I totally agree. I would watch the debates more often if there were a buzzer that sounded every time either candidate tried an ad-hominem or straw man argument. Except you'd have to re-train the politicians or it would just be a lot of buzzing with a few words in between. And no politician would participate in a debate like that. I'm surprised some philosophy department hasn't done something like that already. Take the debate and dub it with captions and perhaps exploding head animations for each logical fallacy.

Inhofe sounds like a bit of a nut, but for me it's not about the science. I think the science of global warming is pretty well understood. But when it comes to political policy, the science of global warming is only ever used to promote thinly veiled marxism and anti-business, and even anti-human policies. If the global warming crowd ever got behind nuclear power, or ever admitted that technology is quickly erasing polution in our day, or ever even showed a small amount of restraint in the demand for all countries to cede large swaths sovereignty for the sake of cutting carbon emissions, I'd be a little less inclined to dismiss the rest of the agenda.

I guess you could say I'm a climate change believer and a marxism denier. The two don't have to go together, they just alway seem to in the current political climate. So even though Inhofe may be a cook, that doesn't mean that his policy prefferences won't be better than the alternative. And even though some other politician may be very bright, that doesn't mean that the marxist policies he/she promotes in the name of science/global warming wouldn't be very damaging. (And yes, I do mean more damaging than the pro-growth alternative.)

Between this and the WWVB anniversary it's been a good run the last few days for time nuts.

"A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two clocks is never sure. But I would add further: A man with three clocks is more sure than a man with two clocks."
Quoted from one of the quintisential time nuts at
http://www.leapsecond.com/

The new (less than a decade old) optical latice clocks (OLC's) in which 10,000 atoms of strontium-87 are trapped in (what else) an optical lattice have been shown to be better (within 1.5x10^-16) than the current world standard cesium fountain clocks (within 3x10^-16), but haven't yet beat the best clocks, which are measuring emissions from single ions trapped in an electro-magnetic field (within 1x10^-17). But researchers are hopeful that OLC's will eventually emerge as the new standard because 10,000 atoms beat 1 atom for measurement statistics and because the other two technologies measure frequencies in the microwave spectrum, while the optical lattice clock is measuring in the visible spectrum. Statistics and higher frequencies should eventually win out as the technology matures.

50% is not just the beginning, it's the worst case scenario for the longer term mortality including immediate death and radiation sickness. More realistically you see more like 10% with most of the damage being at military bases and other infrastructure. Long term mortality rates may climb somewhat due to induced cancer but only in a severely pessimistic scenario (rampant slaughter and barbarism) do they increase massively. In what reality do 200 million educated, skilled americans allow their entire civilization to crumble around them without raising a finger?

And I might add that some simple and inexpensive precautions that the MAD politicians have advocated against would reduce even the 10% number.

The radically pessimistic estimates of life after thermonuclear armageddon are based on poor back of the envelope estimates and eroneous premises. It's all in the books cited above. They are actually pretty well written and easy to get through.

As others have stated the combined arsenals of Russia, US and China are not capable of destroying the world 12 times over. Might I suggest a little light reading? Herman Kahn wrote some clear books on the subject. "On Thermonuclear War" and "Thinking about the Unthinkable". In summary the worst case scenario, in which all nuclear weapons are launched at high population density areas, gives about 50% casualties long term in US and Russia. But there is very little chance of that scenario as even the most maniacal despot would go after enemy military bases first and population second. That is not to say that 50% casualties is acceptable or that nuclear war is not frightening, but we need more clear thinking and realism and less hyperbole and hysterics. Clear headed strategy is a much better deterrent than a head in the sand reliance on MAD as your only deterrece philosophy.

The electronics are a RAMPS shield on a standard Arduino. The plastic parts are indeed printed by other 3d printers in the Lulzbot bot farm. So depending on your definition of "make" it can indeed make more 3D printers. The frame is based in large part on the MendelMax design. All of this is open source and available on the reprap.org site, and other related sites.

Kudos to the Lulzbot team.

Well as has been said, it depends on what you are teaching, but "High School Computer Teacher" may mean A+ computer repair, Programming, Microsoft office, etc. I taught computer repair, and the thing I wanted most was work space. It would be nice if the monitors could swing away under or behind the desks and have some hooks for keyboard and mouse on the side or something so you could clear the desk space for doing actual labs like tear down some donated computers and reassemble them, explore the parts etc. To facilitate this the computer should not be on top of the desk. In so many labs I've seen the computer/monitor/keyboard take up every inch of desk space so that you can't even find a good place for reference material, books, or other tools. If I go really crazy the classroom looks like this.

