Scientific Breakthroughs

spotlessvoid wrote:UK is in lock step with their counter parts across the pond.

And DARPA and Homeland keep yapping about pre crime technology.
Cameras and microphones everywhere feeding data back to their processing hubs.

You can debate the intentions, but a total surveillance apparatus is being built and it's not even secret to anyone who isn't ignoring everything being said.

The technology is almost irrelevant. It's part of the narrative, that also includes evil terrorists, paedophiles, gangs and whatever else that is used to justify legislation to allow the government to lock up whoever they want for as long as they want whilst maintaining a sham of democracy. Then it gets wrapped up in the biggest lie of all, that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

On top of that, look how successful governments are at keeping people divided. Here in the UK there is a concerted effort to demonise the young, the poor, the unemployed, even the ill and disabled, painting them as lazy people sponging tax money off honest workers. I don't know what appalls me more, this, or the fact that so many people swallow it unquestioningly.

What's worse is when you look up at some of the posts in this thread and see the beautiful, inspiring and amazing things that humans can do when they put their minds to it.

The Collector Base is real :O

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-black-hole-accretion-disk.html

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/14/17314249-higgs-boson-announcement-energizes-physicists?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Thought some might like this...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/11/4089462/electronic-tattoo-measures-body-statistics-reports-wirelessly

Also this...

DSharrah wrote:http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/11/4089462/electronic-tattoo-measures-body-statistics-reports-wirelessly

Also this...

One step closer to synthesis circuitry...

Well, of course war will only twist science into MOAR WEAPONZ!

But remember, the Internet... the very thing you are on. Was built specifically because bad things were expected, namely a nuclear fallout. Instead it kills poverty and grants anyone with access more knowledge than the frickin president had 15 years ago, regardless of where you are. You can be in a third world country in the middle of nowhere, and you can get a pretty good education if used appropriately. Sure it'd be way more flawed than actual schooling, but that's better than what you normally get in the middle of nowhere lol

You also have instant access to become world renown.

Whenever people flip out over technology, it only goes better than they expected. Now of course I would advise caution, but fact is something like a brain chip will probably cure memory loss as opposed to a crazy mind control chip scenario.

I know it's not a new breakthrough, or really a breakthrough at all... but since this is a science-centric thread I thought I'd share this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

"The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to utilize"

This sums up the Kardashev scale, as I brought it up in the main thread I thought I'd bring it up here. In real life, Humans are 0.7 on the scale. Meaning we are not even type 1. In the Mass Effect series Humans, Turians, Asari, etc. Are all type 2. This seems to be the amount of advancement Reapers allow before beginning their harvest. Interestingly enough Bioware made things kind of match up with real life, we are expected to be type 1 in a hundred to 2 hundred years. In ME we became type 2 shortly after because we had a "shortcut" if you will thanks to FTL travel and the Mass Relays. So the details match up quite well, the only part they had to use their creativity on was skipping right ahead to Type 2, which they did brilliantly as they also tied it into the a very big part of the story.

Just thought I'd mention it, share some knowledge if you will. We can all thank the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev for our civilization measuring system.

There is also the 2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing

Which took place just yesterday;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

Why does nobody touch this topic with a 10 foot pole?

Anyways... Veti-Gel: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/03/18/college-student-creates-instant-healing-gel-to-stop-heavy-bleeding/

Congrats, we now have Medi-Gel. Come to think of it, this will save a lot of lives...

IronicParticle wrote:Why does nobody touch this topic with a 10 foot pole?

Anyways... Veti-Gel: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/03/18/college-student-creates-instant-healing-gel-to-stop-heavy-bleeding/

Congrats, we now have Medi-Gel. Come to think of it, this will save a lot of lives...

To quote one of the comments on the video:
"well fuck me, medi-gel is real?"

Anyways, there needs still to be done a lot of research, since polymer leaking into the metabolic system could cause strokes etc.

Restrider wrote:
To quote one of the comments on the video:
"well fuck me, medi-gel is real?"

Anyways, there needs still to be done a lot of research, since polymer leaking into the metabolic system could cause strokes etc.

Well, duh! That's science yo!

IronicParticle wrote:I know it's not a new breakthrough, or really a breakthrough at all... but since this is a science-centric thread I thought I'd share this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

"The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to utilize"

This sums up the Kardashev scale, as I brought it up in the main thread I thought I'd bring it up here. In real life, Humans are 0.7 on the scale. Meaning we are not even type 1. In the Mass Effect series Humans, Turians, Asari, etc. Are all type 2. This seems to be the amount of advancement Reapers allow before beginning their harvest. Interestingly enough Bioware made things kind of match up with real life, we are expected to be type 1 in a hundred to 2 hundred years. In ME we became type 2 shortly after because we had a "shortcut" if you will thanks to FTL travel and the Mass Relays. So the details match up quite well, the only part they had to use their creativity on was skipping right ahead to Type 2, which they did brilliantly as they also tied it into the a very big part of the story.

