Precisely. And while I use Gmail most of the time, and the rest of my office use an Exchange server hosted in same said office, guess who has the better uptime...?
That would be me. They frequently (3-4 time a month) loose half a day, as the under resourced, high maintanence, auto-destructing, sorry updated, blackhat honey pot splutters in the corner. I've lost two half days in the however many years I've used Gmail.
The only argument I've ever heard against evolution has been the 'non-argumaent' offer by creationist christians. As you rightly say, cloning is not in any doubt from a scientific perspective, but some christians seem to believe it is against god/nature, thereby either impossible or so terrible it must not be spoken of without dissent. Global warming is of the same kin as flat verses round Earth argument, stemming from the 'belief' that the earth and gods creation is too big and important to be belittled by any scientific discovery. e.g. we're able to destroy 'his work', or it (Earth) is not the centre of all things...
The link is screaming an implied 'christian argument'. Also some christians seem to be set on blurring the lines between moral and 'spritual' 'arguments' and scientific arguments. There is nothing, I'm aware of, currently stopping anyone teaching the real and important facets of the complex global warming debate, some undermining the sky falling take, some bolstering it.
in short, what are the scientific arguments against these concepts? Scientifically is evolution, the mean global temprature or cloning in ANY doubt, apart from in the minds of the religious right. Note I acknowledge and draw attention to your ethical point. Teach ethics PLEASE! But don't teach it as science.
I don't have any but will be putting pay to that shortly in light of this news. I'm a dyslexic developer. My guess is, having seen some tech docs in my time, I'm not the only one.
While I love the web (I can use various assitive technolgies , easily, on most markup based pages, and even some PDFs), I HATE books, and DRMed PDFs put addional barriers between me and the knowledge I'm after..
This is, therefore, potentially, good news for a possible 10%+ of potential O'Reilly readers.
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
, Albert Einstein
Actually he's missing a really big point re the singularity. While we may have machines with equivilent processing power by ~2020, we will not have the r/w speeds, or ANYTHING LIKE the storage our brains have by 2020. Or possibly ever. Have a little look into the storage capacity of the human brain, and then concider the space time trade-offs it is capable of, in order to effectively raise its processing power by many many orders.
I used to work for a lawyer with severe cp and who had very garbled speech, and little use of his muscles. While it took most people some time to understand him, his SR software (Dragon Dictate) seemed no less accurate than with any other user.
But he was just one example... There are those whose voice is not up to it.
But this could well be a better interface for the guy I know re cursor movement and other 'pointer device' actions (he currently uses a head stick with great difficulty)
True. But when things realy go bang, the injury, death and destruction is very real. Its all well and good saying we'd never progress without it, but tell that to the families of the workers smeared on walls. Someone at my school (many moons ago) decided he'd experiment with some Hexamethyltriperoxidediomene in the lav (frightening easy to make). We heard a big bang and then the kid in question running down the hall flinging bits of finger and hand here and there as he ran.
He lost large parts of all his fingers on one hand, and badly scared his face. When they 'investigated' the lad, it turned out he had an arsenal under his bed quite capable of taking out half the junior dorms (we were boarders).
Learning that the hardway is not something I'd see as reasonable or defendable. There's a line, is what I'm saying. Its worth it to be careful.
Shame you feel you need to be anon. What will 'they' do if they know its you?:)
Anywhooo, this is great stuff. I've completely forgoten (if I every knew) about spallation. Will go have a look now...
In the story (which can be as impractical/wooly as I like) they are produced by gravitation wave excitation. Tiny blackholes are rapidly produced in close proximity (which then quickly evepaorate). These events create an intense (localy) excitation of the neutrinos which causes the ASElike effect.
Thank you so much for this response. May I use it in a blog. I'm going to cc lic. my short story once I've finished. I'd love to include your post.
Yes, I'm aware of the lack of charge and therefore the very 'different' nature of the hypothetical Neutrino ASER process for 'NASER's. I'm not as convinced that its so impossible, or implausible. And I'd still like to keep the name despite the great disparities of the hypothetical process and current ASERs. But they are all excellent points you make. Currently studying? You sound like a post grad. I was physics and Philosophy of Science. Not continued down that path though. Not cut out for it.
However, the directing of the beam is an important one - if you're to use it as a transmitter. The most practical neutrino lens I can think of is a black hole, which is not exactly practical. So it would be very 'neat' if one could make a NASER.
I would disagree that we are doing a good job of detecting them well enough to communicate. Which is not to say those working on detection are doing a bad job. They need more cash not less imo.
