bascule

It's fairly difficult to explain the difference positive versus negative void coefficient makes in terms of reactor safety. People look at reactors with negative void coefficient and worry that they might be the next Chernobyl, even though a loss of coolant would just cause the core to scram in a reactor with negative void coefficient... Fission is a nice stopgap measure, but my hope is for something like pyrofusion or sonofusion to be made into a portable, energy efficient reactor... then everyone can just produce their own power, rather that relying on a central power production/distribution grid.

If Iran's interests are only in "peaceful energy" then perhaps they should stop work on their 6,000km range ICBMs like the Shahab-6...

[math]2^{10}[/math] is a little easier to comprehend out-of-context

Gordon Moore did... They also made other poor predictions, such as flying cars... They misunderstood the scope of the task of creating stron AI, and didn't understand how much computers could be miniturized. Plus they wanted the computers to be large and showy, not small and diminuitive.

I liked Reason's take on Peak Oil: http://www.reason.com/0605/fe.rb.peak.shtml

You're supposed to leave him alive with his ears intact so that the shriek of every child who cries "Dear god, what is that thing?!!!" is his to cherish in his perfect ears. C'mon, haven't you ever seen the Princess Bride?

matt grime, you have the patience of a saint... if I were you I'd have gone mad long, long ago

I'm probably one of the most interested individuals in these forums in regards to brain/computer interfaces. I think we're still pretty far away in terms of bidirectionality, at least for anything other than recovering lost senses technologically. Anyway, I'm a skeptic, and therefore I tend to disbelieve the unevidenced... your account would certainly qualify

Have you ever looked into transhumanism?

Brain/Computer Interfaces rule

That's hilarious, just like a Ray Comfort video. Reading http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2006/04/great-debate.html however, I feel much the same way...

Yeah, I consider myself something of a forum whore, and even on forums I've been posting on for 3+ years I've barely broken 5,000... 10,000 is nuts

Ugh, for all intents and purposes, mutations are random. However, those lifeforms who cannot outcompete their neighbors for resources, or are eaten as food, or are in some other way removed from the gene pool do not reproduce. Only the adept survivers (who have working sexual hardware and can attract a mate) reproduce, hence the "non-random" bit

I'm tired of this Sherlock Holmes fallacy "There's no other possible explanation!" conspiracy theorist bullshit

That completely ignores the fact that there are multiple climate forcings responsible for shifts in the earth's radiative imbalance, and that the natural cycle has also caused a warming trend, although one which was dramatically increased by anthropogenic forcings.

What I want to know is do they get you drunk Gonna go with no

Glad to see a skeptical take on the peak oil issue: http://www.reason.com/0605/fe.rb.peak.shtml

The whole Singularity concept has been floating around since the '50s and has made its way into quite a bit of SF since then. The crazy thing is that some of that science fiction is starting to come true, especially in terms of cyborgs/wetware, and it seems like within a decade we'll have enough computational power to simulate the entire human brain. Live long and prosper? Heh

I fail to see the relevance of molten metal

If there are any papers advocating that anthropogenic CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, I have not seen them. From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (who, to be fair, have been accused of being almost dogmatic in their approach), here is a figure of the relative effect of radiative forcings in the climate system as presently understood: Yes... We are quite certain it is the primary cause... The boss of my old research group is often touted by the press as a "global warming skeptic" (much to his chagrin) and he certainly conceeds that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.

I think most people find the Singularity to be too speculative/boring

If you really want a good idea of how this stuff works, I suggest you see Penn and Teller perform. After performing each illusion, they deconstruct it for you to show you how it's done. Illusions are real. Magic is not.

You're saying knowledge is either scientific or religious in nature. You claim religious knowledge encompasses the latter case. To review your previous statements: Therefore, by your false dichotomy, the Constitution is a religious document. QED! Oh wait...

"Life results from the NON-RANDOM survival of randomly varying replicators" -- Richard Dawkins (Wonder how many dozen times I've quoted that in these forums)