Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items matching "self" 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
3More

The great chain of being sure about things | The Economist - 2 views

www.economist.com/...st-each-other-build-dependable blockchain p2p bitcoin cryptocurrency INF disruptive innovation
shared by Luís F. Simões on 06 Nov 15 - No Cached
  • The technology behind bitcoin lets people who do not know or trust each other build a dependable ledger. This has implications far beyond the cryptocurrency
  • Ledgers that no longer need to be maintained by a company—or a government—may in time spur new changes in how companies and governments work, in what is expected of them and in what can be done without them. A realisation that systems without centralised record-keeping can be just as trustworthy as those that have them may bring radical change.
  • Luís F. Simões on 06 Nov 15
     
    The blockchain technology behind bitcoin has been gaining traction. This article makes a good job of describing it, and the different (not-bitcoin) ways in which it's being adopted. Worth reading, even if only for the funny bit about self-driving self-owning cars who pay themselves for fuel, parking and repairs.
1More

Self-healing material can build itSelf from carbon in the air | MIT News - 2 views

news.mit.edu/...aling-material-carbon-air-1011 technology
shared by Marcus Maertens on 11 Oct 18 - No Cached
icheibas liked it
  • Marcus Maertens on 11 Oct 18
     
    The material the team used in these initial proof-of-concept experiments did make use of one biological component - chloroplasts, the light-harnessing components within plant cells, which the researchers obtained from spinach leaves.
1More

Deep-learning-enabled self-adaptive microwave cloak without human intervention | Nature... - 0 views

www.nature.com/...s41566-020-0604-2 science AI deep-learning invisibility-cloak metasurface ANN
shared by htoftevaag on 16 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • htoftevaag on 16 Oct 20
     
    An intelligent (that is, self-adaptive) cloak driven by deep learning. Quite cool, eh? Something we can get inspired by?
1More

Elon Musk about cost of space flight and going to Mars (privately) - 2 views

www.wired.com/...all space science technology
shared by johannessimon81 on 05 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 06 Nov 12
     
    interesting stuff ... I like this quote "When a man tells you about the time he planned to put a vegetable garden on Mars, you worry about his mental state. But if that same man has since launched multiple rockets that are actually capable of reaching Mars-sending them into orbit, Bond-style, from a tiny island in the Pacific-you need to find another diagnosis. That's the thing about extreme entrepreneurialism: There's a fine line between madness and genius, and you need a little bit of both to really change the world. All entrepreneurs have an aptitude for risk, but more important than that is their capacity for self-delusion. Indeed, psychological investigations have found that entrepreneurs aren't more risk-tolerant than non-entrepreneurs. They just have an extraordinary ability to believe in their own visions, so much so that they think what they're embarking on isn't really that risky. They're wrong, of course, but without the ability to be so wrong-to willfully ignore all those naysayers and all that evidence to the contrary-no one would possess the necessary audacity to start something radically new."
3More

Data visualization through algebraic topology - 3 views

www.wired.com/...data-viz-ayasdi-iris AI
shared by johannessimon81 on 21 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 21 Jan 13
     
    Data-Visualization Firm's New Software Autonomously Finds Abstract Connections --> Annalisa?
  • Annalisa Riccardi on 21 Jan 13
     
    I had a nice introduction about Ordinal Regression via Manifold Learning by Francisco last week. It is doubtless a very actual research branch!
  • Dario Izzo on 22 Jan 13
     
    I doubt :) The original paper from Liu is from 2011 and has .... wait for it .... 1 quotation (and a self-one)!!! http://scholar.google.it/scholar?hl=it&q=Ordinal+Regression+via+Manifold+Learning&btnG=&lr=
3More

Google Says the FBI Is Secretly Spying on Some of Its Customers | Threat Level | Wired.com - 3 views

www.wired.com/...google-nsl-range spying google INF
shared by LeopoldS on 06 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 06 Mar 13
     
    not a surprise though still bad to read ....
  • Ma Ru on 07 Mar 13
     
    On a side note, it's hilarious to read an article on something repeatedly referred to as being secret...
  • LeopoldS on 10 Mar 13
     
