An interesting article on both the physical and philosophical difficulties involved.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Related, and sad: A young neuroscientist’s bet on cryonics.
An interesting article on both the physical and philosophical difficulties involved.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Related, and sad: A young neuroscientist’s bet on cryonics.
Yet…
Stephen Fleming gave a talk on that subject at Dragoncon this weekend (I should go some time). I haven’t looked at them yet, but his slides are on line, and I suspect there’s some good input to the Kickstarter there.
[Update a few minutes later]
Still haven’t been through slides, but I’m amused to see that he stole my graphical book-cover them in the very first one.
[Reading through]
I’d note that in his slides on the “Martian Defense Grid,” someone on the Mars panel at the AIAA meeting last week called Mars our “Jamestown.” High casualties to initial pioneers.
[Update a few more minutes later]
I wish we could show those charts of the unknown shape of the health/gravity curves to Congress. It makes a powerful case for a gravity lab, but only to people who actually give a damn about Mars. Actually, someone should show them to Elon.
The problems encountered publishing the valid criticisms of Dr. Mann’s hockey stick are a serious indictment of the current peer review system, especially the systems at Nature and at the IPCC. Professor Hans Van Storch (University of Hamburg) went so far as to say “Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process.” Reform is needed and some suggestions by Professor Ross McKitrick are made here. The current peer review process can and has been used to suppress valid and important papers. This is why I applaud the internet and scientific blogs, they prevent self-serving and arrogant scientists from blocking the truth. One thing we have seen since the time of Copernicus and Galileo, no deception of this magnitude lasts forever.
Contrary to the myth that 97% of climate scientists believe we are headed toward a man-made climate doom, the truth is that a very small group of second rate climate scientists have captured the attention of some prominent political and media figures. They have also isolated themselves from the rest of the scientific community and suffer because of it.
Not enough to suit me.
This is what I’ve been tweeting this morning.
There's never a good time to call for gun control because it's always a bad idea. https://t.co/qJitSn3J95
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
FYI Legal gun ownership is up in Detroit, with the blessing of the new police chief. Murder/burglary rate is down. http://t.co/gSIgcs7OeL
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
@TheEconomist The numbers are so small that any "trend" is statistically meaningless. https://t.co/fbG4f3sZxY
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
@TheEconomist According to your stats, Americans had a one in a million chance of being involved in a mass shooting last year. What crisis?
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
[Afternoon update]
As usual, the White House lies about “gun violence.”
I’m having to periodically (as in approximately daily) reboot, and repair root with e2fsck. Is this a sign of a memory issue, or something else?
In which it validates Bishop Hill’s predictive model.
Heh.
Is it a fake?
I missed this on Monday, but Jeff Foust has a report on last week’s announcement. A lot of comments there, including the usual ignorance from Marcel Williams.
This looks interesting, but I’d like to see some numbers. Like, how much does it cost, and what kind of reductions are they seeing? I often see studies that amuse me, as though a barely-statisrically-significant 10% risk reduction for some expensive drug with unpleasant side effects is actually worth it.
And is it a permanent solution, or does it require periodic retreatment? Also, are there side effects (like insufficient blood flow to the brain on suddenly standing up)?
What will happen to Seattle and Portland when it hits?
Flick your right fingers outward, forcefully, so that your hand flattens back down again. When the next very big earthquake hits, the northwest edge of the continent, from California to Canada and the continental shelf to the Cascades, will drop by as much as six feet and rebound thirty to a hundred feet to the west—losing, within minutes, all the elevation and compression it has gained over centuries. Some of that shift will take place beneath the ocean, displacing a colossal quantity of seawater. (Watch what your fingertips do when you flatten your hand.) The water will surge upward into a huge hill, then promptly collapse. One side will rush west, toward Japan. The other side will rush east, in a seven-hundred-mile liquid wall that will reach the Northwest coast, on average, fifteen minutes after the earthquake begins. By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”
…we now know that the Pacific Northwest has experienced forty-one subduction-zone earthquakes in the past ten thousand years. If you divide ten thousand by forty-one, you get two hundred and forty-three, which is Cascadia’s recurrence interval: the average amount of time that elapses between earthquakes. That timespan is dangerous both because it is too long—long enough for us to unwittingly build an entire civilization on top of our continent’s worst fault line—and because it is not long enough. Counting from the earthquake of 1700, we are now three hundred and fifteen years into a two-hundred-and-forty-three-year cycle.
As she notes, the only question is when, not if. I hope it’s not any time soon; I’ll lose a lot of friends.
[Update a few minutes later]
This is a key point:
On the face of it, earthquakes seem to present us with problems of space: the way we live along fault lines, in brick buildings, in homes made valuable by their proximity to the sea. But, covertly, they also present us with problems of time. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, but we are a young species, relatively speaking, with an average individual allotment of three score years and ten. The brevity of our lives breeds a kind of temporal parochialism—an ignorance of or an indifference to those planetary gears which turn more slowly than our own.
This is also why it’s easy to persuade people that extreme weather events aren’t normal, and can be attributed to “climate change.” People have either not experienced, or don’t recall similar ones from the past, when the CO2 levels were lower.