Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".
My right to privacy does not mean that I have no expectation of accountability - especially in terms of city governance, if the city will not avow of the cameras, then how do I know who to impeach or vote out of office in the next election for misuse of funds?
Mad Parent upward and onward!
So why are we now seeing mass attacks on Macs like the Flashback trojan when Apple only has 11% market share? O'Donnell says It turns out he may have underestimated the effectiveness of the antivirus used by most Windows users, which now makes overconfident Mac users a relatively vulnerable and much more appealing target. Based on current antivirus detection rates, O'Donnell's equations now show that victimizing Macs becomes a profitable alternative to PCs at just 6.5% market share."
Link to Original Source
DNA is made up of nucleic acid bases — labelled A, C, G and T — on a backbone made of phosphates and the sugar deoxyribose. The artificial polymers, dubbed XNAs, carry the normal genetic 'alphabet' on a backbone made using different sugars.
The researchers engineered enzymes that transcribed DNA into the various XNAs, then back into new DNA strands. Faithful genetic transmission over successive DNA-to-XNA cycles allowed researchers to select for only those XNAs that attached to certain target proteins from a pool of random samples — a process akin to evolution over multiple generations (abstract).
The research confirms for the first time that replication, heredity and evolution can take place in artificial DNA-like molecules."
Link to Original Source
From the article: ". . . Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right."
a) all activity requires energy, and
b) there are fundamental limits to efficiency, guaranteed by the second law of thermodynamics.
Read the article. Both of these facts together mean that continued growth is impossible. Even the most optimistic scenarios lead to absurd conclusions i.e. the energy needed for continued growth exceeds that available to a civilization which operates at the best possible efficiency, and which uses all conceivable resources within a spherical volume expanding outward at the speed of light.
In other words, all possible efficiency combined with all possible resources are not enough. Period. Growth must come to a stop, at some point.
Centrifugal force is a pseudoforce, i.e. a force arising from the acceleration of a non-inertial frame of reference.
Gravity is also a pseudoforce - this is the fundamental premise of General Relativity.
The incoming stream seen by IBEX has a O/Ne ratio falling significantly outside of the range expected for gasses of solar system origin.
Thank you for a though-provoking post. However in the geologic near term I am convinced the human race can adapt to things like natural glaciation or Yellowstone erupting
Yes, we'll adapt - the last time we were in such a situation we won the smackdown with the Neanderthals. We're survivors. But merely surviving doesn't mean we'll maintain the ability to launch and therefore allow life to survive in the longer term.
In the geologic long term when issues like the Sun boiling off the oceans become real, it will be10^9 years from now. Things can change so much that not only will there be time for new species to evolve to sentience, but there will actually be time for a second Carboniferous period to *replenish* the earth's supply of fossil fuels. Let me remind you that 10^9 years ago, life on Earth was single-celled. That far in the future, all bets are off.
Yes, let the oceans eutrophy and there might be time for *one* more round of oil-making. That's an ugly way to get energy from the sun. If we are not able to find a way to lift life off the planet, then maybe the next sentient species won't either? Now is very likely life's only chance, so it is imprudent to assume another solution will bubble up before the oceans bubble off.
Also, the ratio of sunlight available to outer space settlements to that available to the Earth, i.e. the area of a sphere 1 AU in radius to that of a circle 1 Earth radius big, is 550 million. That's 550 million times as much energy available, given enough time for construction. (Yes, such a sphere is not orbitally stable; 550 million is an upper limit.)
And yes, when the sun goes out all solar collection stops. But by then, with billions of years of experience in living in free vessels, the hope is that nearby red dwarf stars would be settled: they have life expectancies in the trillions of years.
And yes, the universe is running out of energy, or is going to be ripped apart at the sub-nuclear level, or is going to collapse back down into a singularity. Maybe all the protons will decay. But given trillions of years of physics research on a galactic scale, who can estimate the discoveries that might lead to a solution?
Bones cracking? A properly designed spinning vessel would provide centrifugal force that would be a perfectly good substitute for gravity.