>tfw you realise it will cost TRILLIONS of dollars to build spaceships to mine asteroids and colonize other planets and billions of dollars more to build "space hotels and space tourist spots". >tfw you realise no corporation on the planet has the funds nor the investor confidence to see through such a risky venture >tfw the US barely spends 0.5% of its GDP on NASA
Not even private corps like SpaceX or Blue Origin can realistically realize the economics of space tourism,... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7778472 You are right, we need to develop other technology so we can put automated solar panel and hydroponic farm manufacturing robots on mars or something, but this process involves going into space at some point to help figure out which direction to go in.
>>7778472 >So basically the future of space travel and tourism is doomed and completely economically unfeasible several times over unless we discover some kind of “space magic” that is both cheap and efficient to defy the laws of physics...
and that's news to you? kek thing is, there isnt all that much to do in space. because it's mostly empty. 'asteroid mining' is (for now) a pipedream of people who play too many scifi video games. it's just too impractical and not even remotely profitable.
same for off-planet colonies. aside from research there is nothing they provide that couldnt be done on earth for a fraction of the cost.
establishing a small research base on the moon, and maybe even on mars, is feasible. would take a LOT of time to plan and execute, but it is feasible.
actual 'colonization' of other planets though? WAY beyond our capabilities. would require so much shit we have absolutely no way of getting on the moon (or mars), and even if we had, they'd still be far from self-sufficient (which is kind of required for an actual human settlement to thrive)
>>7778488 >if only humans werent humans, then my utopian societal models could finally work!
Anyone bere knows sites to leaen biology-chemistry math-calculus end exercise? This is my last year of school, and i am having lots of troubles because i found some gaps in my instruction, due to the fact that i didn't get anything to study from.I've always been very good in scientific subjects but this year i'm shitting bricks, sorry for any grammar mistakes, but i'm terrified(and foreign). Please, i need help.
I believe that this is the criteria for tiling the whole grid, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Each of a and b must divide either n or m (they may divide the same number or different numbers). If they divide the same number, say a | n and b | n, then you must have m = ax + by for some non negative integers x,y.
Why do people used odds instead of probabilities? It just seems like a convoluted way to express a simple idea. It's not intuitive to me and I have to do calculation to get the probability so I can understand what they mean by the 'odds'.
Pursue an undergraduate degree in biology. If a school by you has an actual degree in botany, go for that. Take upper level plant biology courses and try to engage in some kind of plant research while there, if possible.
Pursue a PhD in Plant Biology, or another field of biology, using plants as a model system or an organism of interest.
So I'm an Ausfag, 2016, year 11 in few weeks.High achiever, straight A's in all subjects. Next year doing Math b&c aswell as physics. I know the jump to year 11 is huge, what I want to know is, how hard is the calculus side of year 11? Australians Pease respond!
I'm going into year 12 this year. The difference between maths b and c in year 11 is insane, if you're any good you should be able to achieve close to perfect marks in maths b without study but in order to do well in maths c you'll need to work.
Why are these guys so fucking tough? What kind of conditioning took place so they evolved to handle such extreme conditions?
I mean.. No animal would ever have the need to survive in the vacuum of space (when dehydrated), the ability to handle colossal amounts of radiation, crushing amounts of pressure, the list goes on. Let alone that it survived every major extinction. Do they even come from Earth? The more I read about it, the more it appears to be the most successful organism that has ever lived and will ever live.
I've decided to teach myself calculus, I have a fairly solid knowledge of basic maths (did my A level last year) but I'm not sure if the book I'm using is particularly well written. I'm struggling to get my head around the example in pic related, any help would be appreciated
He's just giving you an example of how the limit can be visualized and rationalized. If you were to have a function y = x/sin(x), at x=0 the function is not defined (because we cannot divide by zero). Knowing this we have to use something called a limit. It just shows as a value approaches a point, the function in question converges to another point.
If you draw the graph you can see that it looks normal (it will even look like it passes through (0,1) ), but we still cannot define it for x=0. Graph the function and it might make more sense.
tl;dr - The picture... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I'm a fan of science fiction shows, but they often stretch the bounds of my suspension of disbelief. I also hate when they use meaningless strings of scientific words to explain away any plot holes.
Are there any SciFi shows that are more scientifically accurate?
Best I know of is Battlestar. The spaceships actually act like they're in space when they're fighting, instead of behaving like boats on the ocean. Plus they use good old guns and nukes instead of photon torpedoes.
Hey /sci/, sorry to shit up your board with this, but this is what an autist has been thinking:
If intelligence emerges from a network of more elementary entities, can intelligence emerge from a network of sentient beings acting as elementary entities?
Two things I want to think about:
1. If we had 100 billion people arranged in such a way that they each acted as a single neuron, networked exactly the way the neurons in our brains are, could that entire grouping of people as one entity be sentient?
2. Could intelligence of varying levels emerge from... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
1. Society is an example of this. Each person does their own thing and has their own life. But as a whole society has an overall opinion, flow and effect on each other, other societies and cultures, and on the world. The internet has really helped this along too.
2. Not sure what you mean by this.
>Could our world seen as one entity exhibit intelligence? All for one and one for all. While we are all single beings we are all of the same race and a single persons achievement... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
As far as I naively know, the network in our brain is mostly static - neurons do not add new connections and cut off old ones, other than during development and through trauma of course, but it's mostly static. The communication between persons is extremely dynamic. Basically, in the analogy of people to neurons, I was thinking that that was a discrepency that argued against the analogy, and wondered if that would prevent a network of humans... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7777916 neurons do write and re-write connections constantly and that's why you forget things, or never learn them. Brains that are better at making and maintaining connections are the ones we call "smart people". Such an immense amount of connections are made that they're only usually noticeable after development or trauma
On the other hand, human activity is neurotic and repetitive enough that these kinds of "society animals" do exist. It would be a psychology problem though, like how... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Replacing a person's organs, maybe. Sexual transitioning, never. You can't just generate an x or a y chromosome from nothing. Even if you transplanted one from a person's mother or father into the stem cells, you still have the problem of every cell in the person's body having a different genome than what you transplant.
>>7777880 There are already XY chromosome intersex women with functioning wombs. Chromosomes are not a barrier to functioning sex organs, even those of the opposite sex.
>you still have the problem of every cell in the person's body having a different genome than what you transplant. What does that matter? You can already get organs donated from the opposite sex, and with anti-rejection drugs your body incorporates it just fine. Chromosomes are just instructions for cell division.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.