My guess is aliens would find building the sorts of structures required for receiving useful communication just as prohibitive. And waiting longer, just as silly (no one wants to wait longer than their life time for a response to their message). I'm not saying we (or anyone) won't find a practical way to build a receiver, I'm just suggesting time manipulation is as likely as any unknown solution. And spinning a yarn with that...:)
Actually I wrote a story some time ago extrapolating from this idea. I had the protagonist build a NASER (neutrino laser as twere). The first wist was that, well, you cant see neutrinos, so he shone it through the earth to test, but couldn't detect the signal 'so it must have worked..'. But then aliens turn up. Basically they say that the only way to detect neutrinos is to manipulate time. Stretching it out long enough to measure the particles presence. The aliens assume any being able and willing to make a NASER transmitter, would also know how to bend time ('else, whats the point?'). Especially as they are only really useful across vast distances, which tends to mean vast times. So they turn up and the hero has to explain what the point is of making pointless tech...
Anyway, my point is, I have dibs on this, and I have a time stamped Google doc somewhere to prove it:)
I think that with pharms, there is a huge utilatarian/ethical issue. People are very demanding about mediacal ethics in trials. Yet once the trials are over the madness of restrictive competition (good for somethings, but not for all) is thrown in, and ethics are out th window.
How about, you make 10 times your dev investment back, you then have to relinquish your patent?
Still highly lucrative and incentivising, but does away with the awful restrictions placed, usually, most significantly, on the populations most needing and most without.
And before anyone talks of free markets, what the hell is a patent if not the most ristrictive form regulation going. This would be Far freer IMO.
On Sunday they noticed a sharp fall in the crime rates
On the following Monday a sense of relaxation amongst neighbours
On Tuesday people smiled more
On Wednesday gun laws were less needed yet more heavily question
On Thursday people voted in a President who openly admitted [s]he didn't want to rule the world
On Friday they everyone wondered why they'd been so finatical and absolutist about the ILLUSION of privacy and the centuries old constitution in the first place
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone translate that last sentence for me?
Precisely. And while I use Gmail most of the time, and the rest of my office use an Exchange server hosted in same said office, guess who has the better uptime...?
That would be me. They frequently (3-4 time a month) loose half a day, as the under resourced, high maintanence, auto-destructing, sorry updated, blackhat honey pot splutters in the corner. I've lost two half days in the however many years I've used Gmail.
"they should instead teach more broadly the philosophy of science." - couldn't agree more, it was my masters.
And its MEP not EMP :P Thats electromagnetic pulse. The point is did I vote for the gits making the mark on the paper. Probably not.
Just what I would have wanted my unelected EMPs to do on my behalf. Thanks guys. Keep up the good work.
The only argument I've ever heard against evolution has been the 'non-argumaent' offer by creationist christians. As you rightly say, cloning is not in any doubt from a scientific perspective, but some christians seem to believe it is against god/nature, thereby either impossible or so terrible it must not be spoken of without dissent. Global warming is of the same kin as flat verses round Earth argument, stemming from the 'belief' that the earth and gods creation is too big and important to be belittled by any scientific discovery. e.g. we're able to destroy 'his work', or it (Earth) is not the centre of all things...
The link is screaming an implied 'christian argument'. Also some christians seem to be set on blurring the lines between moral and 'spritual' 'arguments' and scientific arguments. There is nothing, I'm aware of, currently stopping anyone teaching the real and important facets of the complex global warming debate, some undermining the sky falling take, some bolstering it.
in short, what are the scientific arguments against these concepts? Scientifically is evolution, the mean global temprature or cloning in ANY doubt, apart from in the minds of the religious right. Note I acknowledge and draw attention to your ethical point. Teach ethics PLEASE! But don't teach it as science.
Can I teach anything as fact based on any religion? Not just 'Christianity'.
I don't have any but will be putting pay to that shortly in light of this news. I'm a dyslexic developer. My guess is, having seen some tech docs in my time, I'm not the only one.
While I love the web (I can use various assitive technolgies , easily, on most markup based pages, and even some PDFs), I HATE books, and DRMed PDFs put addional barriers between me and the knowledge I'm after..
This is, therefore, potentially, good news for a possible 10%+ of potential O'Reilly readers.
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." , Albert Einstein
Pussies.
Actually he's missing a really big point re the singularity. While we may have machines with equivilent processing power by ~2020, we will not have the r/w speeds, or ANYTHING LIKE the storage our brains have by 2020. Or possibly ever. Have a little look into the storage capacity of the human brain, and then concider the space time trade-offs it is capable of, in order to effectively raise its processing power by many many orders.
If I'd not commented already I'd be modding you up. V interesting dea.
