Prior to the release of the Nintendo, there was a practically uncountable number of videogame consoles. This was in the 70's. All was going well, until the bottom fell out and everyone went bankrupt. At least, everyone in America.
If antimatter falls up, does that mean it has negative mass?
If you make a ship out of something with negative mass, can you go faster than the speed of light without infinite energy input?
I'm not familiar with the equation describing the mass of an object as it moves faster. Could someone who is plug in a mass of zero, or negative mass and see what happens?
Also, is there a method for changing matter into antimatter? If so, one might be able to develop a tech that allows lightspeed acceleration and deceleration using antimatter and matter as fuel, and changing their ratios to bridge the asymptote.
Flying cars have not come because of regulatory impediments. That is the only thing that has stopped us from having one in every garage at a reasonable price. Don't like it? Lobby to have the FAA shut down.
You would need about 3 kilos of antimatter (an 3 kilos of matter) to make your 1 ton accelerate to 0.1C. Seems fairly reasonable that technology should come into being to allow such things to be made over the next thousand years, assuming we don't find some other method of moving quickly, or generating energy. How about a "catalyst" that turns matter directly into energy? Relativistic travel would be trivial with a high throughput device of that nature.
Remember that a thousand years ago, the energy output of humanity was measured tons of grain and number of stone and canvas windmills.
Not necessarily. It could be that they have nearly unlimited energy resources due to some amazing technological advance, but need matter to expand their civilization. I wonder if it would be cheaper to convert energy to matter, or to travel to new star systems in search of matter?
I disagree. Computers allow us to specialize more. There is much less need to learn numerous facts when those facts are readily available. That is the old definition of "smart". The new definition of smart will be more along the lines of "the ability to correlate the numerous facts that are known to generate new knowledge or new processes, or new content in general".
Further, when the author said "smarter", they meant, he is likely referring to increasing brainpower through artificial means.
Reminds me of a story I read recently. In it, humanity had chosen to submit itself to life inside of a computer run by a self-improving AI. One of the most interesting parts of the story was that those who lived inside actually experienced extreme time dilation, as the AI was programmed to help people satisfy their values. Some people chose to live life much as they lived it in the real world, becoming so called "loop immortals", who basically didn't change over the millenia that passed in the blink of an eye in the real world, while others chose to have their mental abilities augmented. The AI continued to expand its processing power, searching for ways to avoid the heat death of the universe (it had found more than a dozen potential paths to survive the end of the universe) and also searching for other "humans" throughout the cosmos to take in.
The point is that even with the premise proposed by the author, it is no less likely that we would one day meet an alien being. Here's to hoping that it was programmed to be friendly, and not to eat our planet and star out from underneath us.
The liberal is concerned only with his own feelings. Reality or the pain of others only matters to the extent that they validate his pre-existing feelings. The neoconservative is the same, only the feelings they feel are tied up in nationalism.
In the US they do. And they will continue to, gun ban or not. Instituting a gun ban in the US will doom two or more generations to lives of victimization by gun toting criminals and cartelization (see Mexico, which can't even maintain control over large swaths of their country using their ARMY) before settling to a general level of total crime higher than when the country was armed.
And yes, you DO live in a jungle. Your general crime rate is higher than in the US, and the weak can't have guns to defend themselves against robbery, assault, and rape by hooligans who prowl the street practically unopposed. But you don't think about that because you are young and strong, and thus less likely to be targeted. A Clockwork Orange indeed.
Ok, you are now a 70 year old woman. Would you rather face off against a melee armed mugger while you are armed only with your purse, or face an armed mugger with a pistol in your hand?
Guns level the playing field. Physical strength doesn't enter the equation, which is good for those not in the prime of their lives.
Where do you get the idea that people don't have time to pull a weapon on a robber? Typical of people like you to make shit up to support your feelings rather than looking at reality.
Ignore reality more. You don't have to shoot someone to make them run away. The vast majority don't. Just seeing the gun makes them run, EVEN IF THEY ARE ARMED. Why risk death when there are other victims that have no chance of being able to kill you.
You could rob someone carrying a gatling gun, it won't stop a bullet from a Derringer from tumbling through your body.
Except you don't. 99% of mugging attempts on armed people end with them showing their gun, and the assailant fleeing. An unknown number of such assailants then re-evaluate their lives, because they could have died doing what they were doing.
No-one is talking about mental illness, despite the clear mental instability of these shooters, especially the Sandy Hook shooter. No, all they want to do is ban guns.
If stomping or not stomping on puppies could prevent this sort of thing, then it should be talked about. But it isn't, in the case of mental illness. Why? Because they want to GET THOSE GUNS, no matter what the excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Prior to the release of the Nintendo, there was a practically uncountable number of videogame consoles. This was in the 70's. All was going well, until the bottom fell out and everyone went bankrupt. At least, everyone in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash
How fast is the universe expanding, and how big is it? We might have just not seen it yet.
Pretty scary thought, that the universe is doomed to destruction by a wall of arbitrarily energetic photons traveling inward from its edges.
If antimatter falls up, does that mean it has negative mass?
If you make a ship out of something with negative mass, can you go faster than the speed of light without infinite energy input?
