Jump to content

buoy

Moderator
  • Content count

    2,806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by buoy

  1. Looks like these things are maturing at quite a rapid rate. If you haven't bought one yet, look out for the MK809 III. This thing actually has balls. It has 2GB of RAM It has an actual Quad Core processor It has 8GB of storage It has an extremely good antenna It runs Android 4.2 The benefit of running one of these would not only be the speed but the added storage space and you can also insert a 32GB SD Card if you like.
  2. Is the world full?

    I think the answer is no... but let me qualify it: Firstly, from a purely biological perspective we aren't even stressing the planet. More vegetation and biomass live and die without any human ever touching it. Of all the fish in the ocean, 99% of them just die in the water or get eaten by bigger fish.......... all the vegetation of the planet is in a living / procreating / dying ecosystem. How much grass, trees, swampland, forests deal with decomposing fruit and produce that we find valuable? For every banana or apple that is picked, how many thousands of other species fruit just falls off the tree and decomposes on the ground? So, secondly, if we look at exactly why we are having such trouble it's merely in the inefficiencies of the way human beings utilise the resources around them. In other words, the only reason we are finding it hard to support 6 billion people is not because the planet can't do it - it's cos we are finding it hard. It is a combination of technological limitations, logistical limitations and unfortunatley political limitations that see us where we are. If we can control biology down to the cellular level, you'd need half of one percent of the earth's output to feed 6 billion people. We currently need to breed 100 tons worth of cattle and feed them 1,300 tons of grass before they can be used for beef. One cell cultured from a belgian blue can be converted into 100 tons of meat and no animal would be harmed in the process and the amino acid bath a tiny smidgeon of the cost of feeding thousands of cows the old fashioned way. With recent breakthroughs in the past few years of culturing cells and creating new strands of purely organic meat, vegetables etc... the way farming and breeding food may take on a future miles ahead of the old fashioned way of growing crops and rearing heards of cattle. Try large silos of cell culture with literally a thousand fold increase in output efficiency and cost of production literally a tiny fraction of what it once was. With that you won't have a shortage at 6 billion people. Perhaps with 6 trillion people... but by then I suspect there will be other issues............ like space (not the stuff outside the earth, I mean land space).
  3. Thanks for these insights boost_bus180 and they are clearly well thought out. I will want to point out, however, that this is a hypothetical situation where the United States is (for reasons undisclosed or not necessarily made clear) pitted against the rest of the world. If we follow the hypothetical nature of the question, then: - Canada won't give their oil to the US. - Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea and Russia et al will not side with the US. - It is the US "versus the rest of the world" so there must be something forcing these other nations to put aside their differences and work together in the greatest capacity they can muster. That means you'll have the above said countries and more: Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea and Russia.... and China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Egypt et al working together against the united states. If I'm going to try and storytell a scenario where this would ever happen (you'll have to stretch your imagination to great proportions to stomach this, but...) suppose a collaboration of inside secret agents and hackers overloaded several nuclear reactors across the united states - many dozens of reactors... and they are leaking profusely radioactive material contaminating massive amounts of the populace. A presidential order is given to migrate the entire population out of the country. At the same time almost overnight Wall Street sees the largest single drop in investor confidence of the modern age. Over 5 trillion US dollars are dumped as the economy shrinks by over 50% creating the largest deepest depression overnight. 3/4ths of the country is instantly bankrupt. With continued exposure, literally millions of people are going to die of radiation poisoning. The situation becomes desperate almost immediately. Seeing the incredible situation unfold in the US and their economy completely go to shit, other countries offer to send limited foreign aid but to prevent their own economies from collapsing (and they have all taken a tremendous hit since many are tied very closely to the US economy) their offerings amount to the saving of a few percent of the total population. This scenario is deemed completely unacceptable by congress which passes a motion to institute martial law, full population draft and order the entire combined forces of the US army and navy to "find and claim, by force, civilian refuge areas for as much of the population as possible as quickly as possible even if it violates international law. For the good of the American people which we are charged to protect at all costs, we must do the unthinkable. May the rest of the world understand our position and what we are forced to do. May God forgive us." land that is not contaminated by radiation which immediately starts warfronts in the canadian and mexican borders where those countries troops have placed their entire compliment of forces to protect their soverign borders. A plea for international intervention is sent out by both Canda and Mexico and within 24 hours, projecting that this new sudden world threat could easily spill out past canada