/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3172109

I must congratulate this woman: She at least had the courage to leave her comments unregulated. Lots of crazies don't like people arguing with them.

>>3172230

The computer I'm using now has power at least in part coming to it from the dam on Niagra Falls. Delightfully, though, more than 50% of the power in my home province is derived from nuclear energy.

I can't condemn Brazil for the choices they make here either. I got off easy; I was born into a developed nation, where even the poorest of working class people can still find a home, eat untainted food, and enjoy running water and heating. Someone else made the decisions for me when it came to paving the land and cutting down the forests.

However, I'd still like to see them looking into thorium power. They're at the point where they can justify spending money on infrastructure projects and especially on energy spending.

I'd like to see a compromise, where the people of Brazil can enjoy the same benefits the rest of us do, without having to gut the natural beauty of their country.

The Singularity happening in your lifetime depends on how old you are. I'll be nearing my 60s by the time it happens, if Kurzweil is right.

Option 1: Destroy the Amazon and wreck the biodiversity, but profit through it.
Option 2: Build large-scale thorium plants, become a world-leader in nuclear technology, lead energy revolution. Profit even more through it because you can also revolutionize the medical and biology fields.

I'm not going to be the one to deny the Brazilians their choice here. They have every right to develop their nation as necessary to get their people out of poverty. Our forefathers made that decision long ago for us and we reaped the benefits.

However, there are better options. Putting a dam up here is a very clearly poorly thought out move, and lots of signs point towards it being someone's pet project. It's been pushed through over and over despite countless people stating that insufficient surveys have been done and that, unless a step is taken that seriously harms the environment, it'll be massively inefficient anyway.

Honestly, they've been given a choice here, and it's not one that they seem to be making effectively.

>>3151640

Kent Hovind got his PhD from a diploma mill.

Ben Stein is an intelligent man who doesn't understand science and doesn't want to. Intelligence is not necessarily, and doesn't need to be, universal.

Repeat for Doctor Phil.

Just because someone's smart in one area doesn't mean they are in ALL areas, including things like recognizing their own biases. In fact, a lot of smart people have a big problem with the latter.

>>3151619

>Which has what to do with science?

Its application, perhaps, you contrarian troll?

IF he can prove that they were made via IVF, then he has no obligation to pay.

He could very well be trying to escape obligation.

Hell, if we knew when he and his wife separated and the birthdays of the kids, that alone would be some proof. He could also go to the company itself; they'd likely be pressed to give records in court.

If the judge still orders payment at that point, they're an idiot.

>>3128465

No problem. I'm actually looking at the list myself and finding myself at a loss; so many worthy projects, only one PC...

>>3128343

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projects

Here's a list, OP.

>>3125336

Truthfully, I think any job can be performed by a sufficiently capable AI, but there are certain jobs that, for the foreseeable future, are fairly secure. These include high end jobs like surgeons, technicians, engineers, etc. as well as the information/product design industry (media, artists, designers, etc.).

Despite Moravec's statements to the contrary, high-end jobs are streamlined by robotics, not eliminated entirely. Low-end jobs, meanwhile, are essentially excised.

Increased automation, ease of fabrication, and the reduction in costs that they bring with each iteration make it an inevitability that localized fabrication will happen at some point in the near future for most any industry you care to name. Everything from cars to computers to coat hangers are well on their way to being printed by machines about the size of a computer table. Alright, maybe not cars, those require larger printers/assemblers but those are already around.

This technology will only improve, and it is inevitable that most any mundane necessity, from clothing to electronics, can be handled by devices such as these.

When this will happen is anyone's guess, but the effects are obvious.

/sci/, how do we deal with the huge economic stresses the advent of these technologies will cause? Millions suddenly unemployed as grunt labour becomes increasingly obsolete.

What do we do to ensure that we don't end up with large numbers of people on welfare or rioting?

Scientific poetry and art is increasingly prevalent in our culture, which, to me, suggests we are approaching a scientific age. Living in it? Not so much.