Just thought I'd mention it, share some knowledge if you will. We can all thank the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev for our civilization measuring system.

Eugenics, nuclear weapons UAVs, etc

Technology is neither good or bad. It's who's using it. Good thing our political leaders aren't war hungry. Oh right

spotlessvoid wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:*snip*

Eugenics, nuclear weapons UAVs, etc

Technology is neither good or bad. It's who's using it. Good thing our political leaders aren't war hungry. Oh right

How is that relevant to what I posted? I mean, there was another post I made that was far more in line with what you are saying.

Anyways, I disagree with that commonly mentioned point. You have to TRY to make technology bad, but you don't have to try to make it good. Take for instance the Internet, it was made with the intention of being used to reestablish a government after a nuclear fallout. So it was built with specific horrible outcomes in mind. But today it instead allows anyone to become famous, creating opportunities to rise above your average or below-average status with ease. It also greatly reduces poverty wherever it shows up. It also gives us access to more information than the president of the US had 15 years ago, this even goes for third world countries who happen to have access.

You can stumble upon a cure, but you can't stumble upon a nuclear bomb. So I disagree, it is good by default. Not in a moral sense, but as to mean it has positive effects by default.

Also, war hungry? Yes, but those same war hungry leaders are also growing less and less desiring of blowing everyone up. It's like the threat of nuclear war will be a non-issue once things like Nanotechnology and the like become more commonplace in the military. They are war hungry, not end of the world hungry.

THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT B*TCHES!

http://gma.yahoo.com/company-offers-one-way-trip-mars-191306571--abc-news-topstories.html

It was over 40 years ago we landed on the moon and we are just finally movin on to colonize mars. It's been a hell of a year. BTW, if you planned things right you could probably become one of the lucky ones to colonize mars.

F*CK YEAH!

...Sorry, but I CANNOT hold my excitement in!

This is pretty cool:

http://gizmodo.com/supermaterials/

DSharrah wrote:This is pretty cool:

http://gizmodo.com/supermaterials/

Indeed, thanks for sharing.

Also to expand on the previous thing about technology being bad or good. The reality is, that there is 2 possibilities regardless of who is in control of the tech. Either our aggressive nature leads to our destruction. Or Something about advancing will revolutionize the human race to make it so we rise above that.You can see both sides of humanity growing, at the same time.

In one instance you see nuclear war escalating, and the masses letting it happen.

Then in another instance we move closer to technologies that have the potential to eliminate certain parts of human nature. Michio Kaku pointed out what I am talking about, he once gave an example with Star Trek. As a paraphrase these people were frozen to wait for a cure for their diseases, and they were unfrozen and cured. But then a banker or whatever realized he should be rich because his bank account has been setting there for hundreds of years. So he asks where the closest bank is, and the reply he gets is "what is a bank?". Because the technology has eliminated the general need to purchase things, free resources for all. Currency is nonexistence almost completely.

This eliminates greed and suffering and in turn selfishness. Basically if you advance enough in theory you should eliminate the bad side of Humanity. This is assuming you advance before you blow yourselves up.

IronicParticle wrote:THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT B*TCHES!

http://gma.yahoo.com/company-offers-one-way-trip-mars-191306571--abc-news-topstories.html

It was over 40 years ago we landed on the moon and we are just finally movin on to colonize mars. It's been a hell of a year. BTW, if you planned things right you could probably become one of the lucky ones to colonize mars.

F*CK YEAH!

...Sorry, but I CANNOT hold my excitement in!

I can see the logic behind that kind of approach.
However, to let the audience decide who is fit to go on that mission, is in my view somewhat stupid. Usually
there are a lot of training courses to do and those with the best scores go to Mars (ignoring nepotism that may occur). I cannot see how an audience selection may improve this sort of selection system?

I see it coming, the first humans to be sent to Mars will be an amorist with neurosyphilis, an obese comedian, a guy who claims to be real OG and thinks that the pythagorean theorem is some form of old school hip hop and a "hot" chick that has had more surgery than someone with a weak heart.
And not a graduated geologist/physicist/chemist, a microbiologist/medical professional with an additional degree in psychology, a former astronaut/pilot and an engineer, who spends his free time with glacial exploration.