    quite self-explanatory described though: "The terrorists apparently would win if Google told you the exact number of times the Federal Bureau of Investigation invoked a secret process to extract data about the media giant's customers. That's why it is unlawful for any record-keeper to disclose it has received a so-called National Security Letter. But under a deal brokered with the President Barack Obama administration, Google on Tuesday published a "range" of times it received National Security Letters demanding it divulge account information to the authorities without warrants. It was the first time a company has ever released data chronicling the volume of National Security Letter requests. National Security Letters allow the government to get detailed information on Americans' finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and has even been reprimanded for abusing them. The NSLs are written demands from the FBI that compel internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions and businesses like Google to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, websites visited and more as long as the FBI says the information is "relevant" to an investigation." and ""You'll notice that we're reporting numerical ranges rather than exact numbers. This is to address concerns raised by the FBI, Justice Department and other agencies that releasing exact numbers might reveal information about investigations. We plan to update these figures annually," Richard Salgado, a Google legal director, wrote in a blog post. Salgado was not available for comment. What makes the government's position questionable is that it is required by Congress to disclose the number of times the bureau issues National Security Letters. In 2011, the year with the latest available figures, the FBI issued 16,511 National Sec
1More

New Supergel Has Strange Biological Properties - 0 views

www.wired.com/...supergel-mimics-your-cells bio PHY science technology
shared by johannessimon81 on 24 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 24 Jan 13
     
    Linked to the discussion we had last week on elastically non-linear polymers. The inverted liquid->solid phase transition might be interesting and the material might be self-healing just above the transition.
1More

It's (Almost) Alive! Scientists Create a Near-Living Crystal - 1 views

www.wired.com/...living-crystal swarm science AI INF
shared by johannessimon81 on 01 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 01 Feb 13
     
    Interesting research field about self-propelled particle swarms: very simple rules lead to complex behavior - in a real-world experiment!
6More

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.
2More

The 3Doodler - 7 views

www.the3doodler.com fun technology
shared by anonymous on 19 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • anonymous on 19 Feb 13
     
    Think 3D printers are cool? Check out this 3D pen!
  • johannessimon81 on 19 Feb 13
     
    Looks like fun! I wonder if you could do the same with a hot glue gun... (memo to self: play more with hot glue gun)
2More

The von Neumann Probe: A Nano Ship to the Stars | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think - 0 views

bigthink.com/...probe-a-nano-ship-to-the-stars Advanced nano von Neumann
shared by LeopoldS on 25 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 25 Oct 12
     
    Know his book but did not know his blog .... Tough I am sure Luis does :-)
  • Luís F. Simões on 26 Oct 12
     
    No, actually I only know him from several documentaries. von Neumann probes, those I know quite well from sci-fi :). Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space is a good example btw. Here's a relevant link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine#NIAC_studies_on_Self-replicating_systems
2More

Google gets driverless licence - 1 views

www.bbc.com/...technology-17989553
shared by Luke O'Connor on 08 May 12 - No Cached
  • Luke O'Connor on 08 May 12
     
    Driverless cars will soon be a reality on the roads of Nevada after the state approved America's first self-driven vehicle licence. The first to hit the highway will be a Toyota Prius modified by search firm Google, which is leading the way in driverless car technology.
  • Christos Ampatzis on 09 May 12
     
    makes me think of the trend years ago to promote car-pooling and avoid 1 driver per car. The trend continues!
1More

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..)
1More

Self-fueled robotic grass mower #EcoMow - 2 views

phys.org/...robotic-ecomow-grass-fuel.html robotics technology fun
shared by Thijs Versloot on 18 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Thijs Versloot on 18 Feb 14
     
    The grass mower uses the cut grass as fuel, but can also turn the grass into dried pellets for later use, for example for heating etc.
1More

The people who change the world... #thenextweb - 1 views

thenextweb.com/...stop-giving-f-people-think fun
shared by Thijs Versloot on 04 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Thijs Versloot on 04 Mar 14
     
    Love tip 3.. thats why I am at the ACT of course :) 3. Surround yourself with pros Surround yourself with people who are self-assured, and live life without comprising their core values. These people will rub off on you quickly. finally.. The world is already full of people who obey the status quo. But the people who don't give a fuck are the ones that change the world.
12More

Will robots be smarter than humans by 2029? - 2 views

robohub.org/be-smarter-than-humans-by-2029 AI
shared by Guido de Croon on 10 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Guido de Croon on 10 Mar 14
     
    Nice discussion about the singularity. Made me think of drinking coffee with Luis... It raises some issues such as the necessity of embodiment, etc.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • Luís F. Simões on 12 Mar 14
     