Science will have its Oscar Wilde... Except without the child molestation.

Hopefully.

>>3124859
>>3124832

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp5OIe3TewI

>>3124942

Cars have limited lifespans and suffer from diminishing returns. While you could make a statement about some people having classic cars they've maintained since the 50s, you'll find most have replaced some, if not the majority, of the engine parts in that time and/or barely used them. The majority of people also do not drive such vehicles.

A car's average turn-over time is around 10-20 years, depending on where you live.

Recharge times and battery capacity are still problems, though wouldn't be as bad if recharge infrastructure were in place. We can't change that, though, so there's no sense complaining about it.

There will always likely be a place for combustion engines, given the relative power you can get out of them, but if you mean will electric cars eventually replace other vehicles? I'd say yes. It's just a matter of time.

That said, increased apartment living might negatively affect the trend towards electric vehicles.

I'm interested to hear the answer but expect it to be kind of anti-climactic.

>>3124397

Not likely, and you can always take the suggestion of binding yourself up in a security fishing line as has been suggested.

To contrast my other earlier, more stupid answer:

Lay on your stomach and crawl across. Your weight will be more or less evenly distributed over a wider area. With your weight spread out, you could weigh significantly more than 75kg and still be perfectly fine.

It's so obvious! You pole-vault! Fuck that bridge.

>>3122373

Cultures as a whole generally tend to, they just don't talk about it much and you'll always find loud elements who go against this.

Most people really don't give a shit, though. Their days are about making sure their bills are paid and relaxing after earning money to do so.

Fuck going back to Ancient Rome. I'm enjoying life today. Why would I want to abandon a life of comfort and ease to go back to the Stupid Ages?

>>3107658
>>3107661

Because they hold the purse strings. These people are not just drones there to serve you; they have money, resources, and their own opinions. You can't do science if you starve to death, or can't get the materials to perform your experiments, or the tools, or even the material to make the tools.

If you can get the millions or even billions you need in funding to do something by other means, more power to you. However, otherwise, you're fucked and have to pander to the masses.

>>3107637

These people's votes count as much as yours. They get what they want, especially on a local scale.

>>3107630

I know that feeling, bro.

>>3107605

No government is the same government, but there are repeating patterns. It doesn't take much to realize that this will be expensive for someone, and that someone will be the average citizen, whether they're paying extra taxes to subsidize solar panel companies or whether they're paying extra money for homes and considering new risk in their financial market.

Interfering with a market is like interfering with any ecosystem; you're more likely to fuck it up than make it any better, especially by adding new layers of legislation. I'm not saying governments are bad or that all legislation is bad, but this one is going to have negative outcomes.

It could potentially have a positive outcome, but only if you ignore all the bad shit that will happen before it.

If solar panelling were currently anything even remotely approaching a worthwhile investment for anyone, be it a private citizen or company, you'd see people tripping over themselves to buy that stuff. As it stands, it isn't. The money they'll spend on this would be better spent researching better, more efficient solar panels and longer-lasting, more efficient batteries.

The day you can produce a 25% efficient solar panel system that doesn't cost more than a few thousand to install on an average home is the day you become one of the richest men alive.

>>3107590
>>3107580

Beautiful burn.

Honestly, this has the possibility to cause big shifts. The cost of solar panels and the labour to install them will raise the cost of housing, which, in turn, will cause economic shifts (people having to take out bigger mortgages, rent costs increasing, etc.), and could even reshape the housing market (if you know you will need to replace the solar panels in 13 years, you're going to want money reduced from the cost) and that's just that one sector.

There's also the fact that this could very lead to extortionist practices and pricing. Companies know that the people need to buy solar panels and, even with competition, the knowledge that they can extort people will keep the prices higher than they need to be.

It might help encourage development of better, cheaper panels and batteries, but it's still going to make a lot of people's lives harder against their will, create an unfair market, and generate a lot of pollution/waste in the long run.