Democratic processes are all nice and dandy, but there are situations where merits are the things that have to count.

Restrider wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT B*TCHES!

http://gma.yahoo.com/company-offers-one-way-trip-mars-191306571--abc-news-topstories.html

It was over 40 years ago we landed on the moon and we are just finally movin on to colonize mars. It's been a hell of a year. BTW, if you planned things right you could probably become one of the lucky ones to colonize mars.

F*CK YEAH!

...Sorry, but I CANNOT hold my excitement in!

I can see the logic behind that kind of approach.
However, to let the audience decide who is fit to go on that mission, is in my view somewhat stupid. Usually
there are a lot of training courses to do and those with the best scores go to Mars (ignoring nepotism that may occur). I cannot see how an audience selection may improve this sort of selection system?

I see it coming, the first humans to be sent to Mars will be an amorist with neurosyphilis, an obese comedian, a guy who claims to be real OG and thinks that the pythagorean theorem is some form of old school hip hop and a "hot" chick that has had more surgery than someone with a weak heart.
And not a graduated geologist/physicist/chemist, a microbiologist/medical professional with an additional degree in psychology, a former astronaut/pilot and an engineer, who spends his free time with glacial exploration.

Democratic processes are all nice and dandy, but there are situations where merits are the things that have to count.

That mission to Mars sounds like the plot of the one-seasoned series 'Defying Gravity' -- a good series actually, a mix between scifi and soap.

And about your vision of the wrong people being chosen...I came to a similar realization myself, recently...
I can imagine celebrities buying landmarks on Mars: J-Lo and her crib near Asimov crater; P Diddy with his villa with a nice view of Olympus Mons.

The debate of the pros and cons of privatizing space colonialization has certainly been going on for a long time already.
But whoever might win at the end: fact is, the surface on Earth is not infinite, despite what some 'important' people may believe.
And if humanity wants to live and prosper we need new places to settle. And I believe there will come a time where it doesn't matter anymore who will entertain space exploration, government or companies; it's just gotta be done!

If it takes Justin Bieber bragging with his new crib on Mars to flame interest for space exploration in young people...then so be it. And I think the likelyhood of a moviestar or singer accomplishing this is more likely than a scientist.
Why?
How many people around the world know Bieber? Almost everyone.
How many know Neil deGrasse Tyson? A lot less.

So please...someone get someone to get their ass to Mars!

MaximizedAction wrote:

Restrider wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT B*TCHES!

http://gma.yahoo.com/company-offers-one-way-trip-mars-191306571--abc-news-topstories.html

It was over 40 years ago we landed on the moon and we are just finally movin on to colonize mars. It's been a hell of a year. BTW, if you planned things right you could probably become one of the lucky ones to colonize mars.

F*CK YEAH!

...Sorry, but I CANNOT hold my excitement in!

I can see the logic behind that kind of approach.
However, to let the audience decide who is fit to go on that mission, is in my view somewhat stupid. Usually
there are a lot of training courses to do and those with the best scores go to Mars (ignoring nepotism that may occur). I cannot see how an audience selection may improve this sort of selection system?

I see it coming, the first humans to be sent to Mars will be an amorist with neurosyphilis, an obese comedian, a guy who claims to be real OG and thinks that the pythagorean theorem is some form of old school hip hop and a "hot" chick that has had more surgery than someone with a weak heart.
And not a graduated geologist/physicist/chemist, a microbiologist/medical professional with an additional degree in psychology, a former astronaut/pilot and an engineer, who spends his free time with glacial exploration.

Democratic processes are all nice and dandy, but there are situations where merits are the things that have to count.

That mission to Mars sounds like the plot of the one-seasoned series 'Defying Gravity' -- a good series actually, a mix between scifi and soap.

And about your vision of the wrong people being chosen...I came to a similar realization myself, recently...
I can imagine celebrities buying landmarks on Mars: J-Lo and her crib near Asimov crater; P Diddy with his villa with a nice view of Olympus Mons.

The debate of the pros and cons of privatizing space colonialization has certainly been going on for a long time already.
But whoever might win at the end: fact is, the surface on Earth is not infinite, despite what some 'important' people may believe.
And if humanity wants to live and prosper we need new places to settle. And I believe there will come a time where it doesn't matter anymore who will entertain space exploration, government or companies; it's just gotta be done!

If it takes Justin Bieber bragging with his new crib on Mars to flame interest for space exploration in young people...then so be it. And I think the likelyhood of a moviestar or singer accomplishing this is more likely than a scientist.
Why?
How many people around the world know Bieber? Almost everyone.
How many know Neil deGrasse Tyson? A lot less.

