36 replies to this topic

[belinda_sue_fox]

Well, enlighten me on this "well known" point, I need some actual sources, I do not take anyone's word for anything without checking the sources and since I have never heard of this, I cannot in any way agree or accept it as fact.

Damn who knows, known it from way back. Course then again how many and how often you hung around with people who actually wo*ked with the guy. So yea the chances of you knowing are slim.

[KittenAB]

I've never heard that about Sagan. So I'd like to see some sources as well. I've only ever heard of him as well regarded.

For Carl Sagan you'd be best searching for his speeches on YouTube, many have uploaded them under Fair Use, but he is a cosmologist from the 80's who had a great philosophical technique for speeches. His lectures were often recorded with, at the time, really high quality imagery to accent his points. He was a dreamer of dreamers, though a bit of a pot smoker but meh, we all have vices.

[gah!ghost]

Hah, I know who Sagan is, he's fantastic. I was saying, in response to belinda, that I had never heard anyone say that Sagan was anything but an upstanding respected scientist.

[KittenAB]

Damn who knows, known it from way back. Course then again how many and how often you hung around with people who actually wo*ked with the guy. So yea the chances of you knowing are slim.

As I said, being a skeptic I cannot accept hearsay information as fact. Not saying you are lying, just that I cannot accept it without some actual sources. As far as I know, Sagan was a brilliant person. Many intellectual minds are arrogant, I'm arrogant as hell myself and I am not a scientist in any way, just a dreamer and a very fast learner. My one talent, I have a learning curve that is that of a child even now. In the last few months I have learned advanced evolutionary theory and even understand it all, phylogeny is still boring though.

There is a genetic link to intellect and anti-social personality traits though, it's a circumstantial link still because of various other factors, however it is holding true. However, even then, a lot of people who speak to someone on a topic they know a lot about will often appear abrasive or vain simply because we use a language that is tailored to that topic, often scientific terminology or even old Latin and Greek words, and we are just use to using stricter grammar at times. This is intimidating to the common person, though most often no intimidation is intended. Take abiogensis for example, it just makes sense to me, it's basic chemistry to me (a subject I have been keeping up on since high school) yet, to explain it to a person who has never had any high level chemistry education is frustrating to say the least.

[KittenAB]

Hah, I know who Sagan is, he's fantastic. I was saying, in response to belinda, that I had never heard anyone say that Sagan was anything but an upstanding respected scientist.

Right now though, I'm in love with Brian Cox .... the guy's genius, and his voice is soothing, I use his lectures for lulling me to sleep lately. If you like Sagan then I highly recommend you see some of Cox's lectures, if you have not yet seen him.

[gah!ghost]

Brian Cox, not the actor right? I love the actor. I think he's among the more underrated actors out there and was a better Lector than Hopkins, although I do also generally like Hopkins in most other roles.

[Diapered Jason]

Not a scientist Kitten? I could have sworn you were a computer scientist, at least, you sure acted like one, lol. As for abiogensis, it seems viable since we can synthesize the organic compounds necessary for life in a lab easily. Depending on the environment Earth had at the time these organic compounds were created (presence of heat, acid or base, water, right reagents, etc.), synthesis in the environment may have been very probable. Putting all these organic compounds together to form an organism, now that is harder. Self-assembly, as we call it, is the way this is done, and as far as research goes, we are just getting started on it as it has many lessons to teach us regarding the synthesis of nanostructured materials. The easiest way to think of self-assembly is building things from the bottom up, which is how organisms have been doing it for years. This is antithetical to what we have been doing in areas such as the electronic industry where we take a chunk of material and cut it into smaller pieces to make a chip with very fine features in a top down approach. I would not call this research into self-assembly biomimetics per se, but we are borrowing the idea so we can create new novel materials in a cheap, cost effective way. Fun stuff.

[KittenAB]

Brian Cox, not the actor right? I love the actor. I think he's among the more underrated actors out there and was a better Lector than Hopkins, although I do also generally like Hopkins in most other roles.