1. Small form factor computers under the desk or attached to the underside.
2. Pico projector and pull down/up screen built in rather than a monitor
3. Place to stow keyboard and mouse

The projector should automatically go to sleep when the screen is rolled up. Going from computers on to computers gone should take ~10 seconds. You do your lectures, labs and other exercises with the computers completely out of the way, and bring them right back up when they are required. Oh and the screens should be slightly translucent so you can see what the kids are doing from both the front and the back of the classroom.

A space elevator is one technology that needs no huge breakthroughs. We are within an order of magnitude of the required materials science to produce such a thing. The main obstacle is will to do. Given funding and an Apollo type effort, this could be a reality soon, and allow "cheap" access to space.

Africa is mainly a political problem, so I doubt any amount of technology will affect the situation there much. Africa is so far behind current tech that advances here make very little difference there. But current nuclear/solar/other power sources could revolutionize Africa if the warlords ever went away.

As for slavery and civil rights being products of advancing tech, I would tend to disagree. I think it might have been facilitated by advancing tech, but the elimination of slavery was first and foremost a political/social solution. Tech just made up the difference once slavery was outlawed. Try to tell all the estimated 12 million present day slaves (Not talking US here) that modern technology has made slavery a thing of the past.

Current lifespan is due almost entirely to vaccination and sanitation. Neither of those is cutting edge tech. But a large advance in lifespan would have to be technological, not political or social. You have me there.

Medical care is expensive in large part because it is so effective. The more effective the treatment the more complex it tends to be. The higher the technological advancement of the product, the more expensive it tends to be, (computer chips being possibly the only long term exception)

We could solve the fossil fuel problem right now if we wanted to with nuclear power. Fusion would be nice but isn't required. Fission could power the world quite well for a very long time. Unfortunately the greens hate nuke, and you can't do anything in this world without their blessing.

Gross oversimplification here

I hope not. It seems like doing video on an e-ink screen defeats the purpose. You suck down battery life because you are refreshing as fast as possible. That and all of a sudden the price of ereaders will rise as manufacturers jump on the color/video bandwagon. Just like the price of netbooks seems to be going up due to feature creep. And no one seems to want the high volume low price market. Just give me a $50 B&W ereader and a $100 netbook and I'll be happy.

Wow, utopia to distopia in a few nanoseconds. Did you get whiplash? :) All I was saying is that while nanotech may someday fulfill the promise of ending scarcity, it is not the only solution. And I agree with your commentary about the negative effects of elimination of scarcity to a point. It could certainly descend into police state very quickly. If a very few can provide for the many then they can also control them.

The main point was that while certain tech may make some things inevitable, it's not really technology that is holding us back from accomplishing any of the things mentioned above. It is political and social will to accomplish them.

That's femtofurlongs you insensitive clod! Long live the empire! Down with rational metrics! May the inch be ever defined as the length of the current queen's nose and the foot be eternally defined as the length of her pinky times pi*. At least that way we can all understand what we're talking about.

*Except in times of war, or in cases of amputation, in which case it would be index finger times e. **

**Not to include artificial fingernails. ***

*** Except in cases of very short queens in which case carefully selected artificial fingernails may be used to allow a reasonable transition period.

OK Kurzweil, calm down. Yes, nanotech could in some version of future reality do some of the things you mention, but it is not a prerequisite. Outer space : Accessible by "average" people in the "near" future using near future materials tech via a space elevator. (wonder how that will get modded :) And the quality control is not the only thing that makes a rocket expensive. How about the tons of high strength materials and fuel. You still have to pay for raw materials even in a nanotech world. Africa: Hmm, "To go there, or not to go there, that is the question ..." If you could wave a magic wand and fix the social and political structure, (Hah! sidestepped that one :) then nanotech might be a help, but then so might widely available electricity/desalination from nuclear plants. You have to get by the first big IF statement. The worlds population is fed with electricity and oil almost as much as it is fed with sunlight and water. And why do you want to get rid of bodies? (Oh, right, forgot I was on Slashdot for a second)