No the problem is the wealthy are constantly arguing visibly and publicly that the poor are stealing from them, and that they should be allowed to opt out of supporting anyone. For things like food and medicine. Because it the super-wealthy are just so upset at looking at that big tax number on paper (they are not affected in any literal fashion whatsoever - if they were, they'd be middle class...who also are frequently on the list of "people who should pay more" from the super-wealthy).
No it won't. Hate to say it but had Jurassic Park actually been staffed by the large group of people which would've been required to a run a facility of that size, then we'd have obliterated all the dinosaurs in that movie inside of 30 minutes with regular small and not so small arms.
Humans are the ultimate apex predator on this planet - there's nothing old we're going to bring back that could possibly be of any threat to us.
Interestingly the current thinking seems to be that they probably went extinct when some climate change meant they couldn't find a few varieties of herbs they needed to complement their diet, and they basically went down due to malnutrition.
Which is a problem we could fix.
It seems like at least one option would've been to unseal the helmet and open it just enough to suck the air out of the suit - which hopefully would dislodge the water, or freeze it, which would give some time to fix the ice build up.
If someone starts threatening you you start recording. Because if they steal from you, or strike you, they've committed assault and you'll have iron clad evidence of it.
So here's something this makes me wonder about: without the necessity of crew life support, why not turn them into shallow cruising submarines?
Not deep water at all - no more then 10 meters or so below the surface, but deep enough that they can cruise under the waves and weather, towing some breathing gear to feed the engines from the top.
You'd have no risk of crew life support failure or drowning, since they're not on board. It'd be impossible for pirates to get to. It would be completely safe around other ships. The part I can't figure is the cost of enclosing a freighter like this compared to now. Presumably considerable, but the idea would be that it's not a deep-diving vessel, it's just avoiding the part of the ocean which gives the most buffeting and random mechanical stress for something more predictable.
Scuttling a super-tanker is hardly trivial. Unless the pirates know what they're doing and have some high-end explosives, it's unlikely they'd even be able to breach the hull.
Pirates don't hit more then a fraction of container ships per year. So even if they tried to do this, it's not damage for the company - ship owners insure, cargo movers insure, and the insurer reliably knows that only something like 42 out of 30,000 ships are going to be hijacked/destroyed.
If the situation gets appreciably bad enough, then it's common enough that military operations will have an easy time killing pirates since they'd be easy to find and pirates are not well armed.
No hostages is really a game changer there. I mean you can just pipe in narcotic gas from containers already onboard. Best case, the pirates wake up in prison. Worst case, not at all.
And no control over the contents that specific ship may have, or whether they can find a market for the booty...I don't buy it either.
I was under the impression that the whole point of the piracy was the payoff on the hostages, and really had nothing to do with the ship's cargo. (generalization, not 100% accurate)
And no control over the ship either. The remote crew could just sail it to the nearest friendly warship.
Also no need for the ship to look like a regular ship to start with. No need for fixed railings or entrance ways at sea-level - good luck grappling to that.
No idea. I just took the number quoted and ran with it.
It's not like the science you fund with that 80 billion is useless. Reality isn't like civilization - you don't fillup the bar for "fusion" with beakers till you get the breakthrough.
It's an experimental particle accelerator, not the server you keep under your desk. It's shutdown at the moment because it's the only opportunity CERN get to actually upgrade the accelerator and it's components - you can't very well go in and expect it when it's running, because it's cryo-contained, somewhat radioactive and highly magnetized.
The shutdown is multi-purpose - there's components at CERN which haven't been replaced since the 1970s partly because they were state-of-the-art then and no one had any idea if a new one would be better or worse, because nothing on earth needed - for example - triacs - with the performance they did. And they've been in continuous service since then since CERN has expanded by turning each previous accelerator into a boost stage for the next accelerator. Before the jump to 14 TeV is the last opportunity to replace them, and so a decent amount of them is coming out.
There's also the fact that you can't just ignore those giant detectors once they're installed - nothing like that has ever been built before, and no one knows how they'll perform. ATLAS and CMS both look for the same data, but have different electrical and physical designs for sensing - both teams are currently inspecting the components of the detectors to catalog and study the performance, damage and degradation of the components. One of the interesting things is ATLAS uses liquid argon , while CMS uses a special type lead tungstate crystals for calorimetry - both new technology in their own ways, the CMS people are studying the bleaching of the lead tungstate which has been happening faster then models predict.
You know what all this has in common? All of it is science, all of it is useful (arguably the much more useful and transferrable bits of CERN as well) and all of it is just what happens when you build experimental devices. The helium explosion was unfortunate but a 1 year delay in a machine which has been planned since the 1980s is not some type of massive failure.
It's a particle accelerator, not a commercial building and has been very efficiently built to boot.
You don't need to extend them 62,000 miles. You just need to get the tensile strength of each strand such that 80% of it is above the tensile strength that would support an elevator cable. Beyond that it's unnecessary to have more, since you can weave fibres in various ways which achieve - you guessed it - about 80% of the tensile strength of the underlying fibre (this is how Kevlar is made, for example).
This probably would be possible but not worth doing. With direct space access, the cost of space-solar power goes down to practically nothing, and it would be easier to beam a steady stream of energy via microwaves then try and capture surges from decelerating payloads (i.e. trains do this, but the energy is just loaded through resistors elsewhere - its a way to keep subway tunnels cool).
The real benefit is just access to space-borne resources. We'd have such a large new playground to take whatever we wanted from, without affecting the Earth's biosphere one bit. The drive for space industrial development would be huge the second it was demonstrated even barely break even.