I'm not familiar with the equation describing the mass of an object as it moves faster. Could someone who is plug in a mass of zero, or negative mass and see what happens?
Also, is there a method for changing matter into antimatter? If so, one might be able to develop a tech that allows lightspeed acceleration and deceleration using antimatter and matter as fuel, and changing their ratios to bridge the asymptote.
That's because it was already broke.
gog.com
Yes, they can. But they don't.
Yeah, but the games are priced like they are already secondhand. At least that's what I hear, I don't do DRM.
Somehow this reminds me of all the shit that went on in the early days of video gaming. You know, right before the video game crash.
Prepare for history to repeat itself.
Flying cars have not come because of regulatory impediments. That is the only thing that has stopped us from having one in every garage at a reasonable price. Don't like it? Lobby to have the FAA shut down.
You would need about 3 kilos of antimatter (an 3 kilos of matter) to make your 1 ton accelerate to 0.1C. Seems fairly reasonable that technology should come into being to allow such things to be made over the next thousand years, assuming we don't find some other method of moving quickly, or generating energy. How about a "catalyst" that turns matter directly into energy? Relativistic travel would be trivial with a high throughput device of that nature.
Remember that a thousand years ago, the energy output of humanity was measured tons of grain and number of stone and canvas windmills.
I think you are thinking of human horn.
Not necessarily. It could be that they have nearly unlimited energy resources due to some amazing technological advance, but need matter to expand their civilization. I wonder if it would be cheaper to convert energy to matter, or to travel to new star systems in search of matter?
I disagree. Computers allow us to specialize more. There is much less need to learn numerous facts when those facts are readily available. That is the old definition of "smart". The new definition of smart will be more along the lines of "the ability to correlate the numerous facts that are known to generate new knowledge or new processes, or new content in general".
Further, when the author said "smarter", they meant, he is likely referring to increasing brainpower through artificial means.
Reminds me of a story I read recently. In it, humanity had chosen to submit itself to life inside of a computer run by a self-improving AI. One of the most interesting parts of the story was that those who lived inside actually experienced extreme time dilation, as the AI was programmed to help people satisfy their values. Some people chose to live life much as they lived it in the real world, becoming so called "loop immortals", who basically didn't change over the millenia that passed in the blink of an eye in the real world, while others chose to have their mental abilities augmented. The AI continued to expand its processing power, searching for ways to avoid the heat death of the universe (it had found more than a dozen potential paths to survive the end of the universe) and also searching for other "humans" throughout the cosmos to take in.
The point is that even with the premise proposed by the author, it is no less likely that we would one day meet an alien being. Here's to hoping that it was programmed to be friendly, and not to eat our planet and star out from underneath us.
getonmylevelhomie
The liberal is concerned only with his own feelings. Reality or the pain of others only matters to the extent that they validate his pre-existing feelings. The neoconservative is the same, only the feelings they feel are tied up in nationalism.
This world is rotting.
>stupid yank
>you'r
lol
Also, all paramilitary organizations. The military proper too, for good measure.
No succession allowed. Try and we'll nuke your new capital. Now bend over and spread 'em.
Time to round up the minority of the week.
In the US they do. And they will continue to, gun ban or not. Instituting a gun ban in the US will doom two or more generations to lives of victimization by gun toting criminals and cartelization (see Mexico, which can't even maintain control over large swaths of their country using their ARMY) before settling to a general level of total crime higher than when the country was armed.
And yes, you DO live in a jungle. Your general crime rate is higher than in the US, and the weak can't have guns to defend themselves against robbery, assault, and rape by hooligans who prowl the street practically unopposed. But you don't think about that because you are young and strong, and thus less likely to be targeted. A Clockwork Orange indeed.
Stop making shit up, you insufferable liar.
Who do you think you are talking to? People who live in an armed society! We know ALL ABOUT gun crime. That is NOT how it happens, 99.99% of the time.
Ok, you are now a 70 year old woman. Would you rather face off against a melee armed mugger while you are armed only with your purse, or face an armed mugger with a pistol in your hand?
Guns level the playing field. Physical strength doesn't enter the equation, which is good for those not in the prime of their lives.
Where do you get the idea that people don't have time to pull a weapon on a robber? Typical of people like you to make shit up to support your feelings rather than looking at reality.
No-one NEEDS an immune system, if we would only outlaw viruses and bacteria.
Ignore reality more. You don't have to shoot someone to make them run away. The vast majority don't. Just seeing the gun makes them run, EVEN IF THEY ARE ARMED. Why risk death when there are other victims that have no chance of being able to kill you.
You could rob someone carrying a gatling gun, it won't stop a bullet from a Derringer from tumbling through your body.
Except you don't. 99% of mugging attempts on armed people end with them showing their gun, and the assailant fleeing. An unknown number of such assailants then re-evaluate their lives, because they could have died doing what they were doing.
No-one is talking about mental illness, despite the clear mental instability of these shooters, especially the Sandy Hook shooter. No, all they want to do is ban guns.
If stomping or not stomping on puppies could prevent this sort of thing, then it should be talked about. But it isn't, in the case of mental illness. Why? Because they want to GET THOSE GUNS, no matter what the excuse.