If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

14455 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Aug 2010 at 6:05 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML Show posts from ignored users

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

by at least 33% every year

I'm no math wiz, but if you reduce a number by 33% every year (compound) doesn't it only take 4 years to reach zero?

indarwinsshadow: by at least 33% every year

I'm no math wiz, but if you reduce a number by 33% every year (compound) doesn't it only take 4 years to reach zero?

No.

Year 1: 100 - (100 * 0.33) = 67%
Year 2: 67 - (67 * 0.33) = 44.89%
Year 3: 44.89 - (44.89 * 0.33) = 30.08
Year 4: 30.08 = (30.08 * 0.33) = 20.15

indarwinsshadow: by at least 33% every year

I'm no math wiz, but if you reduce a number by 33% every year (compound) doesn't it only take 4 years to reach zero?

No.

100%
67%
45%
30%
20%
14%
9%
6%

You never get down to complete zero.

Also, that's the winter die-off. That may or may not effect the total number of bees from year to year.

The trouble is that insects, having a short reproductive cycle and a devious nature, evolve incredibly quickly in response to threats. Like, for example, pesticides. So, in defense, we have to keep upping the ante with new and different pesticides.

So, what's the problem? Well, in a word, bees. Bees pollinate almost every major food group, and pesticide use is driving them extinct. Bee population has been falling by at least 33% every year in the UK for years. The logic is: all the bees die in a few years, food crops don't get pollinated, massive harvest failure ensues, everybody starves.

So, evidently bees are the one type of insect that can't evolve. Bummer.

jjorsett: The trouble is that insects, having a short reproductive cycle and a devious nature, evolve incredibly quickly in response to threats. Like, for example, pesticides. So, in defense, we have to keep upping the ante with new and different pesticides.

So, what's the problem? Well, in a word, bees. Bees pollinate almost every major food group, and pesticide use is driving them extinct. Bee population has been falling by at least 33% every year in the UK for years. The logic is: all the bees die in a few years, food crops don't get pollinated, massive harvest failure ensues, everybody starves.

So, evidently bees are the one type of insect that can't evolve. Bummer.

Adapt. Adaptation happens within a few generations. Evolution requires a bit more time.

LoneCoon: Matter to energy converter

I think "fire" has already been invented, actually.

The concept of money as a financial instrument will never go away, but physical currency might, possibly within this century in first-world economies.

And that's why it would be a waste of effort to eliminate the penny so that prices all have to be rounded to the nearest nickel, or replace the dollar bill with \$1 and \$2 coins for "convenience".

The future of convenience is a computerized payment system that can be used everywhere for everything, and can be accurate to thousandths or even millionths of a cent if desired.

blahpers: Jackpot777: Or the Trope (new window) of the article.

Ahhhh shiat. Jackpot777 linked to TV Tropes.

/tab
//tab
///tab
///tabtabtabtabtab

I'M STILL IN THERE!

/lots of tabs.

My money's on a subset of the "genetic engineering" category - a super-efficient cellulosic-ethanol bacterium that escapes from the lab and starts to chow down on all the world's plant life. We will all starve to death over the course of a few years, but booze will be plentiful.

FlyingPig: AfroSpatula: This man is very frightened of the Singularity. Does technocracy strike fear in the heart of people?

I also loved the "No, my capitalism!" pleas in the 3D printing section. Oh no, the cost of living will go down drastically! Think of the companies!

Seriously. Who gives a shiat about intellectual property, or money for that matter, when we could replicate anything we wanted out of thin air? Why the f*ck would piracy even matter any more?

We'd all be farmers with pretty toys, because the only people with jobs would be people growing food. Oh, and 3D Printer repairmen.

/BTW, friend of a friend got to play with the version of this that WETA uses for special effects models, said it was unbelievable.

Ivo Shandor: My money's on a subset of the "genetic engineering" category - a super-efficient cellulosic-ethanol bacterium that escapes from the lab and starts to chow down on all the world's plant life. We will all starve to death over the course of a few years, but booze will be plentiful.

Not a big fan of alcohol made from grain?

dittybopper: Actually, people can and do make guns now. Granted most are from parts, but there are people who make guns from scratch. My father, using just a bandsaw, a drill press, a lathe, and some woodworking tools and files, made a working flintlock trade gun from scratch.

Its a good point to make, but the question is how will home 3d printing change that?
The author of the article was worried about people printing out weapons they couldn't otherwise own when there are cheaper ways to get weapons that don't involve mechanical skill or fancy machinery.

Ok, so lets assume these printers can do the job. Push a button, get a car. How does that bring an end to traditional economics?
They'll still need raw materials and I'd wager that people would be hungry for new designs to print. Someone would have to help repair or dispose of the things being made.
All the people working manufacturing would probably find new jobs in mining and recycling. Not to mention the work needed to provide energy for all of this going on.
It would be a very expansive era for mankind, but not an end to the idea of working for cash.

If we had things like 3d printers that could replicate anything, industry would just adapt and fan out to provide new services.
I just don't think the technology will exist in that form for quite some time to come.

way south: dittybopper: Actually, people can and do make guns now. Granted most are from parts, but there are people who make guns from scratch. My father, using just a bandsaw, a drill press, a lathe, and some woodworking tools and files, made a working flintlock trade gun from scratch.

Its a good point to make, but the question is how will home 3d printing change that?
The author of the article was worried about people printing out weapons they couldn't otherwise own when there are cheaper ways to get weapons that don't involve mechanical skill or fancy machinery.

Ok, so lets assume these printers can do the job. Push a button, get a car. How does that bring an end to traditional economics?
They'll still need raw materials and I'd wager that people would be hungry for new designs to print. Someone would have to help repair or dispose of the things being made.
All the people working manufacturing would probably find new jobs in mining and recycling. Not to mention the work needed to provide energy for all of this going on.
It would be a very expansive era for mankind, but not an end to the idea of working for cash.

If we had things like 3d printers that could replicate anything, industry would just adapt and fan out to provide new services.
I just don't think the technology will exist in that form for quite some time to come.

Quite.

Most people just couldn't be assed to make stuff for themselves, even if it involved loading up some software and raw materials, and pressing a button.

no dysentary?

way south: All the people working manufacturing would probably find new jobs in mining and recycling. Not to mention the work needed to provide energy for all of this going on.

Right. Unless there was some way for someone to make machines that recycled materials and mined for new materials.

If only there was some way in this hypothetical situation...

spookidooki: way south: All the people working manufacturing would probably find new jobs in mining and recycling. Not to mention the work needed to provide energy for all of this going on.

Right. Unless there was some way for someone to make machines that recycled materials and mined for new materials.

If only there was some way in this hypothetical situation...

...but then your asking for more than just machines with the ability to build machines, maintain machines, and fuel machines, but also the ability to design themselves and program each other with the intelligence to do every task.

A factory machine, even a hypothetically perfect one that costs nothing and runs on wishes, cant do that.

Does submitting "7 things that whatever" posts count as a technology? It sure does seem to be a way to assert mind control over humans.

So, in the future, apparently nukes are no longer destructive.

FTA: So, what's the problem? Well, in a word, BEES NO NOT THE BEES! OH NO MY EYES!

/F BEES

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all