No, I keep forgetting there are two Brian Cox's. LOL

Not a scientist Kitten? I could have sworn you were a computer scientist, at least, you sure acted like one, lol. As for abiogensis, it seems viable since we can synthesize the organic compounds necessary for life in a lab easily. Depending on the environment Earth had at the time these organic compounds were created (presence of heat, acid or base, water, right reagents, etc.), synthesis in the environment may have been very probable. Putting all these organic compounds together to form an organism, now that is harder. Self-assembly, as we call it, is the way this is done, and as far as research goes, we are just getting started on it as it has many lessons to teach us regarding the synthesis of nanostructured materials. The easiest way to think of self-assembly is building things from the bottom up, which is how organisms have been doing it for years. This is antithetical to what we have been doing in areas such as the electronic industry where we take a chunk of material and cut it into smaller pieces to make a chip with very fine features in a top down approach. I would not call this research into self-assembly biomimetics per se, but we are borrowing the idea so we can create new novel materials in a cheap, cost effective way. Fun stuff.

I am a computer scientist in the loosest of terms, I fell behind on keeping up though and admit it's not something one can afford to fall behind on.

With abiogenesis, as I said, once I saw it in chemical form, it made perfect sense to me since I have an aptitude for, well, any science that has a strict set of rules like chemistry and computers. Basically though, the only chance involved was that we wound up on this particular planet, considering the number of planets in the habitable zone are probably in the thousands in just our galaxy and that we have found perfect conditions to support life in even planets out of the habitable zone, it was inevitable.

Right now the biggest challenge in computer technology is mono-electron pathways and gates. We can't accomplish this at room temperature without losing data to straying electrons. This is why they have been focusing on multi-core processors lately, unless we all want huge freezers attached to our computers, the mono-electron circuitry is just out of reach. My area of focus in computer sciences though is in the realm of software engineering, data processing software specifically. I have also branched into artificial intelligence, the concept is a dream of mine since reading Asimov as a child, which lead me to study various sciences like neurology and even psychology, though only briefly. I have a hypothesis for an artificial intelligence learning engine but it would require stimuli beyond text, so I have never been able to actually test it. If I can one day afford a NAO robot, I'll make it learn and think just like a living thing ... someday. The entire engine concept is based on how neural pathways work in biological organisms, simulated with a database for "memory," but I need more than "no" as the negative input.

[belinda_sue_fox]

Lol

[Diapered Jason]

No, I keep forgetting there are two Brian Cox's. LOL


I am a computer scientist in the loosest of terms, I fell behind on keeping up though and admit it's not something one can afford to fall behind on.

With abiogenesis, as I said, once I saw it in chemical form, it made perfect sense to me since I have an aptitude for, well, any science that has a strict set of rules like chemistry and computers. Basically though, the only chance involved was that we wound up on this particular planet, considering the number of planets in the habitable zone are probably in the thousands in just our galaxy and that we have found perfect conditions to support life in even planets out of the habitable zone, it was inevitable.

Right now the biggest challenge in computer technology is mono-electron pathways and gates. We can't accomplish this at room temperature without losing data to straying electrons. This is why they have been focusing on multi-core processors lately, unless we all want huge freezers attached to our computers, the mono-electron circuitry is just out of reach. My area of focus in computer sciences though is in the realm of software engineering, data processing software specifically. I have also branched into artificial intelligence, the concept is a dream of mine since reading Asimov as a child, which lead me to study various sciences like neurology and even psychology, though only briefly. I have a hypothesis for an artificial intelligence learning engine but it would require stimuli beyond text, so I have never been able to actually test it. If I can one day afford a NAO robot, I'll make it learn and think just like a living thing ... someday. The entire engine concept is based on how neural pathways work in biological organisms, simulated with a database for "memory," but I need more than "no" as the negative input.

Actually, chemistry does not have set rules, especially organic chemistry. You can remember the reaction steps exactly on paper, but when you test it you may have a different product mixed in with your intended product. This is not just from unintended reactions, but also from the intended reactions that can form various stereochemistry for the product. It is probability just like the electrons in your MOSFET remember.