    "Kurzweilians"... LOL. Still not sold on embodiment, btw.
  • Ma Ru on 12 Mar 14
     
    The biggest problem with embodiment is that, since the passive walkers (with which it all started), it hasn't delivered anything really interesting...
  • Paul N on 13 Mar 14
     
    The problem with embodiment is that it's done wrong. Embodiment needs to be treated like big data. More sensors, more data, more processing. Just putting a computer in a robot with a camera and microphone is not embodiment.
  • Marcus Maertens on 14 Mar 14
     
    I like how he attacks Moore's Law. It always looks a bit naive to me if people start to (ab)use it to make their point. No strong opinion about embodiment.
  • johannessimon81 on 14 Mar 14
     
    @Paul: How would embodiment be done RIGHT?
  • Guido de Croon on 16 Mar 14
     
    Embodiment has some obvious advantages. For example, in the vision domain many hard problems become easy when you have a body with which you can take actions (like looking at an object you don't immediately recognize from a different angle) - a point already made by researchers such as Aloimonos.and Ballard in the end 80s / beginning 90s. However, embodiment goes further than gathering information and "mental" recognition. In this respect, the evolutionary robotics work by for example Beer is interesting, where an agent discriminates between diamonds and circles by avoiding one and catching the other, without there being a clear "moment" in which the recognition takes place. "Recognition" is a behavioral property there, for which embodiment is obviously important. With embodiment the effort for recognizing an object behaviorally can be divided between the brain and the body, resulting in less computation for the brain. Also the article "Behavioural Categorisation: Behaviour makes up for bad vision" is interesting in this respect. In the field of embodied cognitive science, some say that recognition is constituted by the activation of sensorimotor correlations. I wonder to which extent this is true, and if it is valid for extremely simple creatures to more advanced ones, but it is an interesting idea nonetheless. This being said, if "embodiment" implies having a physical body, then I would argue that it is not a necessary requirement for intelligence. "Situatedness", being able to take (virtual or real) "actions" that influence the "inputs", may be.
  • Ma Ru on 17 Mar 14
     
    @Paul While I completely agree about the "embodiment done wrong" (or at least "not exactly correct") part, what you say goes exactly against one of the major claims which are connected with the notion of embodiment (google for "representational bottleneck"). The fact is your brain does *not* have resources to deal with big data. The idea therefore is that it is the body what helps to deal with what to a computer scientist appears like "big data". Understanding how this happens is key. Whether it is the problem of scale or of actually understanding what happens should be quite conclusively shown by the outcomes of the Blue Brain project.
  • johannessimon81 on 17 Mar 14
     
    Wouldn't one expect that to produce consciousness (even in a lower form) an approach resembling that of nature would be essential? All animals grow from a very simple initial state (just a few cells) and have only a very limited number of sensors AND processing units. This would allow for a fairly simple way to create simple neural networks and to start up stable neural excitation patterns. Over time as complexity of the body (sensors, processors, actuators) increases the system should be able to adapt in a continuous manner and increase its degree of self-awareness and consciousness. On the other hand, building a simulated brain that resembles (parts of) the human one in its final state seems to me like taking a person who is just dead and trying to restart the brain by means of electric shocks.
  • Paul N on 17 Mar 14
     
    Actually on a neuronal level all information gets processed. Not all of it makes it into "conscious" processing or attention. Whatever makes it into conscious processing is a highly reduced representation of the data you get. However that doesn't get lost. Basic, low processed data forms the basis of proprioception and reflexes. Every step you take is a macro command your brain issues to the intricate sensory-motor system that puts your legs in motion by actuating every muscle and correcting every step deviation from its desired trajectory using the complicated system of nerve endings and motor commands. Reflexes which were build over the years, as those massive amounts of data slowly get integrated into the nervous system and the the incipient parts of the brain. But without all those sensors scattered throughout the body, all the little inputs in massive amounts that slowly get filtered through, you would not be able to experience your body, and experience the world. Every concept that you conjure up from your mind is a sort of loose association of your sensorimotor input. How can a robot understand the concept of a strawberry if all it can perceive of it is its shape and color and maybe the sound that it makes as it gets squished? How can you understand the "abstract" notion of strawberry without the incredibly sensible tactile feel, without the act of ripping off the stem, without the motor action of taking it to our mouths, without its texture and taste? When we as humans summon the strawberry thought, all of these concepts and ideas converge (distributed throughout the neurons in our minds) to form this abstract concept formed out of all of these many many correlations. A robot with no touch, no taste, no delicate articulate motions, no "serious" way to interact with and perceive its environment, no massive flow of information from which to chose and and reduce, will never attain human level intelligence. That's point 1. Point 2 is that mere pattern recogn
  • Ma Ru on 18 Mar 14
     
