Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items matching "ames" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
darioizzo2

Optimised spatial planning to meet long term urban sustainability objectives - ScienceDirect - 3 views

www.sciencedirect.com/...S0198971515300090

shared by darioizzo2 on 18 Jan 19 - No Cached
  • darioizzo2 on 18 Jan 19
     
    for the ACT architects .... Can we do the same for the Moon Village? We brainstorm on some mathematical simplified objectives for growing the settlement (taking inputs from the modular growth, resources, terrain suitability etc ....), we define some simple rules for growth and we optimize. ..... easy peasy (i am serious)
  • marliesarnhof on 21 Jan 19
     
    i agree, with most of the parameters that would actually be really cool. but doesn't it get very messy once economy plays a large factor?
  • darioizzo2 on 21 Jan 19
     
    We can start studying the ideal case, or add also some economical constraints on the settlement layout ...
Dario Izzo

Miguel Nicolelis Says the Brain Is Not Computable, Bashes Kurzweil's Singularity | MIT Technology Review - 9 views

www.technologyreview.com/...the-brain-is-not-computable

Singularity AI Brain

shared by Dario Izzo on 28 Feb 13 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Dario Izzo on 28 Feb 13
     
    As I said ten years ago and psychoanalysts 100 years ago. Luis I am so sorry :) Also ... now that the commission funded the project blue brain is a rather big hit Btw Nicolelis is a rather credited neuro-scientist
  • ...14 more comments...
  • LeopoldS on 28 Feb 13
     
    nice article; Luzi would agree as well I assume; one aspect not clear to me is the causal relationship it seems to imply between consciousness and randomness ... anybody?
  • Luís F. Simões on 01 Mar 13
     
    This is the same thing Penrose has been saying for ages (and yes, I read the book). IF the human brain proves to be the only conceivable system capable of consciousness/intelligence AND IF we'll forever be limited to the Turing machine type of computation (which is what the "Not Computable" in the article refers to) AND IF the brain indeed is not computable, THEN AI people might need to worry... Because I seriously doubt the first condition will prove to be true, same with the second one, and because I don't really care about the third (brains is not my thing).. I'm not worried.
  • Dario Izzo on 01 Mar 13
     
    In any case, all AI research is going in the wrong direction: the mainstream is not on how to go beyond Turing machines, rather how to program them well enough ...... and thats not bringing anywhere near the singularity
  • Luís F. Simões on 01 Mar 13
     
    It has not been shown that intelligence is not computable (only some people saying the human brain isn't, which is something different), so I wouldn't go so far as saying the mainstream is going in the wrong direction. But even if that indeed was the case, would it be a problem? If so, well, then someone should quickly go and tell all the people trading in financial markets that they should stop using computers... after all, they're dealing with uncomputable undecidable problems. :) (and research on how to go beyond Turing computation does exist, but how much would you want to devote your research to a non existent machine?)
  • Dario Izzo on 01 Mar 13
     
    [warning: troll] If you are happy with developing algorithms that serve the financial market ... good for you :) After all they have been proved to be useful for humankind beyond any reasonable doubt.
  • Ma Ru on 04 Mar 13
     
    Two comments from me: 1) an apparently credible scientist takes Kurzweil seriously enough to engage with him in polemics... oops 2) what worries me most, I didn't get the retail store pun at the end of article...
  • Dario Izzo on 04 Mar 13
     
    True, but after Google hired Kurzweil he is de facto being taken seriously ... so I guess Nicolelis reacted to this.
  • Ma Ru on 04 Mar 13
     
    Crazy scientist in residence... interesting marketing move, I suppose.
  • Luzi Bergamin on 05 Mar 13
     