and mexico, emergency meetings with heads of the G7 and G20 arrive quickly to amass the largest ever coalition of defense forces against the United States to "prevent the advance of US forces from occupying and taking over the rest of the world in an attempt to reclaim new territory through use of arms - a move given the current situation - would undoubtedly be a permanent occupation if allowed to proceed". Cue dramatic music. The result of this peculiar and highly fantastic situation is... that nuclear weapons are clearly now off the table. The United States needs clean radio-active-free land, so nuking other contries goes against their objectives. The rest of the world can't nuke the US because the United States, although injured and bankrupt, still retains the ability to respond to any nuclear strike with a nuclear strike of its own... and quickly makes this policy known to the world: "Any nuclear strike against the United States will automatically result in a full-scale retalitory strike" - which basically means that any aggressor wanting to use even one or two nuclear strikes for a strategic advantage threatens a full scale response - a tactic of mutually assured destruction - which discourages (as we've seen in the cold war) any nuclear strikes at all. So now with this crazy scenario we have a situation where the United States 1- Is against the rest of the world and 2- will not use nukes (on either side). In any case, it's just a hypothetical situation. By thinking it through via these constraints we can dream up new Call of Duty scenarios at least
  4. boost_bus180 that was a great read. Thanks! Yes taking out the nuke from the equation could be a rather naive rule to enforce which would normally not properly reflect the reality of war - but even if it were true, in the sprit of forum discussion and to get the cogs of peoples minds to tick over, these things can spark thinking processes that (I'm hoping) could prove to be very interesting to read. Otherwise, I think we all know that there would be little to debate since the "cold" nature of the nuclear standoff creates very few options for actual conflict. An irony at the best of times. However I must reflect on the absurd nature of the topic at hand (if one can look past it) and then pose the question: is a no-nuke scenario really so far fetched if you consider the 2-sides scenario? For example, if we can assume that a nuclear strike would mean "mutually assured destruction" since using any nuke from one side to the other would result in a "full scale retalitory strike" which was the whole point of the "cold" war in the 60s 70s and 80s one would feel then that the nuclear option would be the very last option on the table and that one would exercise all conventional means to engage the enemy across all fronts (unless you consider nukes to be a first strike weapon in which case we can just close the thread after 1 paragraph - missiles kill the human race, birds and the bees start off new life colonization initiative). Thus, if that mentality is followed by all parties involved then the reasoning woudl be that using nukes is such a drastic measure as to be staved off until the last moment and, with so many variables from the chain of command to individual impairment of launch capabilities one would even guess as to whether leaving the nuclear option until later would also mean the actual ability to launch a coordinated strike also diminishes due to impairment from the conventional war being fought preceding that moment. The more I think about it, the more I believe that nuclear is a no-win situation: Some people describe this as being in a situation similar to someone having a gun. If the other person has a gun, you both point it to each other but nobody shoots and a dialogue opens up. However, if one person has a gun and the other doesn't, a dialogue would usually be restricted to a series of orders given by the person with the gun. A conventional army may be considered the equivalent of a knuckle buster perhaps? Something that isn't lethal straight off the bat and requires a lot of effort and repeated strikes to deal significant damage? Now, neither side would engage in a fist fight since both of them are holding guns to each other (read: the nuclear deterrant) but if both sides holstered their guns you'd very quickly have a fist fight on your hands (read: conventional warfare). But I don't think that is a completely realistic analogy - as if one person holsters their gun, the other person can shoot them with little consequence to themselves. If I were to create an analogy to the nuclear arms situation I would firstly place the 2 people in a very small room, perhpas 4m x 4m. Then, consider for a moment that the weapons they were holding were not simply guns but perhaps bazookas or panzerfaust... AND they had knuckle-busters. Now, if they both wanted to get out of this sorry situation the panzerfaust has dire consequences for both sides even if only one fires (more realistic imho) and they'd probably engage in a knuckle busting fight because the bazooka is just going to spell doom for both of them. The other point this raises is, perhaps, whether having a conventional army is required at all if you have nuclear weapons as a deterrant? I scoured a few other forums where a similar debate is playing out and, just to add some wood to the fire I'm going to post a few of the more eloquent quotes below: But probably the funniest and most insightful comment was this one:
  5. I'll go first. Oops... there's nobody above me, so I shall just post a first world problem:
  6. New PC Build - After some thoughts

    Aah ok no prob. The only interesting thing to look out for in the budget / bang for buck arena in the next 6 months is AMDs Steamroller. It won't beat Haswell, but if it can get close to Sandy Bridge IPC...... with 8 actual cores and 5Ghz overclock potential? That is going to be one hell of a budget build!
