must be isomorphic to genetic algorithm problem solving, which can also solve the traveling salesman problem quickly, if slightly imperfectly. I'm guessing the same imperfections will show up in the bee's solution to this problem.
disproved in moments with the US Government's own publications: If you actually believe the government's own publications, I just don't know where to start with how willfully obtuse you've chosen to be.
I suppose you believe the unemployment rate is between 9 and 10% too.
Did it occur to you that my point was just as valid for the moon in 1968? What have we gotten from the moon?
The moon landings were cold war political theater. There's little technology that we couldn't have gotten by other means.
Had we put up long term near-earth stations designed for say, power generation, zero g manufacturing, etc. it would have made sense. The moon? Just another gravity well.
...what the point of getting humans to Mars is? It's not science. We have robots and will soon have better robots. It's not resources. There's nothing *there* worth bringing back from a distant gravity well. If we're going that far out, why not just do a mining survey of the asteroid belts and find out which ones might be heading our way at the same time.
Sounds like NASA doing what it does best. Avoiding practical real world missions at all costs. Guess why people want to cut their budgets?
Neither one, however, compares (or ever will compare) to the volume of refined petroleum currently consumed by humans (about 30 billion barrels a year, give or take a half a billion). Both have a considerably lower EROEI, and both will be much, much, more expensive than light sweet crude oil, even at today's prices.
Bottom line? Less use. Less pollution. Conservation will be in, like it or not.
1) And orbital sun blocking system is totally reversible, unlike some of the more idiotic suggestions like pumping chemicals into the atmosphere and crossing your fingers while hoping there are no side effects.
2) The fossil fuel thing is a self-solving problem. Believe me, in 40 years or so, it's contribution to global anything will be insignificant, since there won't be enough affordable, positive EROEI liquid or solid hydrocarbons being used as an energy source to matter. We may still be using natural gas, and while it does cause some pollution, it's quite a bit less than either coal or oil.
What Carter was discussing was resources in the USA, at projected increased rates of consumption. Since we passed peak oil in the continental USA in the 70s, this was not inaccurate. I don't think it ever occurred to him that we were collectively such self-absorbed greedy obtuse little wussies that we would let ourselves become dependent on the Arabs, Russians and Mexicans for the life blood of our economic viability and strategic safety (i.e. Oil).
What's the effect when everyone does this? If everyone is unemployed or underemployed, the folks who buy your product are....?
Sure, you can find markets overseas, for a while.
You've kind of summed up the problem with capitalism in a nutshell. You're like a bacteria in a colony reacting only to what's around *you* even as the colony is about to go over the falls. *You* certainly won't start swimming to the right to move the colony to safety. That would take forethought, a wider view, and executive decision making. No, sir. That sort of thing would just interfere with your personal freedom to accumulate more nutrients. Besides, the theory of going over the falls is probably just speculation anyway. The new ripples are just caused by fish. No need to worry about those nervous nellies. I't just a plot to confiscate your hard won nutrients.
Um. Yesterday. My very competent manager did not scream at my not so competent co-worker for making irrelevant suggestions about low-risk, low-probability events, because she knew it would help nothing, ruin the purpose of the meeting and so she said nothing, taking the person to task, off-line where only she would have to hear him (unpleasant but necessary).
And whose community are we talking about here? The collective decisions of billionaires for themselves and their own good aren't going to be the same as those of middle-class homeowners trying to pay off their mortgages (or not).
Re:Israel is an interesting exercise in Game Theor
on
Gambling On Bacteria
·
· Score: 1
The difference is in the size of the rule set for each individual actor in the group. Otherwise, millionaires, beggars, sheep, voters and slime mold all follow similar structural rules for decision making, en masse.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that sort of the point? Disrupt the user experience minimally when shifting from one OS to another?
I for one welcome the media buzz about our new nectar sucking overlords.
There, happy now?
Sweet!
must be isomorphic to genetic algorithm problem solving, which can also solve the traveling salesman problem quickly, if slightly imperfectly. I'm guessing the same imperfections will show up in the bee's solution to this problem.
my universe keeps getting stopped and restarted.
wouldn't it be "a profit without honor?"
How small can you make these thingys and how fast can you make them flip?
disproved in moments with the US Government's own publications:
If you actually believe the government's own publications, I just don't know where to start with how willfully obtuse you've chosen to be.
