wright496

How about making covered tunnels designated for bicycles and pedestrians?

It's only a fringe activity because we keep neglecting it. One of the main points I'm trying to make is that it SHOULDN'T be such a low priority. You seem to be confusing this with some sort of inherent technical difficulty when in fact it's a matter of politics. And you still didn't answer my question as to what you would recommend. Yeah getting women educated and in the workforce is the best single thing we've got for this problem, but that's not enough either.

You guys misunderstood me. I don't think space exploration alone is the solution for overpopulation. But is there a good single solution? This is one of those problems that needs to be attacked from a variety of angles. In this context it could be useful for overpopulation.

That's easy. Just dress for the weather and wrap your stuff in plastic. There's no need for a canopy.

We were making excellent progress in nuclear propulsion, and politics was really the only thing that brought that to a halt. NERVA met or exceeded all expectations and NASA had big plans for it. What really irks me is that people are so lackadaisical in their attitudes towards things like space exploration, but billions are thrown seemingly indiscriminately at the military. Scientists and engineers from pretty much any field that you can think of are finding creative military applications for their work w/ fecundity because it's an easy path to funding(if there really is such a thing). I would like to try offering those kinds of incentives for contributing to the space program. Space exploration is a matter of great importance and I don't know why so many people seem to have a hard time grasping this. Overpopulation is ultimately one of the greatest problems facing humanity. Everyone thinks it's their right to have kids, but honestly, without expanding away from Earth, this is clearly not an option. As draconian as it sounds the only real choice would be to keep people from reproducing. Not enough people will make that choice on their own. And then there's the threat of an asteroid or what have you. The probability that something like this will threaten Earth is for our purposes...inevitable. It might not happen real soon, but it very likely will eventually. I'm sorry to veer off into politics and policy when this thread is primarily about the engineering aspects, but the point I'm trying to make is that the things I'm talking about are the biggest obstacles to contend with in this endeavor and NOT the technical feasibility. I really felt the need to establish that. I think things will actually go much better now that the private sector is being allowed to pursue this.

You can use chemical power or even ambient thermal energy to power them just fine.

When I first read the title of this thread I thought Martha Stewart might have found an odd new way to decorate.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Books have been written on this subject. How can you say no good reasons have ever been given? The problem is that with the way things are now, the currency is too easily manipulated at the whim of the Fed. Inflation is a hidden tax on the American people. This wouldn't be a problem if the currency was or was linked to something of tangible value.

Why does it matter if the banks are in opposition to this? They're in the minority. Yes, I know they do in fact wield quite a bit of power, but if people are alerted to this issue, we can change things. Don't be intimidated by those thugs.

Is that what is happening when we think they're biting us?

This is an oversimplified proof. You seem to present the UTM as a thing that answers questions but then you hit it with a statement. I don't doubt the theorem because the original proof was good, but this proof isn't very convincing.

Also listening to music can affect your heart rate, as your heart rate will drift towards the beat.

I would hope that by that time we will have started colonizing space.

Although we could do this, it seems like it would be easier to just focus on colonizing mars and the moon right now.

2 pages of arguing over the rules and nobody has even posted a theory yet lol.

What about a yagi antenna?

I actually don't think this particular thing would be that dangerous to synthesize. I would try to do this the microbiol way. My reasoning is that if this happens in the gut of people anyway, then the byproducts probably aren't that dangerous. Of course caution is still called for, but this is the way I would recommend. From the posted links, it also seems that using microbes is the more researched way to go about this. If you're hard core about this, then I would recommend testing this on some feeder mice from the pet store before you try it out on yourself.

I don't normally like to stray off topic, but since it's closely related and this thread has been stagnant anyway, what do you guys think of the Flynn Effect?

I think IQ tests are a sort of decathlon of mental abilities. We have a much better understanding of neurology than when these tests were first devised. I believe we should be precise about what we are testing for, such as working memory, attention, etc. The best support of these tests seems to come from the fact that they correlate with so many things. IQ tests take on so much at once though, that it's hard to elucidate what's really going on. Let's say hypothetically (and I'm just pulling this out of my ass to make a point) that verbal skills make a big difference in job performance. Clearly any IQ test which took into account verbal skills would correlate with good verbal skill and so IQ and job performance would be correlated as well. Well, you could say IQ and job performance are related and leave it at that. But WHY is IQ related to job performance. Is it working memory, or attention or math skills? We need to break it down more and analyze these separate cognitive parameters and their interrelationships.