    All information *that gets processed* gets processed but now we arrived at a tautology. The whole problem is ultimately nobody knows what gets processed (not to mention how). In fact an absolute statement "all information" gets processed is very easy to dismiss because the characteristics of our sensors are such that a lot of information is filtered out already at the input level (e.g. eyes). I'm not saying it's not a valid and even interesting assumption, but it's still just an assumption and the next step is to explore scientifically where it leads you. And until you show its superiority experimentally it's as good as all other alternative assumptions you can make. I only wanted to point out is that "more processing" is not exactly compatible with some of the fundamental assumptions of the embodiment. I recommend Wilson, 2002 as a crash course.
  • Paul N on 24 Mar 14
     
    These deal with different things in human intelligence. One is the depth of the intelligence (how much of the bigger picture can you see, how abstract can you form concept and ideas), another is the breadth of the intelligence (how well can you actually generalize, how encompassing those concepts are and what is the level of detail in which you perceive all the information you have) and another is the relevance of the information (this is where the embodiment comes in. What you do is to a purpose, tied into the environment and ultimately linked to survival). As far as I see it, these form the pillars of human intelligence, and of the intelligence of biological beings. They are quite contradictory to each other mainly due to physical constraints (such as for example energy usage, and training time). "More processing" is not exactly compatible with some aspects of embodiment, but it is important for human level intelligence. Embodiment is necessary for establishing an environmental context of actions, a constraint space if you will, failure of human minds (i.e. schizophrenia) is ultimately a failure of perceived embodiment. What we do know is that we perform a lot of compression and a lot of integration on a lot of data in an environmental coupling. Imo, take any of these parts out, and you cannot attain human+ intelligence. Vary the quantities and you'll obtain different manifestations of intelligence, from cockroach to cat to google to random quake bot. Increase them all beyond human levels and you're on your way towards the singularity.
13More

Nature Paper: Rivers and streams release more CO2 than previously believed - 6 views

www.klimacampus.de/631+M59214efc590.html climate emissions
shared by Athanasia Nikolaou on 25 Nov 13 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 25 Nov 13
     
    Another underestimated source of CO2, are turbulent waters. "The stronger the turbulences at the water's surface, the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The combination of maps and data revealed that, while the CO2 emissions from lakes and reservoirs are lower than assumed, those from rivers and streams are three times as high as previously believed." Alltogether the emitted CO2 equates to roughly one-fifth of the emissions caused by humans. Yet more stuff to model...
  • ...10 more comments...
  • Dario Izzo on 26 Nov 13
     
    This could also be a mechanism to counter human CO2 emission ... the more we emit, the less turbulent rivers and stream, the less CO2 is emitted there ... makes sense?
  • johannessimon81 on 27 Nov 13
     
    I guess there is a natural equilibrium there. Once the climate warms up enough for all rivers and streams to evaporate they will not contribute CO2 anymore - which stops their contribution to global warming. So the problem is also the solution (as always).
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 27 Nov 13
     
    "The source of inland water CO2 is still not known with certainty and new studies are needed to research the mechanisms controlling CO2 evasion globally." It is another source of CO2 this one, and the turbulence in the rivers is independent of our emissions in CO2 and just facilitates the process of releasing CO2 waters. Dario, if I understood correct you have in mind a finite quantity of CO2 that the atmosphere can accomodate, and to my knowledge this does not happen, so I cannot find a relevant feedback there. Johannes, H2O is a powerful greenhouse gas :-)
  • Dario Izzo on 27 Nov 13
     
    Nasia I think you did not get my point (a joke, really, that Johannes continued) .... by emitting more CO2 we warm up the planet thus drying up rivers and lakes which will, in turn emit less CO2 :) No finite quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is needed to close this loop ... ... as for the H2O it could just go into non turbulent waters rather than staying into the atmosphere ...
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 03 Dec 13
     
    Really awkward joke explanation: I got the joke of Johannes, but maybe you did not get mine: by warming up the planet to get rid of the rivers and their problems, the water of the rivers will be accomodated in the atmosphere, therefore, the greenhouse gas of water.
  • Dario Izzo on 03 Dec 13
     
    from my previous post: "... as for the H2O it could just go into non turbulent waters rather than staying into the atmosphere ..."
  • johannessimon81 on 03 Dec 13
     