  7. New PC Build - After some thoughts

    Wait... you bought a Z77 motherboard.............. and you bought a 3770 with no 'K'? O_o hmmmmm... are you cerain you won't overclock? PS: pryo......................... if you can hold off another 6 months and get the next Haswells you will have a selection of 6, 8 and 10 core products. Leave the 4 cores behind can you wait? If you have a need for speed lust perhaps an SSD for the time being may quench it if you don't have one already.
  8. THE MOST INCREDIBLE BATTLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAMING CONSOLE UNIVERSE IS READY TO GO! (sorry... I like big fonts and I cannot lie). Hokay. Looks like the tables have really turned in the last 24 hours... with Sony delivering what may go down in history as the biggest flip-da-script in the modern era of video games since the original PlayStation took the legs from under top-dog Nintendo back in the 90s. In a vicious twist of placid conservativeness, Sony effectively handed Microsoft it's ass by doing........................ absolutely..... f**king.... nothing. Yep. That's right. By simply STAYING THE SAME and allowing people to CONTINUE to do all the shit they used to do like, ohhh I dunno.... sharing games they bought with each other, focusing on.... geez.... GAMING. Not selling what is now perceived and spun by the press as a 24-hour surveillance camera in the lounge room the NSA could use to invade people's privacy (It can't really, but I still have a doubt since I believe in the ingenuity of the human mind so.... never say never)... Sony just bitch-slapped Microsoft all the way home and back again.... a hobbit's tale style. First... the tea-bagging Then... the dickslap http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ-TO2PU270 BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! Reaction shots: What say you... yeee of ultimate gaming-hood and online connoisseur?
  9. The best one to get at the moment is the Tronsmart T428 quad core CPU, quad core GPU... almost as quick as the Galaxy S III. It's fairly new so there aren't any proper youtube vids of this besides just showing the exterior of the device. Another good one is the MK908. I have a vid of that one here - it's also a quad core cpu, quad core gpu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm4UCvCuDCI What I notice is that the quad core sticks have the feel of a desktop (almost) as the youtube reviewer mentions.... except of course it is in a tablet/android UI. But for speed it is nearly on par with a mid-range desktop. In other words it's snappy. Everything pretty much runs Jelly Bean 4.1 also. What I've just done recently is use DLNA. I have an older plasma that doesn't have any DLNA capability - but after plugging in one of these units the TV basically becomes DLNA compliant so I can stream movies from my home server to the TV... using my mobile phone.