I used to work for a lawyer with severe cp and who had very garbled speech, and little use of his muscles. While it took most people some time to understand him, his SR software (Dragon Dictate) seemed no less accurate than with any other user. But he was just one example... There are those whose voice is not up to it. But this could well be a better interface for the guy I know re cursor movement and other 'pointer device' actions (he currently uses a head stick with great difficulty)
So how does it square up against RIPA?
True. But when things realy go bang, the injury, death and destruction is very real. Its all well and good saying we'd never progress without it, but tell that to the families of the workers smeared on walls. Someone at my school (many moons ago) decided he'd experiment with some Hexamethyltriperoxidediomene in the lav (frightening easy to make). We heard a big bang and then the kid in question running down the hall flinging bits of finger and hand here and there as he ran.
He lost large parts of all his fingers on one hand, and badly scared his face. When they 'investigated' the lad, it turned out he had an arsenal under his bed quite capable of taking out half the junior dorms (we were boarders).
Learning that the hardway is not something I'd see as reasonable or defendable. There's a line, is what I'm saying. Its worth it to be careful.
Shame you feel you need to be anon. What will 'they' do if they know its you? :)
Anywhooo, this is great stuff. I've completely forgoten (if I every knew) about spallation. Will go have a look now...
In the story (which can be as impractical/wooly as I like) they are produced by gravitation wave excitation. Tiny blackholes are rapidly produced in close proximity (which then quickly evepaorate). These events create an intense (localy) excitation of the neutrinos which causes the ASElike effect.
Thank you so much for this response. May I use it in a blog. I'm going to cc lic. my short story once I've finished. I'd love to include your post. Yes, I'm aware of the lack of charge and therefore the very 'different' nature of the hypothetical Neutrino ASER process for 'NASER's. I'm not as convinced that its so impossible, or implausible. And I'd still like to keep the name despite the great disparities of the hypothetical process and current ASERs. But they are all excellent points you make. Currently studying? You sound like a post grad. I was physics and Philosophy of Science. Not continued down that path though. Not cut out for it. However, the directing of the beam is an important one - if you're to use it as a transmitter. The most practical neutrino lens I can think of is a black hole, which is not exactly practical. So it would be very 'neat' if one could make a NASER. I would disagree that we are doing a good job of detecting them well enough to communicate. Which is not to say those working on detection are doing a bad job. They need more cash not less imo. My guess is aliens would find building the sorts of structures required for receiving useful communication just as prohibitive. And waiting longer, just as silly (no one wants to wait longer than their life time for a response to their message). I'm not saying we (or anyone) won't find a practical way to build a receiver, I'm just suggesting time manipulation is as likely as any unknown solution. And spinning a yarn with that... :)
I know its not the done thing in here, but: LOL :)
Actually I wrote a story some time ago extrapolating from this idea. I had the protagonist build a NASER (neutrino laser as twere). The first wist was that, well, you cant see neutrinos, so he shone it through the earth to test, but couldn't detect the signal 'so it must have worked..'. But then aliens turn up. Basically they say that the only way to detect neutrinos is to manipulate time. Stretching it out long enough to measure the particles presence. The aliens assume any being able and willing to make a NASER transmitter, would also know how to bend time ('else, whats the point?'). Especially as they are only really useful across vast distances, which tends to mean vast times. So they turn up and the hero has to explain what the point is of making pointless tech...
:)
Anyway, my point is, I have dibs on this, and I have a time stamped Google doc somewhere to prove it
Actually the edicurrents induced in the foil would probably melt the aluminium into your scull. So a bit silly ;)
already can http://www-jpc.physics.ox.ac.uk/Demo4.html
COBOL? You were lucky!
or GWT?
I think that with pharms, there is a huge utilatarian/ethical issue. People are very demanding about mediacal ethics in trials. Yet once the trials are over the madness of restrictive competition (good for somethings, but not for all) is thrown in, and ethics are out th window.
How about, you make 10 times your dev investment back, you then have to relinquish your patent?
Still highly lucrative and incentivising, but does away with the awful restrictions placed, usually, most significantly, on the populations most needing and most without.
And before anyone talks of free markets, what the hell is a patent if not the most ristrictive form regulation going. This would be Far freer IMO.
On Sunday they noticed a sharp fall in the crime rates
On the following Monday a sense of relaxation amongst neighbours
On Tuesday people smiled more
On Wednesday gun laws were less needed yet more heavily question
On Thursday people voted in a President who openly admitted [s]he didn't want to rule the world
On Friday they everyone wondered why they'd been so finatical and absolutist about the ILLUSION of privacy and the centuries old constitution in the first place