Adding graphene sheets (single layer of graphite) to the chip really helps increase heat transfer, but that is not the only issue with nanometer size gates. Another way to improve this is to improve performance, such as a better gate dielectric material to prevent current leakage. That is why they switched from silicon oxide to hafnium oxide compounds in the technology with 45 nm size transistors or smaller. You also have something called electromigration, which will cause material to gradual move resulting in shorts or open circuits. I can't remember what they are doing about that. You mentioned single-electron transistors, which make use of a coulomb blockade. They have great potential, but we still need to resolve the charge offset issue, where the necessary gate voltage to achieve maximum current fluctuates making it impossible to incorporate it into a device.

Perhaps it is better to think of newer alternatives. Quantum dot computing would be really good and there is certainly quite a bit of research in that area. I will tell you one thing, it will significantly change computer language such that is will no longer be bits, but rather something called qubits. The advantage of qubits is they are not limited to two states as they also can be the superposition of the two states, which significantly increases processing capability. There is also single molecule transistors, where we make use of polymeric semiconducting materials to create the transistor with one tri-block polymer or with films. Unfortunately, these organic semiconducting materials are notorious for low electron mobility. Still, it may replace amorphous silicon soon in certain electronic devices.

Well, I can talk about these things all day. I never studied programming all that much, so I do not know that much about artificial intelligence. It is certainly a very interesting prospect if we can create something that can learn. It would be so nice to have Data in the lab, lol.

[KittenAB]

Actually, chemistry does not have set rules, especially organic chemistry. You can remember the reaction steps exactly on paper, but when you test it you may have a different product mixed in with your intended product. This is not just from unintended reactions, but also from the intended reactions that can form various stereochemistry for the product. It is probability just like the electrons in your MOSFET remember.

Adding graphene sheets (single layer of graphite) to the chip really helps increase heat transfer, but that is not the only issue with nanometer size gates. Another way to improve this is to improve performance, such as a better gate dielectric material to prevent current leakage. That is why they switched from silicon oxide to hafnium oxide compounds in the technology with 45 nm size transistors or smaller. You also have something called electromigration, which will cause material to gradual move resulting in shorts or open circuits. I can't remember what they are doing about that. You mentioned single-electron transistors, which make use of a coulomb blockade. They have great potential, but we still need to resolve the charge offset issue, where the necessary gate voltage to achieve maximum current fluctuates making it impossible to incorporate it into a device.

Perhaps it is better to think of newer alternatives. Quantum dot computing would be really good and there is certainly quite a bit of research in that area. I will tell you one thing, it will significantly change computer language such that is will no longer be bits, but rather something called qubits. The advantage of qubits is they are not limited to two states as they also can be the superposition of the two states, which significantly increases processing capability. There is also single molecule transistors, where we make use of polymeric semiconducting materials to create the transistor with one tri-block polymer or with films. Unfortunately, these organic semiconducting materials are notorious for low electron mobility. Still, it may replace amorphous silicon soon in certain electronic devices.

Well, I can talk about these things all day. I never studied programming all that much, so I do not know that much about artificial intelligence. It is certainly a very interesting prospect if we can create something that can learn. It would be so nice to have Data in the lab, lol.

Some of the labs are trying to move into new circuit technology but are often hurt due to a lack of funding. Most tech businesses are afraid of the costs for switching over to a new tech in spite of the fact that it could be done seamlessly. I am hoping for a real advance soon though, the last real advance in technology was the transistor really, everything in the digital world is really just sets of transistors. I would prefer something really new to study, not just a new method of doing the same thing, but a whole new technology would really restore my passion for electronics.

Well, for current artificial intelligence they are utilizing only basic difference engines, which have very limited applications. The biological brain has several difference engines plus several learning engines to accomplish it's tasks, but AI code is often limited to just one difference engine with a pretty incomplete learning engine. However, to make a complete AI one would also have to incorporate other forms of input, like audio, visual, etc., each with their own pair of engines. All driven by one primary pair of engines. With our current technology we couldn't make an actual robot with an AI because to accomplish the various engines with any amount of speed requires an individual CPU core and vast amounts of memory. We are, however, finally looking at solid state storage as a real method of data storage again. That tech is so old yet too few people even considered it viable until cellphones and digital media devices became popular. The speed increase for SSD tech is massive compared to the old standard hard drive we use today. Just an example of how an old tech got pushed to the side prematurely. SSD is probably the key to unlocking a potentially huge boom in AI research, because of it's speed and accuracy the software engines could function with the speed of the biological brain.

