Or he creates a stone where he wants it, so he doesn't have to lift it! :)
"I'm sorry, but with an error like that in the second sentence, I'm guessing the author is not an informed source and likely not an authority on predicting future console market trends"
That's interesting. So if they make a mistake, then their whole argument is, in your opinion, wrong. So working by your theory, if for example, a cab driver makes a spelling mistake, then he cannot find his way, driving across a city?
Your logic is flawed. I suspect you don't like what is said, and so want a reason to hang onto that belief.
Personally, I think its unlikely Sony could fail, but I also think the article is right in showing the extra cost of the PS3 could hurt Sony's chances.
From a longer term perspective, what if a PC/Console machine becomes the centre multimedia player in the living room. A machine that could combine e.g. IPTV, Web radio, Voice over IP, MP3 player, Games machine, Video recorder etc...
Then they will be in direct competition with Sony in other markets. That could most likely be the longer term goals for consoles which both Sony and Microsoft are working and aiming towards. The so called "technology convergence".
Yeah I've heard of this. Its called Trepanning ... I need that like a hole in the head! ;) ... which I think is the origin of that saying. :)
.... htm
... just don't look at that site before you're about to eat! ;)
(I'm surprised that site link about the history of brain surgery didn't mention its name).
Here's a fun site, some great looking tools on here
http://www.braceface.com/medical/Pages/Trepanning
Why is it everything I post these days is automatically modded as 0 points as soon as I post it? ... I make one Microsoft joke and I'm forever condemned to be at karma bad, 0 points. (Bill Gates makes a living out of it! ;)
;)
So much for the current generation of bio mod-bots, I think some of them have bugs. We need mod-bots V2.0
Sony's Aibo and especially Qrio appears to be more intelegent that it is, as it uses animation techniques similar to video games. Thats shown most clearly when Qrio dances. It still needs recognition AI but its not progressed as far as learning to understand its world in any great detail.
Some chatbots are trying to develop understanding of higher concepts. In a way, to get even more progress, you need to combine speech recognition with a chatbots AI and then combine them with the techniques used so far to create robots like Qrio etc.
Well as it was the stone age, they could just hit the patients over the head with a rock.
Well its not infected my Vic20 running linux yet ... although I won't know for sure until its finished booting up for the first time in 2009
Great for golf ... and err.. "moonian" olympics would be interesting.