according to video charter school kids are subaverage, not true.

so the kids do better on standardiszed tests. who gives a fuck. downvote.

why is paying teachers less supposed to be some kind of breakthrough in education.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

When they get a process going that can make carbon nanotubes at industrial volumes it will be as significant (if not more) than the development of steel. This is THE materials science breakthrough of our generation.
A 1 mm thick nanotube wire could hold 6,000 KG of weight. It is thirty times stronger than Kevlar and nearly a hundred times stronger than the finest steel.


This is without even bringing to light their electrical properties. They have a chirality induced band gap, so they can be either semiconductive or metallic based on structure. They are absurdly thermally and (in the case of metallic tubes) electrically conductive, due to ballistic conductivity. Electrical current densities are theorized to be more than 1000 times greater than copper. They truly are a miracle material. Biggest problem is the safety issues and cost of production.

Graphene is essentially the same thing, you could say that nanotubes are tubes made out of graphene. Graphene and nanotubes require the same kind of manufacturing. AFAIK they're farther ahead on developing nanotubes on a large scale than graphene, but any advancements on nanotubes will likely result in a boost to graphene development as well.


>> ^EDD:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
When they get a process going that can make carbon nanotubes at industrial volumes it will be as significant (if not more) than the development of steel. This is THE materials science breakthrough of our generation.
A 1 mm thick nanotube wire could hold 6,000 KG of weight. It is thirty times stronger than Kevlar and nearly a hundred times stronger than the finest steel.

gnarly. you seem to know your carbon nanotubes, so care to explain how the potential projected practical applications of graphene stack up to them?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

When they get a process going that can make carbon nanotubes at industrial volumes it will be as significant (if not more) than the development of steel. This is THE materials science breakthrough of our generation.
A 1 mm thick nanotube wire could hold 6,000 KG of weight. It is thirty times stronger than Kevlar and nearly a hundred times stronger than the finest steel.


gnarly. you seem to know your carbon nanotubes, so care to explain how the potential projected practical applications of graphene stack up to them?

When they get a process going that can make carbon nanotubes at industrial volumes it will be as significant (if not more) than the development of steel. This is THE materials science breakthrough of our generation.

A 1 mm thick nanotube wire could hold 6,000 KG of weight. It is thirty times stronger than Kevlar and nearly a hundred times stronger than the finest steel.

>> ^Entropy001:
When in reality the Sherman tank was inferior to the German design.
Well, one could argue that it's more of a difference in the underlying philosophy than quality of engineering. German doctrin was based upon the use of what we now refer to as MBTs (Panzer I-V) while the Brits used infantry tanks (Mathilda, Valentine, Churchill, etc) and cruiser tanks (Cruiser, Crusader, Cromwell, etc), and the US troops deployed infantry tanks (Sherman) and TDs (M10, M18, M36). Once you split breakthrough and exploitation or infantry support and anti-tank warfare into separate vehicles, you're bound to end up with vastly different designs that might draw the short straw more often than not if not used properly.


If you include the lack of resources and manpower in particular, Wehrmacht tanks had to be superior individually, because they were doomed to be inferior numerically. Thus, the US could focus on easier and cheaper production. You don't need Zeiss optics and Krupp steel if you simply aim for number superiority. I'd say both design principles fulfilled their respective roles just fine, even though they could hardly have been more different. Simple, easy to maintain and reliable versus the latest in technology.

The Firefly was nice though, 17pdr was a beast.

Or maybe what I wrote is just a load of cockswallow and the German designs were, in fact, simply superior.

That said, this kitty was one hell of an engineering masterpiece. If they hadn't lost access to rare materials, even the transmission might have worked properly and those buggers wouldn't have broken down every 100km.

Still waiting to see the Panther at Koblenz again, last time was a blast.

@Shepppard, I'm definitely going to be watching the reviews on a Move-enabled SOCOM 4. I'm not a fan of the SOCOM series, but it's definitely not a casual/family title, and it should give us an idea of whether they've made motion control a must-have for core gamers.

@Deano I agree, I think the real exciting part of Move/Kinect is the indie games we're likely to see on PSN and XBLA. I'm a little surprised we haven't had more breakthrough hits from the Wii's indie game store, but only a little.

I'm not going to be first in line for either product, but I'm hopeful they'll find a way to make one or both appealing to me.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Like fusion reactors - A.I. breakthroughs always seem to be about 20 years out. I watched the whole thing, and it sounds really promising, but I wonder if it's just another model that will get us a little way there- and then come up against a fundamental roadblock. Marvin Minsky has sure been at this stuff a long time - and would probably be a bit skeptical.

I love the idea of having a financial market as a "sense" to feed to the A.I. It all sounds very cyberpunk-rock.

Well what did you think they were going to do? Just start throwing shit together, not knowing what the outcome would be? Might end up killing the planet with some super bug or something. The importance is that we were able to specifically put together self-replicating DNA through artificial means. That's a huge breakthrough, even if it is just a copy of what nature did on its own.