[Diapered Jason]

Good stuff, so they really want to use SSDs for AI. That makes some sense, and it may be an old idea, but the technology has been reinvented with the advent of flash. Unfortunately, the loss of data over time may be an issue, but hey, that will make them more human, lol. There is also real potential for a 3D data storage to allow petabytes of information to be stored. I know GE is doing some research into 3D optical data storage. Really cool stuff. If you are looking for something new, I would take a look at the organic electronics, or the organic/inorganic hybrid electronics. I too am turned off by the development of silicon-based technology, since I feel Moore's Law will hit a road block soon and they know that. I am really fascinated by the alternative electronic materials, which have shown great potential in select applications. I know both the DoD and the DoE are supplying quite a few grants for this and so are private companies such as Intel even. There is more out there then you think.

[KittenAB]

Good stuff, so they really want to use SSDs for AI. That makes some sense, and it may be an old idea, but the technology has been reinvented with the advent of flash. Unfortunately, the loss of data over time may be an issue, but hey, that will make them more human, lol. There is also real potential for a 3D data storage to allow petabytes of information to be stored. I know GE is doing some research into 3D optical data storage. Really cool stuff. If you are looking for something new, I would take a look at the organic electronics, or the organic/inorganic hybrid electronics. I too am turned off by the development of silicon-based technology, since I feel Moore's Law will hit a road block soon and they know that. I am really fascinated by the alternative electronic materials, which have shown great potential in select applications. I know both the DoD and the DoE are supplying quite a few grants for this and so are private companies such as Intel even. There is more out there then you think.

I admit not knowing who is developing what, but was speaking about the end-user companies for the fear of transitioning. Yeah, when I heard they were going to replace hard drives with SSDs soon I squeed. Once they find solutions to the degradation it will be the future. The drawback will be having to upgrade a lot of stuff. LOL But meh, it's worth it at this stage.

Right now I am getting a bit high and mighty on some creatards on another forum though, they insult my intelligence with crap from a creationist source, which have all been debunked and mocked so many times it's getting old. I only have a high-school understanding of biology and taxonomy yet even I can't help but facepalm at the stupid claims of "irreducible complexity" or my personal favorite to laugh at the "missing link" crap. I swear, the people who buy into the creatard garbage have never even opened a biology book.

[Diapered Jason]

What if we could combine the advantages of SSD and magnetic hard drives. Then, we are talking about spintronics, which may be one possible future for data storage in computers. There some interesting research there too.

Sigh, intelligent design, lol. If that is the case, then why are we designed so unintelligibly. We are not some grand design. That much is certain. Sure, life is wonderful and we still have quite a bit to learn from it, but it is not an act of a higher power and can be explained with some depth. These are the same people who would have thought the world was flat back in Columbus's day or even more recently say it is impossible to break the sound barrier, because they are assuming the answer to the questions they are fearful about with little understanding. Sure, the "world is flat" seems silly now and we can obviously fly faster than the speed of sound, but I am willing to bet (and I do not bet often) that intelligent design will be laughed at by everyone in the future just like we all laugh at the "world is flat" concept now. Quite a bit of how life was pieced together can already be explained through something called intermolecular forces that are attractions between neighboring atoms that have different charges, but they are much weaker than actual bonds. Basically, it is the thing that makes water a solvent and cling to many surfaces. In us, these forces are the reason proteins fold in such a way, thereby facilitating the various chemical reactions that take place in us. This is also the reason cells are assembled in such a way. Most importantly, the DNA's structure is based off of these forces. These intermolecular forces are used in the replication of DNA sort of like fitting the right puzzle pieces in the right spots. This is all coming back to the self-assembly stuff I mentioned earlier.

[KittenAB]

What if we could combine the advantages of SSD and magnetic hard drives. Then, we are talking about spintronics, which may be one possible future for data storage in computers. There some interesting research there too.

