Baxter, if good enough, could give other countries cheap manufacturers a run for their money, but short of the jobs used in creating the first few "Baxter" machines, will not create much more. I can imagine Baxters manufacturing and maintaining more Baxters, and not increaing the amount of people employed at all.
It is quite possible that in order to release it to the Windoze phone, they would have to write sixty million lines of code instead of ajust a few hunderd. Also, the app would take two hours to load and upon startying would crash the phone
Since when is telling the truth a war crime or a terrorist act? How is telling the truth worst than having the blood thirsty crew of a helicopter gunship killing unarmed civilians? We know that thanks to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If you see anything criminal on that, your idea of crime, terrorist, truth and decency are very different from mine.
Not really. You have not considered the way that light behaves at high speed. I suggest you investigate the "relativistic doppler effect" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect ) before you go any further. Basically as you approach the speed of light, the frequency of the light wave that approaches you increases to twice the speed of light (blueshift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift), so the frequency of light approaching the traveler from the object he is approaching will get past ultraviolet frequencies and into the X-ray frequency spectrum cooking everything in the alleged spaceship (Crew included), so even though it could be at some point in the future "technically possible" to achieve those speeds, we need to consider the practicality as there is no point in traveling to arrive to your destination roasted.
InspectorGadget1964 writes: Human-induced climate change is one of the biggest problems that we face today. Millions could suffer hunger, water shortages, diseases and coastal flooding because of climate change. The latest science suggests that we may be near or even beyond the point of no return.
Some scientists and policy makers are therefore proposing that we take seriously the idea of geoengineering — that is, large-scale manipulations of the earth, such as spraying sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to alter the reflectivity of the planet or fertilising the ocean with iron to spur blooms of carbon-sucking plankton. However, geoengineering seems too risky. Many of the technologies involved have never been employed on such a large scale, which means that we could be endangering ourselves or future generations. Indeed, spraying sulfate aerosols could destroy the ozone layer and iron fertilisation could promote toxic planktons and destroy all forms of marine life.
One might be able to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select shorter children.
I propose that we consider another solution to the problem of climate change that has not been considered before and that is potentially less risky than geoengineering. Elsewhere my colleagues and I have called this solution ''human engineering''. It involves the biomedical modification of humans to make us better at mitigating, and adapting to the effects of, climate change.