    Unfortunately, I can't upload my two kids to the cloud to make them sleep, that's why I comment only now :-). But, of course, I MUST add my comment to this discussion. I don't really get what Nicolelis point is, the article is just too short and at a too popular level. But please realize that the question is not just "computable" vs. "non-computable". A system may be computable (we have a collection of rules called "theory" that we can put on a computer and run in a finite time) and still it need not be predictable. Since the lack of predictability pretty obviously applies to the human brain (as it does to any sufficiently complex and nonlinear system) the question whether it is computable or not becomes rather academic. Markram and his fellows may come up with a incredible simulation program of the human brain, this will be rather useless since they cannot solve the initial value problem and even if they could they will be lost in randomness after a short simulation time due to horrible non-linearities... Btw: this is not my idea, it was pointed out by Bohr more than 100 years ago...
  • Dario Izzo on 05 Mar 13
     
    I guess chaos is what you are referring to. Stuff like the Lorentz attractor. In which case I would say that the point is not to predict one particular brain (in which case you would be right): any initial conditions would be fine as far as any brain gets started :) that is the goal :)
  • Luzi Bergamin on 05 Mar 13
     
    Kurzweil talks about downloading your brain to a computer, so he has a specific brain in mind; Markram talks about identifying neural basis of mental diseases, so he has at least pretty specific situations in mind. Chaos is not the only problem, even a perfectly linear brain (which is not a biological brain) is not predictable, since one cannot determine a complete set of initial conditions of a working (viz. living) brain (after having determined about 10% the brain is dead and the data useless). But the situation is even worse: from all we know a brain will only work with a suitable interaction with its environment. So these boundary conditions one has to determine as well. This is already twice impossible. But the situation is worse again: from all we know, the way the brain interacts with its environment at a neural level depends on his history (how this brain learned). So your boundary conditions (that are impossible to determine) depend on your initial conditions (that are impossible to determine). Thus the situation is rather impossible squared than twice impossible. I'm sure Markram will simulate something, but this will rather be the famous Boltzmann brain than a biological one. Boltzman brains work with any initial conditions and any boundary conditions... and are pretty dead!
  • Dario Izzo on 05 Mar 13
     
    Say one has an accurate model of a brain. It may be the case that the initial and boundary conditions do not matter that much in order for the brain to function an exhibit macro-characteristics useful to make science. Again, if it is not one particular brain you are targeting, but the 'brain' as a general entity this would make sense if one has an accurate model (also to identify the neural basis of mental diseases). But in my opinion, the construction of such a model of the brain is impossible using a reductionist approach (that is taking the naive approach of putting together some artificial neurons and connecting them in a huge net). That is why both Kurzweil and Markram are doomed to fail.
  • johannessimon81 on 06 Mar 13
     
    I think that in principle some kind of artificial brain should be feasible. But making a brain by just throwing together a myriad of neurons is probably as promising as throwing together some copper pipes and a heap of silica and expecting it to make calculations for you. Like in the biological system, I suspect, an artificial brain would have to grow from a small tiny functional unit by adding neurons and complexity slowly and in a way that in a stable way increases the "usefulness"/fitness. Apparently our brain's usefulness has to do with interpreting inputs of our sensors to the world and steering the body making sure that those sensors, the brain and the rest of the body are still alive 10 seconds from now (thereby changing the world -> sensor inputs -> ...). So the artificial brain might need sensors and a body to affect the "world" creating a much larger feedback loop than the brain itself. One might argue that the complexity of the sensor inputs is the reason why the brain needs to be so complex in the first place. I never quite see from these "artificial brain" proposals in how far they are trying to simulate the whole system and not just the brain. Anyone? Or are they trying to simulate the human brain after it has been removed from the body? That might be somewhat easier I guess...
  • Luís F. Simões on 06 Mar 13
     
