Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually fusion power has been "20 years away" for at least 60 or 70 years now. While some groups are now saying it's 10 years away, they are a minority. The current scientific funding climate forces researchers to exaggerate their goals, because if they don't do so, they will get no money.
We really need to stop being so short-sighted and refusing to invest in the future. By not funding science, this is exactly what we are doing, and it is really dumb.
Usage of the word "power" is off base, unless you literally mean power consumption.
There are differing performance measures that measure different things, CPU speed, concurrency, memory storage, etc., not "power". You have to specify what is doubling every 18 months.
True, IF your simulation is accurate. To be accurate, it must capture a lot of cellular dynamics, and this is a biology problem also, not just a computational one.
Raw processing power (whatever you mean by this) is insufficient. It must be an accurate simulation, i.e. the simulated neurons must behave like real neurons.
Raw petaflops are not adequate to simulate a brain, in the absence of appropriate dynamics.
Why would anyone want to simulate a brain when you can just grow one in a tank? There are dozens of labs all over the world doing that already. Electronically, IBM already has a machine that can pass the Turing test. Practical applications await.
Why would anyone want to simulate a brain when you can just grow one in a tank? There are dozens of labs all over the world doing that already. Electronically, IBM already has a machine that can pass the Turing test. Practical applications await.
I'm not in the mood to get into a lengthy discussion of why the Turing test is not conclusive as an indicator of strong AI, but suffice it to say, I highly doubt a 3-pound human brain has been grown in a tank and utilized. But suppose you are convinced that this has happened. In this case, you are not justified in believing anything you hear or read about technology, because maybe you are just a brain grown in a lab yourself. In which case, all bets are off.
What resources are truly limited? I know that sounds like a idiotic question, but its more interesting then you think.
Even if large scale fusion becomes viable in 10 years, and it becomes *practical* to mine asteroids, and we learn how to effectively deal with our waste and pollution, will we be able to ramp these things up as quickly as people become technologically unemployed? And more importantly will it be in the interests of the rich and powerful? If a large number of people become unemployable, then consumer-capitalism will disappear, and I expect it will be replaced by something like a corporate totalitarian government. There won't be anything libertarian about it. Universal human rights will be a fading memory. Your rights and living standard will be in proportion to your usefulness to them, and fewer and fewer humans will retain any usefulness at all.
I'm not in the mood to get into a lengthy discussion of why the Turing test is not conclusive as an indicator of strong AI, but suffice it to say, I highly doubt a 3-pound human brain has been grown in a tank and utilized. But suppose you are convinced that this has happened. In this case, you are not justified in believing anything you hear or read about technology, because maybe you are just a brain grown in a lab yourself. In which case, all bets are off.
Once again, why would you want to grow a human brain in a tank when there are billions of them available for free? The cutting edge lab experiments are working on developing industrial brains cultured from non-human species, which avoids all the sticky ethical questions. That way they can just excise the portions of the brains that don't serve the design purpose.
I give the lead to the bio boys when it comes to developing AI, though electronics would be easier to mass produce.
Once again, why would you want to grow a human brain in a tank when there are billions of them available for free? The cutting edge lab experiments are working on developing industrial brains cultured from non-human species, which avoids all the sticky ethical questions. That way they can just excise the portions of the brains that don't serve the design purpose.
I give the lead to the bio boys when it comes to developing AI, though electronics would be easier to mass produce.
So what do we mean by a lab-grown portion of a brain? Are you referring to this?
Even if large scale fusion becomes viable in 10 years, and it becomes *practical* to mine asteroids, and we learn how to effectively deal with our waste and pollution, will we be able to ramp these things up as quickly as people become technologically unemployed? And more importantly will it be in the interests of the rich and powerful? If a large number of people become unemployable, then consumer-capitalism will disappear, and I expect it will be replaced by something like a corporate totalitarian government. There won't be anything libertarian about it. Universal human rights will be a fading memory. Your rights and living standard will be in proportion to your usefulness to them, and fewer and fewer humans will retain any usefulness at all.
Lockheed Martin claims they will have fusion within 8 years....well technically 3 years for a demo, and 5 years to ramp it up to production.
Focus fusion is doing early tests, having just received some of the needed parts this month. And many many more. Fusion power will make it practical to mine asteroids. Heck some argue our current systems do, but in my opinion fusion is what will kick it into the practical region.
Lets hope that its more of the socialism then corporate totalitarian, but even then the changes in technology will eventually allow a individual to completely self support himself in a comfortable way. When that occurs corporations are doomed.
Own the mineral rights and some property. thats critical.
Lockheed Martin claims they will have fusion within 8 years....well technically 3 years for a demo, and 5 years to ramp it up to production.
Focus fusion is doing early tests, having just received some of the needed parts this month. And many many more. Fusion power will make it practical to mine asteroids. Heck some argue our current systems do, but in my opinion fusion is what will kick it into the practical region.
Lets hope that its more of the socialism then corporate totalitarian, but even then the changes in technology will eventually allow a individual to completely self support himself in a comfortable way. When that occurs corporations are doomed.
Own the mineral rights and some property. thats critical.
long long ago in a lifetime far away I was acquainted with a woman whose husband was a mathematician working on fusion. She described him as someone who could pick up a 300 page book containing a particular mathematical equation, start at page one, and then the = sign occurs on page 180, and that he actually understood that stuff. I'll take her word for it.
Any case, as I understood it, the issue was the amount of energy that needed to be put into the system to achieve ignition was a real big problem.
I probably should read up on the latest technology, but my question is does fusion do anything different from nukes. IE does fusion just boil water, producing steam, which spins turbines to produce electricity?
long long ago in a lifetime far away I was acquainted with a woman whose husband was a mathematician working on fusion. She described him as someone who could pick up a 300 page book containing a particular mathematical equation, start at page one, and then the = sign occurs on page 180, and that he actually understood that stuff. I'll take her word for it.
Any case, as I understood it, the issue was the amount of energy that needed to be put into the system to achieve ignition was a real big problem.
I probably should read up on the latest technology, but my question is does fusion do anything different from nukes. IE does fusion just boil water, producing steam, which spins turbines to produce electricity?
The big difference between a bomb and a power plant is that in the case of the former, the reaction is uncontrolled whereas in the latter, the reaction is controlled. The former produces a destructive end result where the latter produces electricity. Fusion is 10x more efficient than fission, is much cleaner, and won't kill the surrounding population in the event of malfunction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