  10. When you build up a company around one person, what is more important to have? The company and all it's suppliers, IP, skillset, management and engineering expertise? or that one person that had the foresight, passion, drive, innovative mindset and sheer brilliance to build that company in the first place? The person or the company? Which is it? Well that is a very difficult question to answer - perhaps there is no one answer. It most likely depends on the situation of each company - so granted it's not really answerable in the general sense... an example of where it most likely would favour the company would be in a manufacturing industry where innovation is very clinical and needs little to no inspiration - or in textiles, shipping, mining, electricity provision, telecommunications etc, etc... basically where risks are something spoken of as merely exploits of the weekend fishing expedition over coffee in the board room. There, the person who built up the company would most obviously not really be needed - their input becomes less and less important the larger the company gets and simply needs to follow the well established rules and regulations laid out for marketing, logistics etc... and thus most likely the company would just run better if they got the best people they could get to fulfil the top management roles and that would be that. But that answer favours industries that remain relatively flat - relatively benign. The mining industry was the way it was today in 2012 as it was in 2002... and largely the way it was in 1982 and 1962 and 1942... and even if the machinery and technology used to dig up the "stuff" out of the ground has incrementally gotten better and more high-tech... the purpose, drive and requirements of the company hasn't changed in centuries. That is: Dig up the ground. The flip-side to that are industries whose landscapes are in a flux. Where markets are being jostled, reinvented, recapitulated, reborn, renewed. Where exactly what the goal is going to be is unclear. Where what constitutes the role of the company or organisation is uncertain because, well, it's "new" and there's little or no data to support the notion from fact or fiction... or if there are facts their extrapolations indicate that such a market shouldn't exist or is a high-risk endeavour... this is what we are seeing in the IT industry in general. The manufacturing electronics industry. The software industry... and Apple have their limbs planted in each of these areas quite firmly. So, it seems that there is a trend with these highly evolving markets... with respect to their founding fathers - their leaders that give up the reigns of the company for one reason or another and it appears that, under these circumstances, without the guidance of their founding visionary in such a fast paced and changing market, a company loses innovation, direction and it's competitive edge and slowly but surely relegates itself to "just another player". Examples? Here they are: Microsoft. Founding visionary: Bill Gates. Bill left Microsoft to pursue philanthropy and since his departure the company has stagnated, riding mostly on their Windows and Office products ubiquitous successes established beforehand. They were late to the phone party and missed the tablet revolution. Sony: Founding visionary: Akio Morita After he stepped down as Chairman in 1994, Sony began a slow decline into mediocrity. Their heady days of walkman behind them, they missed the sea changes of the MP3 revolution. Apple: Founding visionary: Steve Jobs In 1985, Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple. The company, in his absence, began to innovate less and less and it slowly but surely declined until it was near bankruptcy. Of course, Steve took the helm again in 1997 to the surprise of many in the industry and spearheaded the greatest resurgence in the history of the modern age. Unfortunately due to the recent situation of Steves health, Apple is once again on it's own. It's latest refresh of products give some indication (speculatively) that history is going to repeat itself. Becuse of these circumstances and because of the recent announcements made by Apple which seem rather timid by comparison to the previous years... I'm guessing that Apple are just coasting... just like Microsoft and Sony did. I think they are headed for a slow but sure decline. What do you think?
  11. DEGRADATION! The bear is at the gates of AAPL... and it is gnawing at its stock. Peter Misek, Jefferies & Co.: Reiterates a Hold rating on the shares, and a $420 price target. “iPhone channel inventory increased by 1M to 11.6M and iPad by 1.4M to 4.8M (almost all iPad mini). We estimate the channel fill helped revenues by ~$1B and EPS by ~$0.35. iPhone sell-through decelerated from 26% in CQ4 to 12% in CQ1. China growth decelerated from 67% in CQ4 to 8% in CQ1 (+18% on sell-through). We think China will continue to be weak until a TD-SCDMA iPhone 5S launches at China Mobile [...] Mgmt comments about Fall and 2014 product launches implies no or limited launches beforehand. We cut our CQ3 estimates based on later launches for the iPhone 5S, low-cost iPhone, iPad 5, and iPad mini 2 and we expect GM pressure to continue [...] the new product category implies iWatch or iTV or both. 2) Screen commentary suggests Apple has smartly reversed course on 5? screens. We think the single biggest determinant