    Johannes: "I never quite see from these "artificial brain" proposals in how far they are trying to simulate the whole system and not just the brain." In Artificial Life the whole environment+bodies&brains is simulated. You have also the whole embodied cognition movement that basically advocates for just that: no true intelligence until you model the system in its entirety. And from that you then have people building robotic bodies, and getting their "brains" to learn from scratch how to control them, and through the bodies, the environment. Right now, this is obviously closer to the complexity of insect brains, than human ones. (my take on this is: yes, go ahead and build robots, if the intelligence you want to get in the end is to be displayed in interactions with the real physical world...) It's easy to dismiss Markram's Blue Brain for all their clever marketing pronouncements that they're building a human-level consciousness on a computer, but from what I read of the project, they seem to be developing a platfrom onto which any scientist can plug in their model of a detail of a detail of .... of the human brain, and get it to run together with everyone else's models of other tiny parts of the brain. This is not the same as getting the artificial brain to interact with the real world, but it's a big step in enabling scientists to study their own models on more realistic settings, in which the models' outputs get to effect many other systems, and throuh them feed back into its future inputs. So Blue Brain's biggest contribution might be in making model evaluation in neuroscience less wrong, and that doesn't seem like a bad thing. At some point the reductionist approach needs to start moving in the other direction.
  • Luzi Bergamin on 06 Mar 13
     
    @ Dario: absolutely agree, the reductionist approach is the main mistake. My point: if you take the reductionsit approach, then you will face the initial and boundary value problem. If one tries a non-reductionist approach, this problem may be much weaker. But off the record: there exists a non-reductionist theory of the brain, it's called psychology... @ Johannes: also agree, the only way the reductionist approach could eventually be successful is to actually grow the brain. Start with essentially one neuron and grow the whole complexity. But if you want to do this, bring up a kid! A brain without body might be easier? Why do you expect that a brain detached from its complete input/output system actually still works. I'm pretty sure it does not!
  • johannessimon81 on 06 Mar 13
     
    @Luzi: That was exactly my point :-)
Marcus Maertens

StarCraft II Official Game Site - 4 views

starcraft2.com/...22933138

AI

shared by Marcus Maertens on 11 Jul 19 - No Cached
microno95 liked it
  • Marcus Maertens on 11 Jul 19
     
    Correct me, if I am wrong, but AFAIK this is the first time an AI enters a ladder, i.e. playing against humans on their own terms in the wild and not as part of some pre-arranged experiment.
Wiktor Piotrowski

I am a senior IT systems engineer for the Science, Robotic and Exploration directorate of the European Space Agency in the Netherlands - AMA :IAmA - 4 views

www.reddit.com/...stems_engineer_for_the_science

space agency netherlands ama

shared by Wiktor Piotrowski on 23 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Wiktor Piotrowski on 23 Nov 12
     
    In case you want to ask him anything
LeopoldS

Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 141102 (2013): First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station: Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5-350 GeV - 0 views

prl.aps.org/...e141102

dark matter AMS ISS

shared by LeopoldS on 05 Apr 13 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 05 Apr 13
     
    for Sante to review - or believe in dark matter :-)
LeopoldS

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) - 1 views

am.ascb.org/dora

impact factor publications science

shared by LeopoldS on 23 May 13 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 23 May 13
     
    another attempt to address impact factors
johannessimon81

"Natural Light Cloaking for Aquatic and Terrestrial Creatures" - 3 views

www.technologyreview.com/...his-time-from-china-and-beyond

cloaking science technology

shared by johannessimon81 on 12 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 12 Jun 13
     
    Cheap and scalable invisibility cloaks being developed. The setup is so trivial that I would almost call it a "trick" (as in "Magicians trick"): 6 prisms of n=1.78 glass. Nontheless, it does the job of cloaking an object at visible wavelengths and from several directions.
  • ...6 more comments...
  • Dario Izzo on 13 Jun 13
     
    can we build one?
  • johannessimon81 on 13 Jun 13
     
    Yes, I just did :-) It is on my desk
  • johannessimon81 on 13 Jun 13
     
    New video here (smaller file than previous): "https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58527156/20130613_101701.mp4" Note how close to the center of the field of view the hidden objects are. I am quite surprised that such poor lenses create such a sharp focus.
  • Thijs Versloot on 13 Jun 13
     
    Well.. I would say that it is not "fully cloaking", as the image behind is mirrored as well
  • johannessimon81 on 13 Jun 13
     
