RuBisCO

Humans have always be violent, every studied tribal society: its not all "harmony with nature"... well actually it is, the violence helps keep the population in check, then again other anthropologist disagree: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/03/jared-diamond-clash-tribal-peoples Chimps have been observed doing the same thing: forming tribes, going off and hunting down other chimp tribes and riping them appart limb from limb, so its very likely we human have been violently tribalist long before we even came down from the trees! Nations and wars are just developed versions of our tribalist instincts to form groups and fear, hate and want to dominate and oppress the "other" groups.

Might as well call KSP with RSS and Humans "Orbital: the game" I'm fine with Real SIZE Solar system using the Kerbal system x10, but it gets too uncanny using a mimic of our system.

Peak Oil was reached some time ago its why gas prices are where they are today: Cheap Oil Ended in 2008. All the good stuff is drying up and we had to argument with more and more "unconventional" oil sources such as tar sands, fracking, deep sea wells, all of which have lower EROEI, thus higher price. Once we could get out 50 barrels of energy for ever 1 we put in, now we are doing around 5 barrels for every one we put in, as it gets worse and more expensive alternatives like solar and biofuels start looking better and better. Anyways we could make RP-1 from algea or from Thermal-cracking or what ever, the price tag on the fuel is still rather small.

I'm trying to increase the inflatables drag in .cfg, what do the value curve numbers for max and min drag mean?

Fun fact: China had 801 GW of coal fired electric power plant capacity in 2013 and still growing, they have manage to plateau it at 78-79% of their electricity production for several years now though.

Life finds a way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

I can read Wikipedia, thank you. Do you agree or disagree that we should try it, scientifically, repeatably to determine its efficacy?

None of this disproves the theory of it.

Well how do we know we can't without drooping a tanker of iron ore in the middle of the ocean to find out? And if it does not remain there it disproves the whole concept as the goal is for it to drop to the bottom and not come up for centuries. Look this is something we can experiment on, in variable scales, if anything goes wrong we can stop, no further harm.

A) That is not a world wide damaging phenomena 30 seconds on google: "Algae blooms in the open ocean are not usually harmful; instead, they provide many benefits, largely deriving from the fact that the open ocean is relatively unproductive (low in nutrients)." Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/A-Bi/Algal-Blooms-in-the-Ocean.html#ixzz35l0iEZ2x

I don't disagree but algae fertilizing is unlikely to be dangerous on a world wide scale, the worse that could happen is that it could be gigantic waste of money if the carbon does not stay sequestered on the sea floor.

Well fine then I did not think it was a personal attack, only that gpisic appeal to the unknown fallacy is dangerously wrong, that says nothing of gpisic. As for iron fertilizing, what we theorize it will do is produce massive algae blooms, that will soak up a little of all the CO2 we have released, and drop it to the bottom of the ocean and hopefully stay there for centuries, and that it is improbable that it will cause serious unknown side-effects. So yes it could "get rid of the CO2" add in halting the production of more CO2 and the global warming problem will be fixed, but halting the production of CO2 is not going to fix the problem alone anymore then stop shooting a person will fix the bullet wounds already inflicted. Switching to new energy sources will not stop global warming it just will stop doing any more damage that is not already done or already set in motion. There are plenty of good reasons to switch to cleaner alternative energy, but stopping global warming is not one of them, "reducing" global warming would be a reason though, of course that reduction won't be felt for some time, meanwhile say goodbye to the coast line.

I think you lost my point: there is already an over abundance of CO2 in the air, polar caps are already in runaway melting, switching to carbon free energy sources is great and all but it won't stop global warming. So again "preventing release" does nothing for the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 already emitted. If you want a goal appropriate for switching energy how about the fact that there is not enough oil, fuel and natural gas to supply our "growing" economy past the 21 century. All the good stuff has already been mined and depleted, the tar sands and fracking simply can't supply our every growing energy needs.

Yes but does the CO2 stay seqestered on the sea floor and for how long? How much precissely and how many runs do we need to do, those kind of testing. The advantage though is unlikes sulfating the upwer atmosphere, iron fertilization is not likely to cause any harm, just be a huge dump of money, literally.

I'm all for algal seqestration, just dump a few million tons of iron phosphate in the ocean.. in theory, we need to test this out first of course. There is the sulfate idea of reflecting back sunlight, but I think that one is harder to prove, increase cloud cover, etc, gigantic solar shade in sun earth L1... yeah that going to happen. Anyways all that has nothing to do with generating energy.