for the stock over the next 6-12 months will be the timing of the iPhone 6. We see a June 2014 launch as most likely though Apple is trying to bring it forward.” Misek cut his fiscal ’13 estimates to $170.8 billion in revenue and $38.58 per share in net profit, down from $173.6 billion and $38.86. Stuart Jeffrey, Nomura Equity Research: Reiterates a Neutral rating on the shares, and cuts his price target to $420 from $490. “Falling ASPs, gross margins and market share might be a product-cycle issue, but it seems unlikely to us. Rising demand for iPhone 4 and lower storage versions all point to saturation of high end – at least for 4” screens – and point to further ASP and gross margin weakness. An evolutionary iPhone 5S will likely struggle to change this dynamic, while a mid-range iPhone could further pressure gross margins and ASPs. Further, low point in 2013 EPS is 17% below the 2012 trough, further suggesting that falling EPS is more than just a mid-cycle product issue.” Jeffrey cut his fiscal ’13 estimates to $171.7 billion and $39.51 per share from a prior $182.8 billion and $45.02 per share. Glen Yeung, Citigroup: Reiterates a Neutral rating, and cuts his price target to $430 from $480. “While bulls will laud Apple’s substantial buyback increase, we note that its impact to EPS is more than nullified by Apple’s below-consensus guidance. With capital allocation no longer a future catalyst, investor attention will likely revert back to fundamentals. Here we remain concerned about Apple share, noting that loss is clearly evident in F3Q13(Jun) guidance. Meanwhile, with iPhone mix already negatively impacting GM, our concerns about Apple’s longer-term gross margin sustainability are supported. When then factoring in a relatively weak result from China (another area of concern for us), and the likelihood that iPhone5S is delayed, and we think the bear case outweighs the bull case. Although it is fair to say much has been built into the shares, in our view, we found little from Apple’s results to warrant buying the shares.” Yeung cut his fiscal ’13 outlook to $165.5 billion in revenue and $37.48 per share in profit from a prior $171.6 billion and $41.49 per share. Will Power, R.W. Baird: Reiterates a Neutral rating, and cuts his price target to $438 from $465. “We applaud the long-awaited buyback and dividend increase, but remain concerned with increasing competitive pressures and the lack of a near-term product catalyst. In addition, company comments suggested that its next products might not launch until this fall, which could also create a challenging September quarter.” Power cut his fiscal ’13 view to $167.8 billion in revenue and $37.84 per share in profit from a prior $170.3 billion and $40.37.
  12. I thought I thoroughly covered E3 2012 this year... but something slipped through my fingers (except for Pervy who did point to a video on ign but for some reason I completely missed what is perhaps the most interesting demo at E3 this year).... I'm talking about the next generation real-time gaming engine developed by none other than Square Enix of Final Fantasy fame. Called the Luminous Engine I stumbled upon this elegant work of art after I started googling for next gen ps4/xbox720 news. Now just to be clear this news is technically a few months old already - but I've searched ns.com and the only reference to this is the video Pervy put in the E3 thread... and since nobody commented on that, perhaps nobody even saw it how tragic! Well, here it is - a real-time tech demo that simply runs on a "high end pc" with directx11 support, and we all know what that means: proper native tessellation and ... wait for it ... real-time motion capture playback. you'll see what a difference that peculiarity makes in the tech demo when you see the priest guy talking. Before you watch the tech demo, here is a simpler tech demo from the Luminous Engine that shows a simple car park entrance. The scene is very simple but with things like radiosity and real-time motion capture playback enabled, ask yourself this question: Does this look like real life? Now that you've seen that small video to whet your appetite, watch the tech demo. If you have the capacity to buffer up and play the 1080p version I highly recommend it. Again, ask yourself (now that there is a lot more detail) --- does it still look like real life? Perhaps your answer has changed......... perhaps it looks like pre-rendered footage --- very decent but still not there yet. But then ask yourself, is it worth moving to the next generation of consoles given this much leap in visual fidelity?! and now finally, if you'd like to see some proof that this actually *is* a real-time tech demo ---- here's some of the dudes from Square Enix doing their real time move the mouse around demonstration.
  13. HTC One, best looking phone ever made? Reposted

    There are so many things we should have changed in this world but they are the way they are. For example, guinea pigs are neither pigs... nor are they from guinea. Lead pencils no longer have lead in them. We still use archaic icons like an alarm clock and an old 1950s style phone to represent digital devices that do the same thing. One day very soon, a child will look at that picture of an analog clock with princess leia ears and wonder what it all means. but let us digress................ at least we can argue over the nuances of phones lol.