I suppose you believe the unemployment rate is between 9 and 10% too.
But I don't get much of a charge out of it....
Colonisation to prevent the death of human civilisation if the Earth gets pegged?
How is this better served by a Mars mission than a long term zero g station at L5?
Potential discovery of life/fossils, which would have massive implications for exobiology and evolutionary theory?
Interesting, yes. Critical? No. I'd focus more on the bits that will keep life going on *this* planet, eh?
A better platform for space telescopes than Earth? (the Moon would be even better, though)
At risk of repeating myself, how is this better served by a Mars mission than a long term zero-g station at L5?
Did it occur to you that my point was just as valid for the moon in 1968? What have we gotten from the moon?
The moon landings were cold war political theater. There's little technology that we couldn't have gotten by other means.
Had we put up long term near-earth stations designed for say, power generation, zero g manufacturing, etc. it would have made sense. The moon? Just another gravity well.
...what the point of getting humans to Mars is? It's not science. We have robots and will soon have better robots. It's not resources. There's nothing *there* worth bringing back from a distant gravity well. If we're going that far out, why not just do a mining survey of the asteroid belts and find out which ones might be heading our way at the same time.
Sounds like NASA doing what it does best. Avoiding practical real world missions at all costs. Guess why people want to cut their budgets?
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal
And we'll make full use both coal and tar sands.
Neither one, however, compares (or ever will compare) to the volume of refined petroleum currently consumed by humans (about 30 billion barrels a year, give or take a half a billion). Both have a considerably lower EROEI, and both will be much, much, more expensive than light sweet crude oil, even at today's prices.
Bottom line? Less use. Less pollution. Conservation will be in, like it or not.
1) And orbital sun blocking system is totally reversible, unlike some of the more idiotic suggestions like pumping chemicals into the atmosphere and crossing your fingers while hoping there are no side effects.
2) The fossil fuel thing is a self-solving problem. Believe me, in 40 years or so, it's contribution to global anything will be insignificant, since there won't be enough affordable, positive EROEI liquid or solid hydrocarbons being used as an energy source to matter. We may still be using natural gas, and while it does cause some pollution, it's quite a bit less than either coal or oil.
Yes, we'll adapt, survive and figure something else out. The remaining 30 million humans and their donkeys in 2110 will be doing fine, I'm sure.
Especially by Slashdotters.
What Carter was discussing was resources in the USA, at projected increased rates of consumption. Since we passed peak oil in the continental USA in the 70s, this was not inaccurate. I don't think it ever occurred to him that we were collectively such self-absorbed greedy obtuse little wussies that we would let ourselves become dependent on the Arabs, Russians and Mexicans for the life blood of our economic viability and strategic safety (i.e. Oil).
Surprise!
So, you're saying we need better evil geniuses?
See past your nose much?
What's the effect when everyone does this? If everyone is unemployed or underemployed, the folks who buy your product are....?
Sure, you can find markets overseas, for a while.
You've kind of summed up the problem with capitalism in a nutshell. You're like a bacteria in a colony reacting only to what's around *you* even as the colony is about to go over the falls. *You* certainly won't start swimming to the right to move the colony to safety. That would take forethought, a wider view, and executive decision making. No, sir. That sort of thing would just interfere with your personal freedom to accumulate more nutrients. Besides, the theory of going over the falls is probably just speculation anyway. The new ripples are just caused by fish. No need to worry about those nervous nellies. I't just a plot to confiscate your hard won nutrients.
E-coli for congress! They really know their shit!
Um. Yesterday. My very competent manager did not scream at my not so competent co-worker for making irrelevant suggestions about low-risk, low-probability events, because she knew it would help nothing, ruin the purpose of the meeting and so she said nothing, taking the person to task, off-line where only she would have to hear him (unpleasant but necessary).
And whose community are we talking about here? The collective decisions of billionaires for themselves and their own good aren't going to be the same as those of middle-class homeowners trying to pay off their mortgages (or not).
And the Palestinians too, of course.
The difference is in the size of the rule set for each individual actor in the group. Otherwise, millionaires, beggars, sheep, voters and slime mold all follow similar structural rules for decision making, en masse.
And more if you count angels and demons. Still, this doesn't rule out virtualization.