    I guess the emphasis is on "could"... ;-) Also, everybody knows that rain is cold - so more water in the atmosphere makes the climate colder.
  • LeopoldS on 03 Dec 13
     
    do you have the nature paper also? looks like very nice, meticulous typically german research lasting over 10 years with painstakingly many researchers from all over the world involved .... and while important the total is still only 20% of human emissions ... so a variation in it does not seem to change the overall picture
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 04 Dec 13
     
    here is the nature paper : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v503/n7476/full/nature12760.html I appreciate Johannes' and Dario's jokes, since climate is the common ground that all of us can have an opinion, taking honours from experiencing weather. But, the same as if I am trying to make jokes for material science, or A.I. I take a high risk of failing(!) :-S Water is a greenhouse gas, rain rather releases latent heat to the environment in order to be formed, Johannes, nice trolling effort ;-) Between this and the next jokes to come, I would stop to take a look here, provided you have 10 minutes: how/where rain forms http://www.scribd.com/doc/58033704/Tephigrams-for-Dummies
  • Dario Izzo on 04 Dec 13
     
    omg
  • johannessimon81 on 09 Dec 13
     
    Nasia, I thought about your statement carefully - and I cannot agree with you. Water is not a greenhouse gas. It is instead a liquid. Also, I can't believe you keep feeding the troll! :-P But on a more topical note: I think it is an over-simplification to call water a greenhouse gas - water is one of the most important mechanisms in the way Earth handles heat input from the sun. The latent heat that you mention actually cools Earth: solar energy that would otherwise heat Earth's surface is ABSORBED as latent heat by water which consequently evaporates - the same water condenses into rain drops at high altitudes and releases this stored heat. In effect the water cycle is a mechanism of heat transport from low altitude to high altitude where the chance of infrared radiation escaping into space is much higher due to the much thinner layer of atmosphere above (including the smaller abundance of greenhouse gasses). Also, as I know you are well aware, the cloud cover that results from water condensation in the troposphere dramatically increases albedo which has a cooling effect on climate. Furthermore the heat capacity of wet air ("humid heat") is much larger than that of dry air - so any advective heat transfer due to air currents is more efficient in wet air - transporting heat from warm areas to a natural heat sink e.g. polar regions. Of course there are also climate heating effects of water like the absorption of IR radiation. But I stand by my statement (as defended in the above) that rain cools the atmosphere. Oh and also some nice reading material on the complexities related to climate feedback due to sea surface temperature: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006%3C2049%3ALSEOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 10 Dec 13
     
    I enjoy trolling conversations when there is a gain for both sides at the end :-) . I had to check upon some of the facts in order to explain my self properly. The IPCC report states the greenhouse gases here, and water vapour is included: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html Honestly, I read only the abstract of the article you posted, which is a very interesting hypothesis on the mechanism of regulating sea surface temperature, but it is very localized to the tropics (vivid convection, storms) a region of which I have very little expertise, and is difficult to study because it has non-hydrostatic dynamics. The only thing I can comment there is that the authors define constant relative humidity for the bottom layer, supplied by the oceanic surface, which limits the implementation of the concept on other earth regions. Also, we may confuse during the conversation the greenhouse gas with the Radiative Forcing of each greenhouse gas: I see your point of the latent heat trapped in the water vapour, and I agree, but the effect of the water is that it traps even as latent heat an amount of LR that would otherwise escape back to space. That is the greenhouse gas identity and an image to see the absorption bands in the atmosphere and how important the water is, without vain authority-based arguments that miss the explanation in the end: http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.solarchords.com/uploaded/82/87-33833-450015_44absorbspec.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.solarchords.com/agw-science/4/greenhouse--1-radiation/33784/&h=468&w=458&sz=28&tbnid=x2NtfKh5OPM7lM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__KldteWbV19nVPbbsC4jsOgzCK6E=&docid=cMRZ9f22jbtYPM&sa=X&ei=SwynUq2TMqiS0QXVq4C4Aw&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAw
1More

Self-assembling (?) DNA nano-"robot" - 0 views

news.cnet.com/...ng-a-drug-delivering-nanorobot BIO technology science
shared by johannessimon81 on 05 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 05 Dec 13
     
    Scientists inch closer to building a drug-delivering nanorobot
« First ‹ Previous 61 - 80 of 122 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page