  14. HTC One, best looking phone ever made? Reposted

    It is a great looking phone... but for me it does not compare to the 2 that stand out form the rest: LGs Optimus 4x HD / Optimus G......................... and the up and coming Asus PadPhone. Those look just gorgeous........... the ultimate phone in my mind has no extra overt roundness or bevels or wierd corners - it is a rectangle with a nice piece of glass completely covering one end..... with a nice chromic outline... and the screen inset should be symmetrical so no matter which way you hold it the screen is in the middle (bzzzzt, sorry GS-III). This is why I like the 4x HD - it's just mesmerizing to look at. So nice to hold, use etc. Best looking phone I've ever seen (again, my personal opinion). Previous to that, a "mockup" version of what the Galaxy S3 could have looked like was my favourite phone. That never materialized lol. Also the new mockup of the Surface Phone is hot. They all have what I find awesome: Glass to the edges and symmetrical screens inset... super basic design.
  15. there's always something better. but I do not regret my ug 802. already got my money's worth out of it.
  16. yeah... looks like it. Complete fruity loop. As I was reading I was refuting each of his outlandish statements as I read them. Then I stopped because I had already refuted such a large number as to be pointless to continue refuting claims, but I read on a little more just out of pure blind curiosity. I can understand, if one does not have the internet and is child-like in their understanding of things YET good at certain other things like perhaps pure math and basic scientific observation theory that one could conceivably literally *think* themselves into this messy hole he's dug for himself. Unfortunate. I shall, just for the sake of it, refute some of the things he says just to give you an illustration of how far off he is. Ok. Here's a good example of how "some" information can be worse than "no" information. He has probably read of the geological make-up of the moon - by "carefully selected bits" he means only the lighter elements. "Definitely been orbiting the earth almost right from the start" I'm not sure where he gets that from... perhaps pure lunacy, but anyway. Here is the bit he is missing: An asteroid HIT the earth a long time ago. Actually when we say the word "asteroid" we tend to thing of large wierd-shaped rocks floating in space. Well, firstly I'm talking about a celestial body thousands of kilometers across, so I'm not talking about something as small as, say, the one that killed the dinosaurs. I'm talking about one that is, ohh gosh, something that deforms the entire surface of the planet and rips off a massive chunk of it and exposes the mantle and core and for the next million years you can't tell that it's even a planet anymore. Yeah - THAT kind of impact. Imagine if the moon were to hit the earth now........ yeah....... that kind of "big". So what happened was, very very early on, definitely after the earth had achieved hydrostatic equilibrium (heavier stuff at the bottom, lighter stuff at the top) this "hit" smashed in to the earth. It lifted up a lot of the lighter elements which were flung off into outerspace or into orbit. The heavier elements, however, were pulled back by their own gravity of the earth's remnants and re-formed the planet and, through the forces of hydrostatic equilibrium again turning it into a sphere over millions of years it's back to being round - BUT the ejecta, the lighter elements perhaps formed a ring around the earth for a while and/or eventually (as we now see) coalesqued into another celestial body, the moon. From orbital calculations, the moon used to be very close to the earth and over billions of years has slowly spun its way outward to where it is now. THAT is why the moon is made up of lighter elements. This guy just doesn't get it. He's a crackpot. The first paragraph of his website says so too.
