Because storing hydrogen is ass-impossible. Hydrogen is a terrible fuel requiring 4000-10000 PSI storage at liquid-helium-cooled temperatures. Storing and transporting hydrogen is energy-hungry. If the tank ruptures, it detonates like several dozen pounds of dynamite--assuming none of the hydrogen actually ignites (it shouldn't, until it mixes with the atmosphere sufficiently and becomes a fuel-air bomb capable of taking out an entire city district).

Large processes always have greater yield. Small processes have disproportionately-high loss.

Pandora has 200 million users. If they're all listening to 20 songs per day, that's $400,000 of royalties per day.

The great body of information on human expertise is driven by K. Anders Ericsson in Florida University, in the same way that relativistic physics was driven by Albert Einstein for a while. Ericsson isn't the only person researching this, but 100% of current research cites Ericsson or is done by researchers working in tandem with Ericsson. This is the peer review process: one researcher is developing all these findings, and other researchers are citing his work and attempting to reproduce similar findings with similar and dissimilar methods to explore, refine, confirm, or debunk.

Ericsson's large body of research effectively condenses to the simple principle of deliberate practice: that a person will develop expertise by practicing with technical goals in a manner providing constant and immediate feedback. Modern cognitive science defines practice as an activity which generates errors so as to allow the practitioner to learn to reduce those errors--for example, typing faster to the point of making typographical errors so that you learn to move your fingers more precisely and type faster without making such typographical errors. The researchers benefit from the hundreds of books and papers produced by these cognitive studies, but only the broad conclusions are useful to you and I.

Memory papers are interesting. Depending on how you measure the results, you get completely different outcomes. Do you measure the percent of things remembered, or forgotten? Do you measure the number of things remembered, or the number forgotten? Some studies show that random experimental groups memorize 60% of the information given to them, versus 70% for an untrained control group; yet, at the same time, the experimental group memorizes 48 of 80 items inspected in a long list, while the control group memorizes 42 / 60 items inspected in the list--the control group memorizes fewer items, and inspects fewer items. Do we base on time, or on number of items inspected? The control group may take 10 minutes to inspect 80 items, while the experimental group takes 6 minutes; if the control group memorizes more, do we attribute that to simply having more time, and can we assume that the experimental group would memorize the same number of items if they took 10 minutes?

Such challenges are inherent in all statistics-based science. As well, what you've described is a standard experiment: a group of subjects versus a control. Prescription drugs, for example, are backed by thesis that the drug will control depression or ADHD or blood pressure, with the support that a group of subjects has shown better mental health or lower blood pressure when provided with the drug.

No kidding. There are some 500 congressmen who all have to agree on a bill to pass a law, and they have to convince millions of people to vote them in in the first place. Plus there are technical considerations: everything I said is correct, but none of it explains how to manage a classroom and transfer base intellectual skills to children, or how to modify that setting for low-income classrooms and such.

The problems are hard, but we have to first consider that wood burns before we can consider that wood can provide fuel, that boiling water can provide pressure by burning wood, that other fuels (oil, gas) can provide internal combustion, and that great big machines can be built using internal combustion engines. Right now, nobody has accepted that wood burns (and gets hot when it does so) as an engineering fact.

This free music, idea work with high-school garage bands... But once they are old enough to make a living, they need to charge for their work. Now do you want your paycheck for the work that you do? So you have money for things like food, shelter, and supporting a family?

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding with regards to what ResearchKit is about. It's not HealthKit, which is aimed at helping people to be healthier. It's ResearchKit, which is aimed at connecting medical researchers with voluntary subjects who are willing to submit anonymous data. As it is right now, researchers seeking data on how well a treatment affects a disease need to first seek out people with that disease, then they need to either bring those subjects into a doctor's office to be tested, which is typically done on an infrequent basis, or they need to rely on self-reporting out in the field. There are numerous flaws in those methodologies, leading to all sorts of lies, omissions, and other forms of error creeping in. And that's the best we've had to rely on up until now. Plus, response rates are ridiculously low since there's no great way to put researchers in touch with potential subjects, and even when potential subjects are aware of the research, most don't want to deal with the hassle.

By increasing awareness, taking the hassle out of it, and even promising to open source ResearchKit, Apple is providing a foundation on which researchers can finally address those issues. They're putting the diagnostic tools directly into our smart devices, and are doing so across any platform, thus allowing the researchers to get frequently-collected data from subjects under actual conditions, rather than having to rely on faulty self-reporting or infrequent lab visits. They can also get a much wider swath of data, allowing them to have more certainty about their results, along with a better understanding of what "normal" looks like. Even if a hypochondriac is using an app that relies on ResearchKit, it's a win for all of us, since it helps to establish more baseline readings from which we can better understand how our bodies are supposed to be behaving when we're in the real world, rather than in a lab. Moreover, it may eventually help to establish a baseline reading for them, which could then be used to show them that their readings are in line with where they were before when we knew they were well.