    That just means that you have to double the setup, i.e., put 4 glasses in a row. Of course the obvious drawback is that you can only look at this cloak from one direction.
  • Dario Izzo on 13 Jun 13
  • Luzi Bergamin on 14 Jun 13
     
    Is this really new? I don't know, but I know that the original idea of cloaking was pretty different. When cloaking as an application of transformation optics became popular people tried to make devices that work for any incidence angle, any polarization and in full wave optics (not just ray approximation). This is really hard to achieve and I guess that the people that tried to make such devices knew exactly that the task becomes almost trivial by dropping at least two of the three conditions above.
  • johannessimon81 on 14 Jun 13
     
    I think it is very easy to call something trivial when you're not the one who invested considerable time (5 min in my case) to design a cloaking device and fill the coffee mugs with water... Also, I did not really violate that many conditions: true I reduced the number of dimensions in which the device works to 1 (as opposed to the 2 dimensions of many metamaterial cloaks). However the polarization should not be affected in my setup as well as the wave phase and wave vector (so it works in full wave optics) - apart maybe from the imperfect lens distortion, but hey I was improvising.
Marcus Maertens

Everything You Wanted to Know about Space Tourism but Were Afraid to Ask | Space Safety Magazine - 3 views

www.spacesafetymagazine.com/...wanted-space-tourism-afraid

space

shared by Marcus Maertens on 04 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Marcus Maertens on 04 Feb 13
     
    "chances are that if 700 passengers are flown annually, up to 10 of them might not survive the flight in the first years of the operations." most remarkable also the question who is to blame if a dead and burned space tourist corps comes crashing down from the sky into your car.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • dejanpetkow on 07 Feb 13
     
    How sure is the information that a human body would not completely burn / ablate during atmospheric re-entry? I am not aware of any material ground tests in a plasma wind tunnel confirming that human tissue would survive re-entry from LEO.
  • Marcus Maertens on 07 Feb 13
     
    Since a steak would not even be cooked by dropping it from very high altitudes (http://what-if.xkcd.com/28/) I would doubt that a space tourists body would desintegrate by atmospheric re-entry.
  • dejanpetkow on 07 Feb 13
     
    Funny link, however, some things are not clear enough: 1. Ablation rate is unknown 2. What are the entry conditions? The link suggests that the steak is just dropped (no initial velocity). 3. What about the ballistic coefficient? 4. How would the entry body orientation? It would be a quite non-steady state configuration I guess with heavy accelerations. 5. How would vacuum exposure impact on the water in the body/steak and what would be the consequence for ablation behaviour? 6. Does surface chemistry play a role (not ablation, but catalysis)? My conclusion: the example with the steak is a funny and not so bad exercise, not more.
  • LeopoldS on 09 Feb 13
     
    This calls for some we serious simulations by the Petkow code it seems to me ...
  • dejanpetkow on 09 Feb 13
     
    I still would need some serious input data...
johannessimon81

Asteroid mining could lead to self-sustaining space stations - VIDEO!!! - 5 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...id-mining-space-stations-video

fun

shared by johannessimon81 on 23 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 23 Jan 13
     
    Let's all start up some crazy space companies together: harvest hydrogen on Jupiter, trap black holes as unlimited energy supplies, use high temperatures close to the sun to bake bread! Apparently it is really easy to do just about anything and Deep Space Industries is really good at it. Plus: in their video they show Mars One concepts while referring to ESA and NASA.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Marcus Maertens on 23 Jan 13
     
    I really wonder what they wanna mine out there? Is there such a high demand on... rocks?! And do they really think they can collect fuel somewhere?
  • Wiktor Piotrowski on 24 Jan 13
     
    Well they want to avoid having to send resources into space and rather make it all in space. The first mission is just to find possible asteroids worth mining and bring some asteroid rocks to Earth for analysis. In 2020 they want to start mining for precious metals (e.g. nickel), water and such.They also want to put up a 3D printer in space so that it would extract, separate and/or fuse asteroidal resources together and then print the needed structures already in space. And even though on earth it's just rocks, in space a tonne of them has an estimated value of 1 million dollars (as opposed to 4000 USD on Earth). Although I like the idea, I would put DSI in the same basket as those Mars One nutters 'cause it's not gonna happen.
  • johannessimon81 on 25 Jan 13
     