  17. PRELUDE: If you aren't interested in this question, just look at the topic. It's pretty self explanatory. If you don't like it please just save yourself the hassle and just hit the back button. Ok... so now everyone reading this far is fully aware of the type of topic they are getting into. Here we go... TRAVELLING CLOSE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT LIMIT - TOPIC: I have been perusing the physics forums and generally watching some interesting youtube vids by Neil deGrasse Tyson and they are fun to watch but there is real confusion about what the speed of light limit means. Some people think that the limit is a barrier that you "bump" into and can't go any faster. No. Other people think that it's some sort of frustrating drag on the rocket... the closer you get to the speed of light, the less efficient your rockets get or something, like perhaps something akin to a car trying to accelerate to 400km/hr due to wind drag. No. Well then if it's not something you bump into or if it doesn't cause drag, what the f**k sort of limit IS this speed of light barrier? Ok? Anyone care to have a stab at this? THE SITUATION: You have a rocketship. It's a nice ship with say a good few decades of food supplies for you and a few buddies. You have an array of 512 ION drives powered by a couple of very energetic nuclear reactors producing many megawatts of power... enough power to push your moderately sized spacecraft (with 7" LED shielding followed by boron and plastic... and a good few feet of water around the hull that not only serves as your water supply but also as your high energetic particle moderator to prevent these things from piercing holes in your DNA). The rocketship can accelerate at 1g - that's 1 g of earth's acceleration or 9.8m/s/s for... gosh... decades. QUESTION: As you approach the speed of light barrier, what will you see out the window? What will you feel (will you still feel the 1g of acceleration?) What will the stars and galaxies look like? ... and after a few years you decide to decelerate... then turn around and re-accelerate back to earth, eventually getting back to earth (you have obviously some fancy nav computer that can calculate its bearings and always keep track of our solar system's sun for homing purposes). Would you feel some sort of barrier pushing up against you as you approach light speed? If you had a speedometer that tracked the position of yourself in relation to stars, what would it be reading as you continued faster and faster and closer to the speed of light? Would it show that you've slowed down? Now I'm throwing these questions out just to see what people think is going on. I've already got the answers to them... but obviously I'll have to withold it for the sake of the topic experiment. I'd also like to say that time travel is possible (whoa! hey there fella! you're toast now!!! ) but since it is an extension to the previous set of questions you may want to double-check what I must be alluding to when making that statement (hint: hawking agrees with me). Good luck ladies and gentleman. Time to put down the pipe and talking about shit that annoys you and what ever else. Time to exercise that brain a bit. Off topic never felt so good, right?
  18. this is why its madness that we are wasting our natural resources here on such trivial crap. I know at the moment its all necessary for life (our life as we know it) but one day future generations are gonna wonder wtf we were thinking burning all our fossil fuels at f**k all efficiency, rare earth materials for iphones, uranium for bombs and power plants etc when it could have been used to produce parts and fuel for use in space travel/terra forming etc. Mining other bodies within our own solar system may be our only Savior in the short term but I sure hope we have enough materials left on earth to manufacture the tech required for such a task when the time comes. I know what you're saying... I have felt that way for a very long time myself but I've since changed my tune and I'll try and illustrate how and why: My son is six months old now. For dinner this is what happens: My wife cuts around a 1.5m by 70cm sheet of plastic and lays it on the floor. We then put his feeding chair on that. We then feed him an array of food that my wife has meticulously boiled and fruits she has peeled. Peeled avocado, pumpkin, broccoli etc, etc. We also have pumpkin puree, avocado puree etc. He has no teeth yet but according to "baby led weaning" this is the best way to introduce solids to kids. At the end of feeding time which is roughly 15-20 mins, he's put many of these foods in his mouth, tried chewing and most of it has ended up on the floor. In other words, he doesn't really eat these foods, he just tries to to get his hand/eye coordination going. The thing that really fills him up (still) is baby formula and some of the puree. Now if you can abstract this situation and look at it from a resource standpoint this is a terrible waste of resources. How many plants, how much electricity, how much unused product is there? A lot! Let's be honest. This is a waste of food......... but......... BUT........ we don't see it as a long term thing. This is a means to an end. This guy isn't going to be doing this six months down the road. It's helping him understand. Helping his stomach develop the right bacteria. Helping his brain figure out co-ordination with his eyes and hands. Helping his nose recognise the smell of food etc. In other words, we see this waste of resources as a limited but necessary period where things are done for benefits later down the line. Now if we bring that "context" and overlay it with society's resource use on a global scale it describes my new way of looking at how we are using the earth's resources. We are using them wastefully now but we are on a growth spurt. We are learning stuff exponentially. This is not how we will be six decades down the line. We are using this period to grow. The established technologies on primitive "environmentally unfriendly" resources such as fossil fuels allows us to progress technologically and economically (again, prosperity is tied with innovation) and we are hoping that as our technology and understanding progresses we will be able to wean ourselves off these temporary damaging resources and into sustainable ones. So instead of the term "baby led weaning" I would borrow that term and perhaps call it "technology led resource weaning" --- meaning that we are using technology to lead us out of being so resource dependent on these other unsustainable resources. I think it is also interesting to point out that, given that we have only a very small first world and that 3 billion people live as if they were in the stone age, our environmental impact so far has been limited. It is unfair, but it's been limited. We've only had a billion people as of very recently being resource hogs. That means that this "weaning" period is mitigated. I don't know how it would have panned out but if everyone on earth industrialized at the same time equally would we have bottle-necked earlier? Or would we have progressed much faster? Who knows... the point is this stage is temporary. It is, without a doubt temporary as if we don't switch eventually we will just run out of this stuff. There are only so much fossil fuels on this planet.