All of which is to say, this has nothing at all to do with people fretting about being sick, and has everything to do with helping research doctors better understand diseases and how the treatments they are providing address them. Joke about it if you want, but it sounds like a worthy goal to me.

Before the iPhone we were not primitives. They were smart phones years before the iPhone was released. The big players was Blackberry and a slew of windows mobile phones, and Palm. They had a keyboard you could browse the web you could even get apps, and watch videos. Android OS was in development. But the idea of smart phones were all centered around a full keyboard and some sort of pointing device. The key features where there. So it would make sense for Google to look for ways to improve bandwidth without the iPhone designed phone.

However after the iPhone was released it put the smart phone market in shock. It seemed that a larger screen was preferable, people picked up in using gestures quickly, and was willing to sacrifice a physical keyboard for it. This made all the other companies future plans obsolete thus giving Apple a two year lead.

But saying before the iPhone we wouldn't imagine trying to get faster mobile data is naive.

Well, yes, really. The reason these claims are showing up right now is because he thinks he's finally cracked exactly that issue. The transplant is intended as a means to test that theory. And he can't do it on typical patients suffering from severed spinal cords due to trauma of some sort, since his idea relies on a very particular way of cutting the spinal cord, apparently.

Because we're not in the habit of wanton experimentation that might kill all of the patients involved. That's why we wait for there to be a case where they're going to die anyway. That way, no matter what happens, doctors have not violated their first oath to do no harm. Worst case, the person dies, just as they would have otherwise.

To each their own. Or, in this case, to each the other.

At least. The articles the other day all misreported the source material, since the source material said there were a hair under 1M purchasers who ordered an average of 1.3 devices each, yielding about 1.25M watches pre-ordered, and that was just in the US alone on the first day for pre-orders. Later numbers from other sources indicated that global pre-orders on day one were closer to 2.5M units.

But yeah, watches are worn all over the world by hundreds of millions of people. His question is just plain silly.

I still remember not being happy when I came home to discover that my parents had purchased a cell phone for me so that they could keep in touch in case anything happened while I was at work for a summer internship in college. I remember staring at it in my hand—even before turning it on or setting it up—and thinking, "This device is a ball-and-chain." It stripped me of the control I had over when and under what circumstances people could contact me, and placed that control in their hands.

At least modern smartphones are very pretty and light balls-and-chain, but they still are what they still are. I live and breathe on the Internet (even did my grad research with an Internet research lab at a major university), but I relish when I'm able to be away for a week, whether it's a cruise, a cabin in the woods, or a few days camping out on a remote beach. Absolutely marvelous.

In the same way that beating something with a wrench and beating it *faster* with a wrench is different, yes.

No. I dispute that an un-motivated, idiotic student with more time to study would perform similar to a highly-motivated, intelligent student. I suggest that an un-motivated, idiotic student would perform similar to a highly-motivated, intelligent student if the former learned to use motivational techniques (e.g. examine the material to study, briefly analyze it from an engineering standpoint, and incorporate it into something of high interest to you) and mental techniques (e.g. SQ3R studying, deliberate practice, mnemonics) similar to those employed by the latter or such as to make them regard the material in a similar way to the latter.

Besides solving poverty, I am working on the more difficult task of creating an education system which equips small children up-front with the mental tools and techniques to function as geniuses. This has produced some interesting reflections about the nature of education and poverty--that you need tailored strategies for the local culture to make the education system actually work, and so must have a different approach to the same education in poor, inner-city ghettos--among other things. What, then, would you say about a world where not having the education which turns any arbitrary human into a genius is a disadvantage? Is it much different?

I will tell you that I am strongly tolerant of psychosis. I have been afflicted with drug-induced psychosis and with psychologically-induced psychosis. I spent a decade on methylphenedate, eventually paired with risperdal, which induced weak drug psychosis; from this, much of my life has been spent as a collection of many points of view, in which I am a single person existing dozens or hundreds of times, and can move between these viewpoints at will so as to avoid stress. I also learned to stand up separate personalities (under my control, but also semi-autonomous), and so was able to supply myself with constant psychiatric counseling using an array of internal counselors. I was later exposed to prednizone--this was a mistake, and caused severe mood swings, suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, and so forth; I of course recognized and controlled these mental disturbances, with no outwardly-visible detriment.

Along with the drug-induced psychosis, I've triggered arguably-worse psychotic episodes from psychological burn-out, learning too many things at once, too fast. The results are similar. There is also the strange loss of touch with reality from this: hyper-immersion in work and study tends to make everything around you look like that work, for example making physical automobile traffic seem like something you could improve with the skillful use of firewalls...somehow.... This is a well-known psychiatric condition caused in normal human beings exposed to excessive job stress; it's actually common for college students to suffer dramatic neurotic breakdown in their late third or early fourth year.

Given that simply using your brain too hard can easily cause serious psychiatric pathology, what opinion do you have of simply improving the general education system?

Long ass thread of entitled bullshit.