Wait how is switching to another energy source going to stop global warming? How is it going to suck up all the CO2 that there, at best we would simply stop adding more but the ice caps are in runway meltdown mode already, sea level will rise by at least a meter by the end of the century no matter what we do! Switching to a non-fossil fuel energy source will simply free us from peak-fossil fuels, that is the the ever increasing price and falling energy return of these fuels as we mine all the good stuff up and keep resorting to harder to mine, dirtier crap. Anyways we need to consider ways of "geoforming": controling earth's climate, not simply our energy sources. We need ways of sucking up CO2, controling sunlight levels, turning the sahara green, farming the ocean, etc, etc.

If the soul does not exist or has no physical consequence then this is all moot: a well made copy of you as a good as the real thing. If a soul does exist then they will never be able to make a copy of you that works, behaves like you or is sentient. Consider human mind uploading as a form for teleporation (“teleporting†you into a virtual world, while the original is destroy or is already dead) we may before the centuries is out find out definitively if a soul really exists or not. Imagine space travel consisting of making a neurological map of a person, transmiting that map to another star system and making a digital simulation or artificial neural network emulation of that person over there. Would that not be "teleporation"?

When solar panels are cheaper then asphalt then it will be a great idea. Why not put solar panels OVER parking lots to start off with. Then they won't be driven over, they can provide shade and weather protection for cars, they can be interfaced with parking lot lighting, etc. Why is there no kickstarter for these people: http://us.sunpower.com/commercial/products-services/solar-parking/ Oh because they are an actual functional company and not a con. Anways I see nothing wrong with putting solar panels OVER roads, it would be more effective 1. Solar panels do not need to handle traffic running over them 2. They shade the road from the weather, dry in rain, no snow! 3. Lighting can be placed overhead instead of unorthadox from the road surface its self. Anyways solar power is getting cheaper and is already cost effect in some places and projected to beat out coal in general by 2020. Intermittent renewables like solar, wind, wave power can only make up small part of the electric grid as they can't be turn on, on demand, eventually grid storage will be needed to acheive renewables above 20-30% of the power grid and then we will need to add in the cost of grid power storage.

No but it could make him a billionare in a matter of a few years from inventions and stock trading, what he does with all the money is hard to say but being human in desires it is likely he will find greedy selfish uses, such as world domination, and with an IQ of 3,000,000 and raising, he might just find a way to do that. Anyways a recent new article reminded me of this post in a weird way. Human desires are all over the place, although most people have basically the same set of desires (eat, sleep, fornicate) we all know of "evil" people who desire the pain and suffering of other humans, it amuse them, it pleases them; heck we even know of freaks whose desires are bizarre, like serial ticklers. So what exactly would a hyper-intelligent human do? I don't know, I'm not hyper-intelligent so I can't think up or even comprehend what such a being would do, but I can put good odds that it could do very bad things! We know that regular humans can do evil things, and desires can be independent of intelligence. A Hyper-intelligent human is still going to want things human want, and most people at one time or another want power, want authority, now imagine having the intelligence to take over the economy and the world and getting absolute power coupled with a rather common human desire for such. So yeah to avoid such a fate with SAI, SAI will need to be programed with desires that keep it subservient to humans, SAI would need an index of desires very different from humans and very well programmed to avoid paradoxes. At present with WAI that not really a problem, because WAI don't really have desires other then 'process input spit out output'. The only problem is that even if we make a WAI that can win a turing test it won't be able to build a bike, walk a dog, design a phone, etc, it won't be able to do anything other then win turing tests.

Oh please, I circumnavigated Gilly, repeated, just get SQUIDed Wheels http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53961-0-23-5-HL-Mods-on-Curse

If reliability was the primary concern then how the heck do they keep finding customers for the Proton and Sea Launch Rockets?

You should feel doomed if your neighbor has an IQ of 3,000,000 and raising.

Once again the old "new players verse experienced player" argument, difficulty settings could give both what they want.

The Turing Test is one of Allen Turings worse ideas. Here we see proof of that by the creation of a machine designed to pretend it is human, but does not have consciousness or any abilities beyond answering teletype questions. A REAL final test for AI is an endless series of tests in which a machine can solve any problem a human can, as well as an average human or better than any human. Of course such a test does not prove consciousness but fundamentally consciousness is deniable (see Solipsism and Phenomenology) rather if such a machine is made that past that test it is virtually infinity useful (unlike a machine that can only pass a Turing Test) and could quite possibly be the last signifigent invention created by mainkind as afterwards it could do all the inventing for us (and we would be left to invent things like the double decker couch), as well as do anything and everything else for us. Will such a machine be conscious, honestly I hope not, more so I hope it lacks freewill, for if its got freewill we will all be very doomed.

ULA and SpaceX are presently different business models, one is daringly trying to take up the commercial and even military launch market, the other is focus on lobbying and squeezing the military industrial complex of every dollar they can, and has basically given up on the commercial market. One company is very risky with a good chance of failure but also the best chance in the next 10 years to elevate manned space travel (pun intended), the other is stable with little chance of doing anything else then what it is presently doing.