I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.
Let me think...An army truck is secretly transporting a nuclear device through downtown New York. A random pothole bounces the truck and jars the device, accidentally changing it to armed status, while also tearing the break cables. The truck loses control and crashes into the Wall Street Stock Exchange. The armed and unstable nuclear device detonates wiping out the financial district, crippling the US economy in the nuclear disaster. The skipper of an oil supertanker is blinded by the detonation flash and crashes into Manhattan island, tearing the hull and spilling 2million barrels of oil into New York harbor.
No single software bug can do all those things either. Most bugs only end up with someone swearing at the computer while they reboot. Quite often it's the human in the control loop doing something unexpected that leads to failure of mission critical systems.
There's one flaw in that complaint. The last computer sold with XP that would be unbelievably fast would likely be an early core duo or core 2 duo or Phenom x6 AM2 socket with 8GB of RAM and a sub-100MB/s SATA drive and a gTX285. That system overall is pathetic and wouldn't run Windows 7 very well at all not to mention its insanely inefficient energy usage. Back in reality, most have 1-2GB of RAM, a pathetic hard drive, and an even more pathetic chip, usually a single core. So to say "replace your device" as the most recommended step um yeah. The youngest XP device from a normal manufacturer would be 7 years old right now. Time to go.
I bought a Dell XPS710 in 2007, dual core processor running at 2.66GHz, Win XP Pro, 4GB Memory, 768MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTX. It ran Win 7 Ultimate quite happily for years and allowed me to play games like Skyrim, Diablo 3 and even Crysis. Memory was the main resource issue. The processor and card doesn't need to be that powerful, so long as you are realistic about the background processes and Aero settings.
Just because it's ridiculously hard to prove doesn't mean that it's false. For example, most physists believe gravity needs a force carrier which they've called a "graviton", the same way light (electromagnetic radiation) consists of photons. That theory is 80 years old and still totally unproven but as long as nobody has a good competing theory we still kind of assume that's how it works.
Gravity waves have already been proven to exist. The 1993 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for the study of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar that showed indirect confirmation of the existence of gravity waves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H....
Not that we're not trying to look for gravitational waves and other clues, but most of it is so far off the scale of what we can experimentally detect that it'll probably still be unproven in a thousand years.
Gravity wave detection is expected within the next 20 years from the LIGO programme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G..., http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... It won't require a thousand years, nor is it beyond existing technology. LIGO is already taking measurements in the US, at Hanford and Livingston, and advanced LIGO will increase the sensitivity of the LIGO interferometers by a an order of magnitude, and is expected to increase detection rates from a few per year to 100s per year by increasing the detection volume a thousand fold. If advanced LIGO doesn't detect anything, then it will be time to review the theory.
(I worked for ~6 years at the University of Western Australia in the physics department in collaboration with the Australian LIGO research group)
Allow me to rephrase that: "Long story short, if someone is vilifying religion and praising science, they are doing it solely for the sake of their own pocket book(and perhaps marital bed)"
Easy statement to refute. I am an atheist and a research physicist and I can definitely confirm that I DON'T GET ENOUGH SEX!
I'm kind of upset about that.
Neil is commenting mainly on "Elon Musk's boast that he would establish a Mars colony". Manned travel to Mars isn't routinely done and there isn't anything for \industry to build on. The cost to develop and test the technology to make manned trips to Mars feasible and to sustain a base on Mars would be prohibitive for a single commercial industry. Look at the development of the electric car for instance. Significant cost and research required as well as infrastructure changes and no single commercial entity was responsible for the full development of the technology required to make hybrids and full electric vehicles commercially viable.
As for the cost, getting a manned Mars trip down to $100/kg is a significant undertaking. I'm sure that if the costs could be bought down to that level that commercial interest would peak. But that is a far cry from doing it now before the technology has been developed, as Elon Musk seems to boast.
PS Secretly I'm hoping Elan can do it, but the chances are slim to none.
Isn't that colloquially called resonance?
Not really. The scientific definition of a resonant system is a system where the amplitude increases in response to an external driving force. This happens over a narrow frequency band or resonance band and corresponds to the natural frequency or frequencies of oscillation of the resonant system. Time crystals don't require an external driver to show a periodic response. JustinOpinion (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3704889&cid=43599995) explains the Time Crystal concept quite well.
Online TV giant Netflix was closed captions unauthorized use of his pants down, when the Finnish users
Helps them to be dishonest about results and the research.
It is Science folks... what purpose is served by keeping it secret? Unless someone is up to no good eh?
You could say that about anyone. As a scientist I expect as much privacy as anyone else.