Diche Bach

Members
  • Content count

    929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

158 Excellent

1 Follower

About Diche Bach

  • Rank
    Kerbthropologist

Profile Information

  • Location Beyond the vast public, static, void . . .
  • Interests C++, game design, anthropology, history, military science, psychology, psycho-biology, epigenetics, mathematics, astronomy.

Recent Profile Visitors

971 profile views
  1. The Expanse technical thread

    You know . . . in a couple hundred years it does seem quite likely that there will be a major human presence off the Earth. Perhaps only thousands or tens of thousands of visitor/traveler/workers (maybe even "colonists"), but a significant presence nonetheless. Given the tremendous economic value (supposed) of some of the resources out there, it seems inevitable there will be plenty of human drama, even if one were to stick 100% to conservative estimates of how technology will work. Somebody really does need to make a game that covers that stuff.
  2. The Expanse technical thread

    An interesting thought. I like fantasy as much as anyone else, but I think I like "simulation" even better. I don't think a desire to be 100% realistic is necessarily so "constraining." There are libraries full of fiction that never invokes fantasy, spread across dozens of disciplines.
  3. The Expanse technical thread

    Ah! That makes sense!
  4. The Expanse technical thread

    Still no clarification on why they need the "ice" that is mined from (aparently) Saturn's rings on "Ceres?" Only up to episode 3 but wife and I are enjoying it. Realistic science fiction wouldn't be very fun to watch I think.
  5. So to get this back on topic: innovation has rarely if ever been about charity, i.e., it has almost always been about financial conflicts of interest. Not much new as far as GMO's go.
  6. Thank you Starman4308. Psychobiological anthropologist and even though my students loved it, I think I intimidated a few of the senior faculty because I tried to do some justice to modern genetics, i.e., not merely teach Mendel and Hardy-Weinberg as if that is all there is to it. Good to hear my take that it is "more complicated than 'we' can make sense of right now" confirmed. ADDIT: Maternal licking of mice pups for example?
  7. All this discussion probably calls that everyone have an at least baseline understanding of what a "gene" really is, or if such a thing exists pervasively enough that it is useful for the conceptual purpose it is intended to explain 'inhertance.' As far as I could tell when I last did any scholarship in that area, even geneticists are not always sure, and certainly "scientists" who toss around the word don't have a clue. Lay people are more or less completely in the dark. Just as a few appetizers: what about SNPS (a topic which serves as a good entrance to the myriad of "complications" that actually exist in how genotypes influence ontogeny)? If we have some geneticists here, people who spend ~40 hours per week studying, doing research, publishing on this stuff, the maybe they can catch us up. I realized years ago that: without going full scale professional there was not much point in trying to do more than glance over at this field to see what was up from time to time; and even LESS point in trying to keep straight whatever is going on that fits under the term "epigenesis" which is what is really important to actual phenotypic diversity. Biology does not conform to humanities desire to put it into neat pigeon holes, but that doesn't mean we as a species cannot benefit from manipulating it
  8. I don't think copyright is "eternal." Very long lasting yes, but Shakespeare's estate is no longer making anything from his work. In fact: no, copyright expires eventually: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
  9. Hmmm, well I guess I'm just not familiar with any of the putative effects your listing for GMOs. I'm also not quite sure why "dealing with organisms" would make it different. Biomedical technology and drugs "deal with organisms" and many technologies and procedures can be, have been and legitimately should be copyrighted by their inventors. Should a University / Industry partner who develops a new procedure for heart transplant be able to "patent the human heart" obviously that is silly. Should they be able to patent the procedure itself? Probably not, as the procedure they developed is probably in large part pre-existing if not "public domain" methods, but perhaps adjusted in order, timing, or intensity/scale. To the extent that some aspect of their procedure depends on a truly innovative aspect of their creation, then perhaps THAT portion should be patentable. Then we come to the mechanical or pharmacological factors that they might have developed as part of this new heart transplant procedure. Same would apply here: if it is widespread or "already publicly common" = no patent if not, patentable. It would probably be a better discussion if we had a very specific case study of a "GMO" to refer to.
  10. Here is a patent for a calcium carbide production technique. https://www.google.com/patents/US2749219 Calcium carbide is used to make acetylene. Here is what is used: Are you saying you think this patent (which is about 50 years old) is illegitimate because the materials used in it are " in nature." Everything starts from nature, and where you draw the line between it and "legitimate creative work" does not seem obvious to me.
  11. Imagine how terrified they are going to be when they realize that our ancestors have been "genetically modfiying" both plants AND animals for millenia . . . It's true that GMOs are insidious. My dachsund has me wrapped around her little paw and gets her way most of the time . . . Insidious. ADDIT: and as for "financial conflicts of interest" well . . . that problem may be a bit more widespread than you had considered. Once upon a time, a lot of science was done by hobbyists, or people whose livelihood was not dependent on the frequency with which they publish (Darwin, Mendel, even Pasteur, Pierce, etc.). Granted, this excluded the impoverished from having a voice in science, but lets shelve that point for a second and fast forward to the early 20th century. "Publish or perish" = publish or don't get paid = financial conflicts of interest. Combine this with pervasive corruption in how "peer-reviewed" literature is conducted, and the fact that careers are based on putatively "establishing answers" not "asking good questions" and you have what we have today: Science which is so fraught with conflicts of interest (financial, ideological, political and otherwise) that it took 30 years of work by thousands of contributors to amass the sort of bullet proof scientific evidence it took to prove legally that tobacco causes cancer. Of course, everyone already knew it even the scum bags that sell the stuff. But academia stopped being "reliable" sometime after WWII, and it is not hard for a team of well-trained attorneys to convince judges and juries of this when they are being backed by an affluent, desperate, scuzzy industry trying to preserve its role in the market place. It is an interesting unintended consequence.
  12. Can someone put in one or two sentences how this "Verlinde's Theory" is "new?" The article did not make that clear to me . . . okay hold on, Wikipedia to the rescue Entropic Gravity. So . . . seems we're all holograms now!?
  13. Modeling Atmospheres in KSP

    Nice dissertation Bob! Good stuff
  14. Ah I'll have to come back and re-read this when I have the game running and try this. It sounds simple!
  15. ExoMars 2016: on its way to Mars!

    Oh these past couple pages had me smiling! A little bit of "nationalistic competitiveness" can be a _good_ thing eh? Promotes excellence and what-not?? Anyway . . . it is sad when these things fail but at lest no one died and "space stuff" has not been doomed. We shall carry on!