Sigh, intelligent design, lol. If that is the case, then why are we designed so unintelligibly. We are not some grand design. That much is certain. Sure, life is wonderful and we still have quite a bit to learn from it, but it is not an act of a higher power and can be explained with some depth. These are the same people who would have thought the world was flat back in Columbus's day or even more recently say it is impossible to break the sound barrier, because they are assuming the answer to the questions they are fearful about with little understanding. Sure, the "world is flat" seems silly now and we can obviously fly faster than the speed of sound, but I am willing to bet (and I do not bet often) that intelligent design will be laughed at by everyone in the future just like we all laugh at the "world is flat" concept now. Quite a bit of how life was pieced together can already be explained through something called intermolecular forces that are attractions between neighboring atoms that have different charges, but they are much weaker than actual bonds. Basically, it is the thing that makes water a solvent and cling to many surfaces. In us, these forces are the reason proteins fold in such a way, thereby facilitating the various chemical reactions that take place in us. This is also the reason cells are assembled in such a way. Most importantly, the DNA's structure is based off of these forces. These intermolecular forces are used in the replication of DNA sort of like fitting the right puzzle pieces in the right spots. This is all coming back to the self-assembly stuff I mentioned earlier.

The worst part ... it was a freaking atheist who was defending "intelligent design" as if it was science. Quote mining Hawkings was the low that pissed me off so much I just stopped bothering. No more, I won't even associate or discuss science with people who don't even understand the basics of evolution. But to quote mine a great mind makes me no longer want to speak to the person at all, ever. It's unforgivable for an atheist to quote mine anyone, in my opinion, it's the same as lying.

The self replicating polymers have been produced in the lab, so it's very feasible that abiogenesis is valid at this point. However, Hawkings puts one feasible hypothesis into the mix which leads to the possibility that these did not originate on the planet itself but were on an asteroid. Since conditions for them would not have been likely to be perfect on Earth itself. We also know that organic material is very common in cloud masses around new forming stars. I'm enjoying hearing and learning of the new hypothesis far more these days. Asimov also came up with that hypothesis just his was worded in science fiction and was not submitted as an official one. Lovecraft, ironically, also postulated this very concept in a few of his works.

[JBonn]

Sorry for jumping in late, but to the original post, no we weren't able to attend. Wish like heck we could have. Perhaps if they do it again we'll be able to arrange it. I've seen various clips on youtube from the event, most of them poor quality, however. Hoping that the rumors of the organizers selling a comprehensive video later are true. The one thing that disappointed me about the rally was the way the speakers were set up. Many of them only had 5-10 minutes to say their bit. Imho, that's not enough time to say more than "thanks, this is great, our group is good so come check us out". I think if you're going to try to include that many speakers/performers you need to stretch it out to at least 2 days to give them a bit more time each. (or, of course, reduce the number of "talent" on the stage)

At any rate, glad to see it happened, and that so many braved the rain.

[KittenAB]

Sorry for jumping in late, but to the original post, no we weren't able to attend. Wish like heck we could have. Perhaps if they do it again we'll be able to arrange it. I've seen various clips on youtube from the event, most of them poor quality, however. Hoping that the rumors of the organizers selling a comprehensive video later are true. The one thing that disappointed me about the rally was the way the speakers were set up. Many of them only had 5-10 minutes to say their bit. Imho, that's not enough time to say more than "thanks, this is great, our group is good so come check us out". I think if you're going to try to include that many speakers/performers you need to stretch it out to at least 2 days to give them a bit more time each. (or, of course, reduce the number of "talent" on the stage)

At any rate, glad to see it happened, and that so many braved the rain.

Yeah, the speakers had too little time. They need a Reason Rally that spans a whole week, in my opinion. Make it a real event, like the Pride Parade and other such events. Also two stages, one for variety acts and the other for speakers would have organized it all better as well as given people more to do so they would have wasted less time "debating" with the disruptors. Eric Hovind was one of the people disrupting on the fringe, and certain atheists and scientific minds just can't resist that creatard. LOL