    I will get excited once they demonstrate they can put a random rock into their machine and out comes a bicycle (then the obvious next step is a space station).
  • Joris _ on 26 Jan 13
     
    hmm aside from the technological feasibility, their approach still should be taken as an example, and deserve a little support. By tackling such difficult problems, they will devise innovative stuffs. Plus, even if this doom-to-fail endeavour may still seem you useless, it creates jobs and make people think... it is already a positive! Final word: how is that different from what Planetary Resources plan to do? It is founded by a bunch of so-called "nuts" ... (http://www.planetaryresources.com/team/) ! a little thought: "We must never be afraid to go too far, for success lies just beyond" - Proust
  • johannessimon81 on 28 Jan 13
     
    I don't think that this proposal is very different from the one by Planetary Resources. My scepticism is rooted in the fact that - at least to my knowledge - fully autonomous mining technology has not even been demonstrated on Earth. I am sure that their proposition is in principle (technically) feasible but at the same time I do not believe that a privately funded company will find enough people to finance a multi-billion dollar R&D project that may or may not lead to an economically sensible outcome, i.e. generate profit (not income - you have to pay back the R&D cost first) within the next 25 years. And on that timescale anything can happen - for all we know we will all be slaves to the singularity by the time they start mining. I do think that people who tackle difficult problems deserve support - and lots of it. It seems however that up till now they have only tackled making a promotional video... About job creation (sorry for the sarcasm): if usefulness is not so important my proposal would be to give shovels to two people - person A digs a hole and person B fills up the same hole at the same time. The good thing about this is that you can increase the number of jobs created simply by handing out more shovels.
jcunha

Vacuum tubes are back - in nano form - 0 views

phys.org/...r-combines-semiconductors.html

technology science nano vacuum tubes

shared by jcunha on 05 Apr 17 - No Cached
  • jcunha on 05 Apr 17
     
    Although vacuum tubes were the basic components of early electronic devices, by the 1970s they were almost entirely replaced by semiconductor transistors. They are now back in nano-form as "nanoscale vacuum channel transistors" that combine the best of vacuum tubes and modern semiconductors into a single device. This old-technology with a new twist could be useful for space applications due to broader temperature operational range and better radiation resilience - authors are with NASA Ames.
Luke O'Connor

MIT Creates Amazing UI From Levitating Orbs - 1 views

www.fastcodesign.com/...mazing-ui-from-levitating-orbs

shared by Luke O'Connor on 23 May 12 - No Cached
  • Luke O'Connor on 23 May 12
     
    See 1:13 in the video: could be useful for GTOC!
  • Dario Izzo on 24 May 12
     
    hyper cool!!!! but I am not convinced it will ever be able to overcome the intrinsic instabilities created by manipulating a magnetic field ..... you can actually see in the video the undamped vibrations in the motion ....
LeopoldS

Erdős-Bacon number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 2 views

en.wikipedia.org/...rd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_number

mathematics film

shared by LeopoldS on 16 Sep 12 - Cached
  • LeopoldS on 16 Sep 12
     
    ever heard of the Erdős-Bacon number? :-)
  • ...1 more comment...
  • dejanpetkow on 18 Sep 12
     
    There is a tool (http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/collaborationDistance.html) which computes your Erdös number. But who cares about Kevin Bacon?
  • Luís F. Simões on 18 Sep 12
     
    and actors probably ask who cares about Erdős :) The network of actors who co-star in movies is a famous one among networks people. Kevin Bacon became famous in that network because of fans of his who could from memory trace the paths of a large number of actors back to him :) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon#History If you have you publications in http://academic.research.microsoft.com/, it gives you a nice tool to visualize your graph up to Erdős. Apparently I have a path of length 4, and several of length 5: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/VisualExplorer#36695545&1112639
  • nikolas smyrlakis on 20 Sep 12
     
    and for the actors http://oracleofbacon.org/
Dario Izzo

Check your country impact on science!!! - 8 views

www.sciencegateway.org/...index.html

journal academic impact Science Ranking research

shared by Dario Izzo on 25 Jan 12 - Cached
  • Dario Izzo on 25 Jan 12
     
    Did you know that papers in space science are among the most quoted? Check how your country is doing .... you will be surprised :)
  • ...7 more comments...
  • dejanpetkow on 26 Jan 12
     