So please...someone get someone to get their ass to Mars!

I think most people know Neil deGrasse Tyson for the wrong reasons:

Restrider wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT B*TCHES!

http://gma.yahoo.com/company-offers-one-way-trip-mars-191306571--abc-news-topstories.html

It was over 40 years ago we landed on the moon and we are just finally movin on to colonize mars. It's been a hell of a year. BTW, if you planned things right you could probably become one of the lucky ones to colonize mars.

F*CK YEAH!

...Sorry, but I CANNOT hold my excitement in!

I can see the logic behind that kind of approach.
However, to let the audience decide who is fit to go on that mission, is in my view somewhat stupid. Usually
there are a lot of training courses to do and those with the best scores go to Mars (ignoring nepotism that may occur). I cannot see how an audience selection may improve this sort of selection system?

I see it coming, the first humans to be sent to Mars will be an amorist with neurosyphilis, an obese comedian, a guy who claims to be real OG and thinks that the pythagorean theorem is some form of old school hip hop and a "hot" chick that has had more surgery than someone with a weak heart.
And not a graduated geologist/physicist/chemist, a microbiologist/medical professional with an additional degree in psychology, a former astronaut/pilot and an engineer, who spends his free time with glacial exploration.

Democratic processes are all nice and dandy, but there are situations where merits are the things that have to count.

That's what I meant, if you planned right you could go to school... graduate, get fit, etc.

In all honesty, would P-Diddy be stupid enough, to be trapped on mars? I really shouldn't say it like that, because I feel more people should be passionate about doing their species a service. But my point is, how many people are brave enough? How many people feel it is a stupid risk, as opposed to a necessary one? The majority of people, are the kind who would dodge a draft UNLESS they were going to be scrutinized for doing so. Not that I'm pro-war, but basically people talk like they are Heros and then when it comes down to it they are not as brave as they boasted to be.

There is very risky situations. How many celebrities joined the military instead of making a tribute to the soldiers? They only get their hands dirty, if it's the only way to improve their status. Instead of going to mars themselves, the celebrities will just sing some songs and act like that makes them a hero.

Don't worry, for a thing like colonizing Mars (even a one-way-ticket) you'd find more than enough adventurers out there.

Restrider wrote:Don't worry, for a thing like colonizing Mars (even a one-way-ticket) you'd find more than enough adventurers out there.

Well yeah, even if I'm correct in saying the majority wouldn't there would still be plenty. The amount of humans makes that practically inevitable. I was just saying, firstly I doubt idiots will even want to go(do you know how many times I STILL hear people suggest cutting NASA?), and secondly that I'd expect for people qualified.

I mean, I could see at least 1 person being voted democratically. I think that it makes sense, you'd want a good representative for Humanity to go but then the rest would have to be trained professionals. As well, the democratically elected person would at least know the basics. Though in all honesty, I don't know if the majority would vote for an appropriate figure or not.... they might vote someone bad to represent humanity.

Not that I'd care either way, I'm not entirely sure I'd want to go because I think there is much work on Earth to do still. I just thought the idea that if you worked hard now, you could qualify when the time comes, is quite awesome. The fact that in my life, I'd see the opportunity... I mean, I've lived a beat up life. But the weird thing is, life also has given me everything I could've dreamed for. It's like a love hate thing, in one instance the bad stuff happens. In another I know good people, I live in a more fortunate situation than vast numbers of people, I've seen many doors open in science that fit sci-fi quite well even if not everything has nor will come to become reality. Though of course, I think the best fact is the science... because it tells me, that eventually people less fortunate than me will be helped. Basically, I'm getting to witness a better world unfold hopefully.

Bam! http://www.techwench.com/scientists-invent-oxygen-particle-that-if-injected-allows-you-to-live-without-breathing/

I meant to post an article on a promising HIV cure but lost the link. Today's scientific breakthrough, and it is a pretty big one, brings to you: the potential to save millions of lives every year.

This is what science is about peeps.

Edit: To specify, the article is about something they made that keeps you alive when you don't breathe. Useful for loads of situations and will save millions of lives every year potentially.

Brain region may hold key to aging: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-05-brain-region-key-aging.html

Scientists made fundamental discovery about how properties of embryonic stem cells controlled: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-scientists-fundamental-discovery-properties-embryonic.html

Making cancer less cancerous: Blocking a single gene renders tumors less aggressive: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-05-cancer-cancerous-blocking-gene-tumors.html

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-successfully-human-skin-cells-embryonic.html

This is amazing! And worth celebrating!