Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:There have been attempts before (Score 2) 37

by gurps_npc (#47549485) Attached to: How Bird Flocks Resemble Liquid Helium
Ever hear of the "jinx" tradition? It is when you say something at the exact same time you have to do "x". X is irrelevant (sorry math teacher). The point is that if two or more creatures are intent on doing the exact same thing - say eating grass while looking out for predators, they are very likely to spot something strange at the exact same time, both reacting at the exact same time. It is not telepathy, because the creatures are not reacting to each other.

The same thing often happens in flocks. All the creatures sense and react in the exact same way (herd animals are not noted for their individuality), at the exact same time. Even if the herd is large, they see, or hear/

Now, if they smell the creature, or if the herd is so large that some creatures can not see or hear the stimulus, then the herd starts to react to itself. But quite a lot of the time, an entire herd will become aware of the stimulus at the exact same time and react at the exact same time.

Comment: Re:When I was born... (Score 1) 104

by gurps_npc (#47549175) Attached to: SpaceX Executive Calls For $22-25 Billion NASA Budget
Fusion drive is not the only technology we need. We need a lot more technology to live in space. The problems of radiation, bone-loss due to low gravity, recycling air, water and food all need a lot more work.

As for what we would invent, the thing about research is if we knew what we would invent, we would already have it. Research is a surprise. It always has been and always will be.

Einstein did not know he was inventing GPS, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. when he figured out relativity. Tesla had no idea he would invent, well, basically our entire electrical world.

If you fund it, we will INVENT. If we don't fund it, we don't invent.

Comment: When I was born... (Score 3, Insightful) 104

by gurps_npc (#47544555) Attached to: SpaceX Executive Calls For $22-25 Billion NASA Budget
When I was born Mankind had not set foot on the moon.

By the time I was five, we had been there, done that and decided to never go back again.

If aliens do exist, they are sitting back saying "What the f?ck man, you want to meet us but don't have the energy to get off the couch and answer the door?"

Mankind does not deserve space travel. We had our chance and refused to take it.

We spend less than 5% of our national budget on space travel. Whoops, sorry make that less than 0.5%. It is a joke.

Science and technology have funded our industry for hundreds of years - yet we refuse to spend more on space industry than we do on our aircraft carrier program (old Nimitz class cost about 4.5 billion - and we have 11 of them).

25 billion? Double that and make it a real scientific program. 50 Billion is a reasonable price to pay. Not the paltry less than 20 we currently pay

Comment: Re:If dimples have this big an effect (Score 1) 136

by gurps_npc (#47530405) Attached to: Will Your Next Car Be Covered In Morphing Dimples?
1) The effect varies tremendously at different speeds. At really high speeds it does nothing.

2)The aircraft itself is designed to carefully redirect the air in a very specific manner to create lift, not to reduce drag. The dimples,. even if they were helpful on lift (which is not discussed at all here), would make this far more complicated. Maybe someday someone will do the research to figure out if they help lift, but we don't know that yet.

Comment: Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement (Score 3, Informative) 136

by gurps_npc (#47530345) Attached to: Will Your Next Car Be Covered In Morphing Dimples?
Bull. It does not look ugly. It looks strange to you only because you have never seen it before. Let them start making it and all the young kids will say how cool it looks. (Look at what the silly things like in music!)

As for your argument about 11%, you are a very ignorant. It is not about replacing your car, but about making the NEXT car you buy 11% more fuel efficient.

Comment: Re:Logically (Score 1) 115

by gurps_npc (#47530321) Attached to: UK Users Overwhelmingly Spurn Broadband Filters
It is easy to block porn and adult content. Simple - see cable going to your PC from your ISP? Cut it.

There! You blocked porn and adult content.

The problem is not 'finding a filter that works'. It is finding a filter that works AND lets in in 'unobjectionable content'. Which is what my entire post is about. There is NO way to define 'porn and adult content' that everyone can agree on - because those things are NOT bad for kids. Which is what my entire argument is about.

Kids on a farm grow up watching animals having sex. It doesn't harm them.

Your personal beliefs are just that - yours. They are not based on reason and logic. They are not 'real'. They are old wives tales told to you that you believe.

If you were correct that some kind of porn and adult content is bad for kids, then we could make a good definition and then we could make a good filter.

The very fact that you can't find a good filter to stop what you dislike let allow in what you do like is proof that you personally are wrong about what you personally are afraid your kids will watch.