    In terms of country based quotations ("Most scited countries") I cannot access space science, only Geosciences, Immunology, Material Science, and Psychiatry & Psychology. But when I first saw the list of countries at the left under "Impact in Science" I saw Argentinia was on top, and USA was on last position. Yes, I was surprised, until I realised that is was just an alphabetical order. Did you see the same list?
  • Nicholas Lan on 26 Jan 12
     
    scotland's a separate country. must be preparing for independence already. and it's highest percentage is for space science. crazy
  • Dario Izzo on 26 Jan 12
     
    Dajan, you need to click on the country you are interested in ....
  • dejanpetkow on 26 Jan 12
     
    Nooo, can't be THAT simple.
  • LeopoldS on 26 Jan 12
     
    data a bit old .... newer data (but less well presented) at http://sciencewatch.com/ there you can also read: "The 20th century was largely dominated by the US as a major powerhouse of scientific research and innovation, with 40% of the papers indexed in the Web of Science fielded by US scientists in the 1990s. By 2009, that figure was down to 29%. The US now struggles to keep pace with increased output from Europe and Asia."
  • LeopoldS on 26 Jan 12
     
    hottest space science paper in January 2012: Field: Space Science Article Title: Herschel Space Observatory An ESA facility for far-infrared and submillimetre astronomy Authors: Pilbratt, GL;Riedinger, JR;Passvogel, T;Crone, G;Doyle, D;Gageur, U;Heras, AM;Jewell, C;Metcalfe, L;Ott, S;Schmidt, M Journal: ASTRON ASTROPHYS, 518: art. no.-L1 JUL-AUG 2010 * ESTEC SRE SA, ESA Res & Sci Support Dept, Keplerlaan 1, NL-2201 AZ Noordwijk, Netherlands. * ESTEC SRE SA, ESA Res & Sci Support Dept, NL-2201 AZ Noordwijk, Netherlands. * ESTEC SRE OA, ESA Sci Operat Dept, NL-2201 AZ Noordwijk, Netherlands. * ESTEC SRE P, ESA Sci Operat Dept, NL-2201 AZ Noordwijk, Netherlands. * ESOC OPS OAH, ESA Mission Operat Dept, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany. * ESAC SRE OA, ESA Sci Operat Dept, Madrid 28691, Spain.
  • Ma Ru on 30 Jan 12
     
    Interestingly, Space Science is the only field in which my country has positive "Impact vs. world" value (even more interestingly as we don't even have a proper national space agency)...
  • LeopoldS on 30 Jan 12
     
    this might also be an indication / point to an issue with their data concerning space science publications ... quite surprising indeed that all Europeans are doing so well in this field
  • jmlloren on 01 Feb 12
     
    Something should be wrong, for Spain I can read: Economics & Business 4.54 -28 Only minus 28!
Luke O'Connor

Movember! - 3 views

uk.movember.com

shared by Luke O'Connor on 10 Nov 11 - Cached
  • Luke O'Connor on 10 Nov 11
     
    Movember (formerly November) is a moustache growing charity event during November. This month I am growing a moustache to raise awareness (and funds) for men's health. I will be putting a collection jar on my desk, so any donations of spare change would be very much appreciated! My 'mospace' can be found here: http://mobro.co/Lukeoc hijaking of diigo over...
  • Ma Ru on 10 Nov 11
dejanpetkow

Camilla's ARIADNA study in German media - 5 views

www.heise.de/...bild-fuer-Roboter-1429208.html

bio technology Science

shared by dejanpetkow on 07 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 10 Feb 12
     