  19. The YouTube Thread Vol:Tres

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0r6K4Z-vshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0r6K4Z-vs'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0r6K4Z-vshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0r6K4Z-vs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0r6K4Z-vs
  20. Brian Greene...... 7 minutes in.............. 1 billion years (depending)
  21. No I haven't - I just did a google search and I read some crackpot talking about how he believes the moon was engineered. Is that it?
  22. stock has gone............... f**king GONESKI!!!
  23. I think the moon is great. It's close enough for us to do some great stuff. It has basically no atmosphere (but as -cj pointed out it has a very tiny tiny atmosphere a trillionth of that compared to earths) which is advantageous for 1. direct sunlight for energy harvesting, 2. no corrosion 3. no atmospheric resistance for launching, 4. the low gravity is much easier to break away from so expending fuel would be so much less.... it has reserves of water in the poles and the moon surface raw materials can produce concrete TWICE as strong as that of earths (for some reason, just saw it in the above youtube vid I attached earlier). it's just so convenient and awesome. it also has a dark side which completely masks out radio chatter from earth......
  24. Ok! So here you go - your opportunity to tell the people that browse this forum and click on this link exactly what you hate but everyone else seems to like. I'll be first on the dancefloor to break the ice so here goes: * Call Of Duty: I hate this shit with a vengeance. I don't care if it's reaction time or it's a certain "way" --- to me it's just an unrealistic cluttered mess of a game and I'm glad so many people like it... it will keep them off the Battlefield servers. * iPhones, iPods, iPads, iShit in general: Stop stop stop stop STOP. STOP! In 2007 it was awesome. In 2009 it was at it's historic peak. In 2012 it's the SAME OLD GAAD DAMN SHET over and over and over again. Gosh why are people so enamoured with these things? The iPad mini? lol GTFO! * Chicken wings: I can't understand the infatuation. Ohh the meat tastes so yummy? Yeah... all 3 grams of it. Give me a drumstick anyday. Next... * Big Brother, X-Factor and any reality TV Show - Survivor Series: I can't stand it. Everyone wants to watch it around me and it just forces my brain into a semi-permanent coma. The only thing I can stand is The Amazing Race because....... umm, actually no. I can't stand that one either. They all suck. Plain and simple. * XBox360 / PS3 / Game Console controllers. We have the best interface for games. It's called a keyboard and mouse... unless you like to be heaped in there with those with an aiming disability. * Facebook and Twitter: Hey you been on Facebook? Why don't you reply to me on facebook? Why don't you poke me? .... SHHHHHHH... calm yourself. Life need not be wasted on shit like facebook. Look outside. It's a... it's a... it's a... it's a tree. Behind that is this thing called "the rest of the world". All that? *waves hands around* you're missing out on all that while you're on facebook. Ok... well... you get the idea.
  25. lol. I don't think it's very interesting in there. Might look like a lot of smoke and mirrors........ That would probably be a key thing for a moon base. Lots of trees and vegetation but it would be housed in a controlled environment inside an enclosure where atmosphere, temperature and pressure can be controlled and use the water reserves on the moon to irrigate. I have no idea how trees would go being planted in moon dust. I am guessing it would be similar to planting hydroponics - so planting shoots in sand - they'd still require nutrients and I'm guessing we'd have to bring that along
×