I don't doubt that solid state electronics might survive such G-forces. I very much doubt that rocket engines can, especially liquid fueled attitude control engines. As for acceleration - it WILL be strange. The centrifugal acceleration will be directed towards the center of the slingatron but its magnitude will be growing if linear acceleration is kept steady. So it'll have a slowly rotating acceleration vector, unless they use non-uniform linear acceleration to compensate for this.

I'm reading the paper - they found a clever way to make sure that DNA doesn't hybridize across the SNP. That ensures that in an equilibrium solution it'll be present at much smaller concentration than a fully-hybridized DNA. That is really a neat trick, but hardly a groundbreaking achievement that will revolutionize everything.

The article blurb is a total POS. We can detect single nucleotide polymorphisms easily, using any sequencing technology or genotyping systems. I don't even see anything novel in the article, because scientists used similar technologies for AGES.

Yes, I did glance on it. I don't see how they're planning to address these points. I'm aware of electronics in cannon shells, and that even guided cannon rounds exist. However, all of them don't even reach the tenth of the required orbital velocity. A "Slingatron" shell would be subjected to higher acceleration and jerk, with really strange vectors (centrifugal plus linear acceleration).

A large railgun would be much simpler and its projectiles would be subjected to less G forces. Also, the angle of firing should be as low as possible to make orbital insertion simpler, so railgun wins here. And finally, we already have linear accelerators that can reach suborbital speeds with small payloads. Scaling them is a matter of cost.

Have they actually studied physics? This project is so bogus on multiple levels:
1) It's much easier to use a linear accelerator. It won't have to deal with tremendous loads from centrifugal forces, for one thing.
2) Acceleration will be murderous for anything that's not a solid material.
3) And finally, it still won't work even if a payload is accelerated to orbital speed. That's because the payload would re-enter the atmosphere and return to the point where it left the accelerator at the end of its first orbit - that's simple freaking orbital mechanics. And you need quite a bit of delta-v to lift the perigee high enough to avoid it, which requires a rocket with an engine, see 2) why it's not feasible.

Yes, I have several reproductions (clearly marked as such) of well-known pictures and I refuse to buy original art except for works of no-name artists. Good reproductions are expensive and still are not perfect. Besides, most artists prefer to paint not the exact replicas but something "in style of" them.

I believe, that creating a system that can analyze the precise colors (using a spectroscope) and a robot that can mix pigments to produce the desired reflection spectrum is absolutely feasible. It'll be expensive but its reproductions would cost next to nothing.

And it'll open some new possibilities. For example, I'd really like to tweak colors _just_ a little bit on some of the paintings - it'll make them much more vivid. And some paintings (Leonardo's artwork, for example) by now look really bleak and could use some creative refactoring.

A lot of "creativity" is overrated. Just wait before this robot can replicated that "just a bit more smile"...

And what I'd like the best is the ability to reproduce paintings. I really like art, but I can't stand the 'artsy' types that claim that the original paintings are somehow magical. Sure, photographic reproductions are total shit but if this robot can be taught to make stroke-for-stroke reproductions - it'd be priceless.

How about taking a row of plants, irradiating them with high doses of radiation or watering them with potent chemical mutagens and then selecting the best mutants? Cause that's how the modern cultivars are made!

Oh, and in this case you don't even need to test them - just make sure that seeds don't glow in the dark and you can sell them. With whatever induced genetic defects - like lowered protein content (modern wheat) of almost dysfunctional fat-producing genes (corn). Oh, and during these manipulations your plants sometimes might acquire foreign genes from bacteria, close-related plants, viruses, etc. Hope that's OK.

Yes, "within a year" is a bit of hyperbole. In your case wild plants simply didn't have time to outcompete them, but if you'd just let your field to overgrow with weeds - even these plants would have died pretty soon.

I've actually read a paper about 5 years ago about the abandoned cultivated lands. Basically, all of the crop plants die out within a couple of years. Some recently-domesticated plants like raspberry can survive much longer by abandoning human-selected adaptations. Spice plants (mustard, dill, spearmint, peppers) fare the best.

Try abandoning a tomato plot to nature. It'll be extinct next year.

Show me a wild tomato that can grow without human cultivation and is as tasty as any modern tomato.

What? You can't do it? How about wheat? Or potatoes?

ALL of our current crops are genetically-manipulated wild types that usually can't survive in the wild.

the nvidia-settings tool to set up 4 monitors on my GTX670, there is no problem with speed and I get hw accelerated 3d on every screen. The driver is NVidia's 310.19. I used the TwinView Option on the Layout selection screen and could put the monitors into the wanted configuration with the GUI. I can move windows between the monitors and xfce gives me panels on the separate monitors.
The screen section in the xorg.conf looks like this:
Section "Screen"
        Identifier "Screen0"
        Device "Device0"
        Monitor "Monitor0"
        DefaultDepth 24
        Option "TwinView" "0"
        Option "Stereo" "0"
        Option "nvidiaXineramaInfoOrder" "DFP-0"
        Option "metamodes" "DFP-0: nvidia-auto-select +0+0, DFP-1: 1920x1200 +1920+1080, DFP-3: nvidia-auto-select +1920+0, DFP-4: nvidia-auto-select +0+1080; DFP-1: 1920x1200 +0+0; DFP-1: 1920x1200 +0+0"
        SubSection "Display"
                Depth 24
        EndSubSection
EndSection

and the server layout:

Section "ServerLayout"
        Identifier "Layout0"
        Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0
        InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
        InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
        Option "Xinerama" "0"
EndSection

The total amount of high-level waste is small enough to make public control pretty easy. And subduction trenches are not simply "under the sea", it's very deep under the sea. There's no circulation there, so "leaks" (and all feasible plans require vitrification of the waste) won't carry far in the worst case.

Besides, waste will then be buried in short (1km or so) shafts. It will then be carried inside the Earth mantle where it'll be slowly (over millions of years) dispersed in convection flows.

Nuclear power plants provide almost all of the energy in France and more energy than renewables in Germany. And as for the government's targets - do you want to bet money against me?

No, building coal power plants is not stupid - it's a necessity. There's no way renewables can provide enough of the baseload for Germany. It was known from the start (except for cretinous Greens) that Germany has to do it if nuclear powerplants are to be closed, and no amount of renewable funding can alter it.

Well, I actually contribute to fighting cancer at my $DAYJOB. While Green hippies actively promote it, it's so fun to stop trains with nuclear materials.

Fighting against new cancer-causing coal power plants? Nah, that's not fun at all.

As for "unqualified success" - how else would you call a program that is guaranteed to fail to meet its goals, while using many times more resources than alternatives?