    I am a bit surprised by the number of critical comments to this article there ..
  • dejanpetkow on 10 Feb 12
     
    But the comments are not critical, it's just bullshitting.
LeopoldS

American Innovation Losing its Shine? - 4 views

freepress.intel.com/...an-innovation-losing-its-shine

technology INF science

shared by LeopoldS on 18 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 18 Nov 11
     
    interesting reflections by MIT head on innovation in US
  • Christos Ampatzis on 20 Nov 11
     
    interesting, especially since in all COmmission papers US innovation is praised and changes expected are only related to China/India (for the better)... Article mixes a lot talk on innovation with numbers that I do not see necessarily connected (trade deficit, GDP growth etc.). Seems to me the real problematique behind the article is only the next planned distribution of federal funds and where they should cut...
  • Joris _ on 22 Nov 11
     
    well I understand her point. Spending cuts are only vicious short term solutions against economical downturn since growth (GDP is an interesting measure indeed) comes from innovation, research and production. Nonetheless, what she is describing is happening in EU too. So who will take the lead? I am not certain China is the one. In my view, it has not yet solved its domestic issues... and US still has more Nobel Prize than China. One thing for sure, the way it is EU is only a "wagon" of the train...
Tobias Seidl

Home | InnoCentive - 4 views

www.innocentive.com

innovation crowdsourcing ideas MONEY

shared by Tobias Seidl on 09 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 10 Feb 12
     
    yes, interesting site, am following it since some time
pandomilla

ScienceShot: Unraveling the Mystery of Self-Planting Seeds - ScienceNOW - 0 views

news.sciencemag.org/...ot-unraveling-the-mystery.html

BIO science

shared by pandomilla on 12 Jun 12 - No Cached
  • pandomilla on 12 Jun 12
     
    ...I told you we had to hurry up with our Ariadna! btw, they studied the coiling at the cellular level (but I am scared to read the paper to see if there is something left for us..)
Daniel Hennes

The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today - 3 views

gizmodo.com/ted-creating-electr-1521998493

technology energy

shared by Daniel Hennes on 14 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Daniel Hennes on 14 Feb 14
     
    The enormous solar plant-jointly owned by NRG Energy, BrightSource Energy and Google-opened for business today ... well yesterday, but still impressive!
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 14 Feb 14
     
    impressive! and google is among the owners.
  • LeopoldS on 15 Feb 14
     
    impressive pictures - looking at the 2nd to last and 4th to last one, I am wondering how this distributed individually control of the mirrors works - and idea?
  • Paul N on 21 Feb 14
     
    Machine learning obviously. Most likely neural networks :P On the other hand: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-worlds-largest-solar-plant-is-killing-birds-meltin-1525107821
Thijs Versloot

The risk of geoengineering (or when abruptly stopping..) - 2 views

www.sciencedaily.com/...140217200823.htm

geoengineering

shared by Thijs Versloot on 19 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Thijs Versloot on 19 Feb 14
     
    The researchers used a global climate model to show that if an extreme emissions pathway -- RCP8.5 -- is followed up until 2035, allowing temperatures to rise 1°C above the 1970-1999 mean, and then SRM (Solar Radiation Management) is implemented for 25 years and suddenly stopped, global temperatures could increase by 4°C in the following decades.
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 19 Feb 14
     
    Nice quantitative study. They treat the problem within the full uncertainty range of climate sensitivity parameter (much uncertain), very complete. However, at SRM ceasing, after an initial positive spike of Radiative Forcing, the rate of warming seems to return to rates predicted for the non-geoengineering case: "The 20-year temperature trends following SRM cessation are 0.2−0.6 °C/decade for the range of climate sensitivities (figure 5), comparable to those trends that occur under the RCP8.5 scenario without any SRM." I am actually working on a similar idea for deliberate Mars terraforming: aiming to cool the planet down before we introduce a positive Temperature raising feedback with greenhouse gases, maybe could be more efficient than warming itself.
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 60 of 122 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page