Hmm i wonder what goes through her mind when she's kneeling on that bench in handcuffs. "This will be my breakthrough in acting!" maybe?

@Kreegath, I wouldn't say that was my argument. My argument was that the original author wasn't making a particularly bold claim -- he was just raising the concern that a ham-handed pro-social message like "the group is always right" is a dangerous one.

I agree with that.

As I kept revisiting the original post, I realized that I'd come away with the wrong impression the first time I read it. I realized that the author didn't say there was an evil conspiracy afoot, blankfist said that, and acted as though the author agreed with his assertion.

So yeah, the argument topic shifted around a bit at first, but in the end my main point was that blankfist's conspiracy theory is bunk, and what the author said isn't even evidence to support such a claim.

That's when he started calling me a Nazi, said he was "on top", then acted as if he didn't care about winning the argument.

The way I see it, disagreements between people are great opportunities to learn something. The theory goes something like this:

• Everyone believes their viewpoint is based on facts and reason
  
• Facts and reason are deterministic -- i.e. everyone should come to the same conclusions if they use the same facts and proper reasoning
  
• Therefore, if someone disagrees with you, one of you must be using faulty facts, or faulty reason, and debate can uncover which part is the problem.
  

That's why I'm content to argue like a junkyard dog with people who seem to be operate on generally accurate fact, and generally sound reason (like blankfist), because I think there's a possibility one of us might learn something from the other.

It's why I generally don't engage people who live in a virtual reality of their own self-supporting facts (e.g. Obama is a radical socialist, tax cuts universally and permanently increase tax revenue, intelligent design is a valid scientific viewpoint, etc.). There just isn't much opportunity for either of us to learn from one another because they've got a whole universe filled with their own faith-based, incorrect facts supporting them.

There's always a competitive spirit to debates though. You want the other guy to be the one who reassesses his position, not be the one who has to face facts and reconsider your own. However, in my own collectivist opinion, this means arguing is a win-win situation; someone's going to be rid of a flawed or incorrect theory, and someone's going to have their own tested and validated. Even if you don't get that breakthrough, at a minimum it can help both have some healthy skepticism about their own beliefs, and come away with new considerations to reflect on.

Out of this one, I come away wondering what kinds of influences might be in modern day cartoons, and at whose behest, and what can reasonably be done about it. I hope blankfist comes away realizing that the problem is more general than he thinks -- it's not purely collectivist parent groups, it's going to be Christian parent groups, it's going to be anti-government parent groups, it's going to be corporate interests of the network, and it might just be stupid people passing on their own stupidity. It's also not really anything you can do much about, except that you need make sure to be a good parent, and be mindful of messages subtle and gross that other people are sending to your children.

In September 2006, Baldwin released his book titled The Unusual Suspect, which details highlights from his personal life, career, days of drug abuse and ultimately his turn to becoming a born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks.[11] In the same year, Baldwin, Mario D'Ortenzio and Bobby Brewer founded, "Breakthrough Ministries", which was designed to utilize extreme sports as a ministry via arena tours, which were referred to as, "AsSalt Tours", and featured extreme sports celebrities, with Christian Hosoi being the most notable one. In 2007, Daniel Southern joined Baldwin as President of his ministries. In late 2008, Baldwin formed a for-profit organization called, "Antioch Ministry", which exists, "to facilitate the gifts and calling of Stephen Baldwin".[12] In 2009, Baldwin and Southern launched a third ministry called, "Now More Than Ever", designed to reach enlisted men and women in the military, around the world.


Baldwin at CPAC in February 2010, promoting his radio show.
In 2008, Baldwin teamed up with conservative evangelical Christian talk-radio host Kevin McCullough to put together a Saturday radio show called, "Baldwin/McCullough Xtreme Radio". As of April 18, 2009, the show airs on more than 195 stations and in more than 370 cities across the country.[13] Baldwin appears weekly on the show from the broadcast studios in New York City, as well as from various locations around the country when he is traveling for other business purposes.
-Wikipedia

What a terrible fuck fase he is

Your video, Neil deGrasse Tyson. the next great scientific breakthrough, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^westy:
surly the faster you go the more you have to decelerate so say u got to mars in 30 days as aposed to 1 year you would have to spend ages going around its gravity feailds before u lost enough speed to safely enter the atmosphere. ethor that or you are going to have to waste a tun of fuel to brake.


Its quotes like this that show who has and who hasn't played a game from the Elite series.

>> ^JAPR:
Wow, 2010 really IS the future! About damn time a new decade/century/whatever means something cool for futuristic technology.


The 2000s saw more scientific/technological progress than any decade in the history of humankind. That's assured just by the continually accelerating rate of progress.

Not only (1) are scientists and innovators around the world better connected with each other than ever before, but (2) a greater proportion of humankind is contributing than ever before. It used to be just a handful of nations, led by North America and Britain, but now we're at the point where China is actually 2nd only to the US as a producer of scientific knowledge, and it's expected to pass the US in 2020.

Does anybody remember what the internet was like in 1999? I'd rather gauge my eyes out.