The March of Technology

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, any tail on an object like that will be caused by escaping gasses.  A true asteroid shouldn't have a tail until it enters the atmosphere and starts ablating surface material/heating the atmosphere to the glowing point.  Comets have tails because they're mostly balls of frozen water and gas, and as they approach the inner solar system the heat from the sun starts vaporizing that material, which expands into space and is visible as a tail.

Edited February 25, 2013 by TheMightyEthan

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I watched a super pretentious video about a single-use, blood activated light which was supposed to make us think about the energy we use. The shocking fact was that all the technology we use amounts to... leaving 4 lights on.

 

This is a lot less than I actually imagined. Do you lot think about your energy consumption? Do you try to reduce it and if so is it for monetary or environmental reasons?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

@TheFlyingGerbil

 

Not in the sense where I'm super strict about anything but I do basic stuff: Turn off lights when leaving, don't keep the heat full blasting, etc. I mean, it costs me money anyways, so there's that going against it. I do try and tailor my purchases towards things that support better practices even if they are a bit more costly. If I ever bought an appliance I would definitely do the same there. I compost, I recycle, I buy in bulk, I'm vegan, I make a lot of my own food, so I'm doing things in my way. Overall, I think that you'd have to completely change your lifestyle to have any sort of large impact. You have to live in society. Unless you move out into the woods and start living off the land there's only so much you can do. So for me it's all of the little things that I've been doing and will keep doing. I do understand my negative impacts: Computer on all of the time, buying cheap stuff from China, etc, so I know I'm making compromise. I'm not Bill Gates. There's only so much I can do with the resources available.

[deanb]

No way does the tech we use amount to 4 lighbulbs. My TV is 120w, and relatively old n thus inefficient, that's 10 lightbulbs right away. Got PC (with monitor) to that, nevermind the fridge-freezer constantly running. Washing machines, kettles, microwaves, mobiles, many others. Maybe, given other things in this show, the talk was that of the human body output is on par with 4 lighbulbs?

[TheFlyingGerbil]

 

The average American consumes 3383kwh of energy per year. That’s equivalent to leaving the light on in 4 rooms for a whole year.

 

Video

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, I don't think it's saying that while you're using everything it's only the equivalent of 4 lightbulbs, it's that the total energy usage is the same as 4 lightbulbs running 24/7 for the whole year.  Though they're clearly talking about incandescents, not CFLs, because that works out to average usage of 385 W, but for me 4 lightbulbs would be like 60 W.

[deanb]

385W works out at nearly 100W lightbulbs, they've gotten some needlessly high energy bulbs even if using old incandescents. They're clearly being silly with their point anyway, but fudging numbers to suit doesn't help their cause.

[Mal]

Need more of these prosthetics.

[deanb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21827631

 

Cambridge have being working on virtual avatar tech. Rough early days, but certainly easy to see how quickly this kind of tech can advance. Especially when private companies, such as film of computer industry, throw in a few million.

[TheMightyEthan]

I like how the voice sounds like a real person who just happens to be the worst voice actor in the world.

[deanb]

http://science.time.com/2013/03/20/humanity-leaves-the-solar-system-35-years-later-voyager-offically-exits-the-heliosphere/

 

Voyager is officially out of the Heliosphere, but they're still undecided on the whole "out of the solar system" thing.

[TheMightyEthan]

The University of Washington is developing a prototype fusion engine that could make a trip to Mars possible in 1-3 months rather than the 6-8 months it would take with conventional rockets.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/10/nasa_fusion_engine_fast_mars_trip/

[Waldorf and Statler]

Fusion? As in what nuclear physicists have been attempting to do over fission for ages?

[deanb]

Yeah, I'm somewhat skeptical. I'd maybe work on the fusion before working on the fusion powered martian rocket. Horse before the cart.

[Waldorf and Statler]

I don't think I've checked this page too much so I'll just ask in hopes I don't have to scroll through pages: Have you guys discussed singularity in depth

[deanb]

As in Ray Kurzwel stuff? Nope, not really the thread for it, this is more for like random advancements and bits of tech/science that crops up now n then as opposed to things that may come in the future. But feel free to bring it up if you want, I'm only a bit through Singularity Is Near mind, but know the rough outlining of it.

[TheMightyEthan]

Fusion's easy, it's what powers hydrogen bombs.  What's the problem from a fusion power perspective is creating a continuous, sustained fusion reaction that produces more power than it takes to contain it.  The fusion engine, however, doesn't require that, as by definition you don't want to contain it.  It's basically a series of very small fusion detonations, and we've been able to make fusion explosives since the 50's.

 

*Edit* - We've also been able to make continuous fusion reactions for a long time, it's just the magnetic containment takes more power than is produced in the reaction, so it's no good for power generation.

 

*Edit 2* - Here's the Wikipedia article on fusion power and the problems associated with it.  They don't really apply to this engine though, because again starting the fusion reaction is easy and in the case of a rocket engine you're not having to spend energy containing it.

Edited April 10, 2013 by TheMightyEthan

[deanb]

"continuous fusion reactions" that last all of a few seconds. Also the concept of using fusion as it is used in bombs for space propulsion isn't exactly a new idea, it's the main idea behind Daedelus, however it's still a concept. We still have the problem of maintaining and controlling nuclear fusion explosions.

[TheMightyEthan]

I know it's not a new concept, but they're actually building an experimental one, which is the March of Technology part.  

[deanb]

http://singularityhub.com/2013/04/28/robots-will-do-everything-you-do-now-only-better-what-then

 

It's is a singularity article mind, but a worthy read now n then.

[TheRevanchist]

http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2013/05/20/california-teen-invents-device-that-could-charge-cell-phone-in-20-seconds/

 

At 18, I was in junior college wearing pajamas to school (because I could), not designing the next generation of batteries.

[Mercurial]

Wonder how lethal it is. 

[deanb]

http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/08/here-it-comes-%E2%80%A6-375000-lab-grown-beef-burger

 

So on Monday the first artificially grown burger is to be shown off. It'll be something that's gonna be silly expensive for an age, but I'd reckon in about 30 years or so it'll be the common form of meat, with actual cow meat being the pricey thing (well, it'll be the pricey thing either way, there's a hard limit on how much livestock we can keep around and maintain)

[TheMightyEthan]

there's a hard limit on how much livestock we can keep around and maintain

Yeah, but that number is pretty damn high.

 

I agree though, I'm sure at some point in the future the lab-grown meat will be cheaper than the normally-raised meat.

[deanb]

That's 1.3billion cattle amongst 7billion people. In 30years time there will be 9billion people. And Africa is likely to have become substantially more industrial by then and thus likely to have higher demand for food too.