Comment: Logically (Score 2) 115

by gurps_npc (#47509465) Attached to: UK Users Overwhelmingly Spurn Broadband Filters
The reasons why no one likes these things is exactly why they should not even be considered - even if they worked.

That is, the concept of 'objectionable content'' is itself objectionable. There is NO SUCH THING! That is why certain countries have things called freedom of the press.

What happens is quite simple - certain people (Group A) dislike something. They don't want to see it or hear it. They falsely and incorrectly believe that even seeing said things is damaging - despite zero scientific evidence to it (instead they make up badly designed studies that talk about tendencies and thoughts as if they are actions). Other people (Group B) do want to see it. This makes group A angry. So they try to make a law against letting anyone see it. But the people making the law argue about what exactly is objectionable. They quickly find out that Group A(a) wants to stop people from seeing things that most of Group A thinks is fine. Or they quickly realize that their 'objectionable' content has valid reasons to be seen - such as medicinal and political discourse.

They get angry and try to work out a logical way of differentiating between what is really objectionable and what isn't. The problem is their original hypothesis is totally illogical. There was no real problem with what they thought was objectionable so as soon as they try to apply logic they find it doesn't work.

You can't use logic to decide something when logic says your base assumption is wrong.

Comment: Re:Mission creep. (Score 1) 285

by gurps_npc (#47503479) Attached to: How One School District Handled Rolling Out 20,000 iPads
This is not Mission Creep.

Mission Creep is when the mission changes to something new. That is a bad thing.

But people use that term whenever a government program expands.

Often missions start small and grow big. That is because 1) The scope of the problem was not realized when the program started.

2) The program's scope was realized and they correctly decided to start small (which they may or may not have informed everyone ) and make sure they got it right before then went big. Often people doing this intentionally do not mention this to their enemies - as the enemies will use it as an excuse to not do the work. Why should we save the entire environment? Why should we get rid of ALL of polio? Those things cost too much!!!

The worse case is when the people against the original program complain about 'mission creep' when the plan to save the few people who lived to 65 from abject poverty suddenly becomes saving all the many many people that live to 65.

This is not mission creep. This is simply maintaining the original program and making sure it worked, even though the problem is now a lot bigger.

Comment: Re:There's another treatment that stops most T2 (Score 1) 253

by gurps_npc (#47485775) Attached to: New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes
Studies have shown that:fat is addictive. Worse than tobacco.

Specifically, it is harder to lose 30 lbs than to quit smoking. That is why people call it a disease, it acts like one.

If you want to lose more than 30 lbs, you have three choices:

1) Get a gastric bypass. This works over 95% of the time.

2) Hire a personal trainer AND a personal chef to cook most of your meals. This works most of the time - and is the method that Hollywood stars use, not whatever they claim on the advertisements for weightloss products.

3) Give yourself a severe psychological complex. Basically you have to drive yourself insane where you obsess about eating and exercising.

Jenny Craig, Weightwatchers, etc. can work for short term periods - but they fail over 99% of the time when talking about years, rather than months.

Comment: How to tell a tinfoil hat conspiracy guy (Score 1) 278

by gurps_npc (#47477949) Attached to: The debate over climate change is..
In this world there are real conspiracies. Tobacco executives hid the bad effects. One of G.W Bush's ancestors tried to take over through the US government just before WWII. US doctors gave black men STDs. North Korea News services, well, they just are one giant conspiracy.

But some people are lunatics and believe obviously false conspiracies.

So, how do you tell the sane from the insane?

1) Sane people realize that amateurs are NOT smarter than all the experts. If you can think of it, then the experts have as well, and they have looked into it. If they don't think your idea is valid, it isn't (unless they are 'in on it').

2) Sane people realize that if in fact all the experts are 'in on the conspiracy', then that means the conspiracy has the resources to kidnap squealers. See Russia, North Korea, etc. So it's a good idea to keep your conspiracy to yourself.

3) Sane people also realize that if you disagree with the far majority of the experts and publicly talk about it and are not missing, then no conspiracy exists. The whole point of a top secret conspiracy is to stop people from telling the truth. If they let you tell the truth then 'they' don't exist. Duh.

Consider this simple test - has your President murdered anyone? If you make a serious accusation against him, will you be killed? Not in the US because our President has not done so. But I do not suggest trying that in North Korea.

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.