Rorix. Mi Blog en Forocoches.
7_42d
01-jun-2013 13:38
#481
 Mola el avatar, no se exactamente lo que es, ¿una magnetosfera, un viento solar? Nusenuse |
ForoCoches: Miembro
02-jun-2013 06:05
#483
 Bela Bellí came up with the idea for the ridiculous airships over lunch. He was halfway through his battered cod and french fries when he held up a half-eaten tender, struck by a bolt of tartar-fueled inspiration. "Fish and ships!" he cried out. Then he repeated the phrase several times, the pronouncement getting softer after each bite of fish. Bellí always had been fond of puns.
Bellí was a famous eccentric, and while the public had little use for his singing toast or stuffed puffins that screamed when turned upside down, orders poured in for his floating fish airships. The bloated beasts ate special pellets that they could convert into a gas that was lighter than air, and the operator could regulate the rate of the conversion process. Bellí christened the first ship the "Findenburg," which made Noreen, his mechanic, roll her eyes. If there was one thing Bellí liked more than puns, it was tempting fate. Noreen quietly invested in a caterpillar train endeavor. For a while, the fish ships floated through the city if not majestically, then at least efficiently. They bypassed the crowded streets, and could haul more than even the sturdiest mule. (Although there was a distinct increase in injuries by falling parcel.) During the downpours of monsoon season, they hovered high above the mud, happy as fish in water. When the first fish ship exploded, it was easy to write off as an accident. Maybe the fish ate too much. Maybe the operator ramped up the conversion too quickly. But soon the skies were filled with schools of fishy fireballs. When it was discovered that the roasted debris was not just edible, but quite tasty (with a note, some people insisted, of cayenne pepper), Noreen realized this was another one of Bellí's jokes. Bellí insisted the problem was that fish were simply too flammable. Sea cows, he assured his customers, would make more stable airships. He even knew a gene tweak that could make them as a big as whales. Noreen, who had seen Bellí's old recordings of the Hidenburg disaster, could spot a pun a mile away. After closing on each new airship order, she sent Bellí's customers across the street, where her cousin was making a killing in insurance. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
03-jun-2013 22:35
#484
|
He vuelto. Más openings de series buenas. [Video Error - ID incorrecto] |
ForoCoches: Miembro
03-jun-2013 22:43
#485
|
[Video Error - ID incorrecto] Cita de Lech
La estás tarareando?
|
ForoCoches: Miembro
04-jun-2013 14:54
#489
|
Ya paro. Y eso que le daba vidilla al blog. P.D. Se comenta que tienes novia y que por eso no entras en los tanques. Felicidades, en 9 meses... 
|
ForoCoches: Miembro
09-jun-2013 15:43
#495
| Concept art de un espaciopuerto, queda algo falso lo de las tres lunas en el fondo ya que es físicamente imposible, pero sigue molando. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
13-jun-2013 06:15
#497
These Unresolved Ethical Questions Are About to Get Real As our technologies take us from the theoretical to the practical, a number of thorny moral quandaries remain unanswered. Here are important unresolved ethical questions that are on the verge of becoming highly relevant. Should people be allowed to clone themselves? There’s currently a global moratorium on human cloning. But you just know that’s not going to last. Back in 2007, Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk faked a human cloning breakthrough, and it’ll only be a matter of time before some renegade scientist actually does it. This year has already seen two major advancements in this area, including the use of cloning to create embryonic stem cells and a new technique where mammalian cloning lines can be extended and reproduced indefinitely. Many people consider the act of human cloning to be an affront to our dignity and individuality. It’s also seen by some as an incredibly selfish and egotistical act. Others worry about the potential for clones to be exploited or abused. On the flip-side of the debate, supporters say there’s no harm done so long as the rights of clones are recognized. A common argument in support is that clones are essentially delayed twins. And yet others say it’s a perfectly legitimate way to create biological offspring — that it’s a novel form of assisted human reproduction that could help same-sex or infertile couples reproduce. Is it okay to introduce non-human DNA in our genome?  This branch of science is called transgenics — the intermingling of human and non-human genetic information. Scientists endow lab animals with bits of human DNA all the time, but the opposite most assuredly doesn’t happen. And in fact, it’s illegal virtually everywhere. Some worry about the creation of chimeras — creatures that are part-human and part-something-else. Supporters say that it could result in novel therapies. It’s possible, for example, that a non-human animal has a natural immunity to a disease. Wouldn’t we want to endow ourselves with this same immunity? More radically and speculatively, it’s also possible that more substantive animal characteristics could be introduced into humans (bird vision, dog hearing, dolphin fins, etc.). If so, what’s the harm? Would we diminish what it means to be human? Should parents be allowed to design their babies? Should we allow a Gattaca-like world to come into existence? Like human cloning, the idea of genetically modifying our offspring still falls within the realms of illegality and taboo. Its supporters call it human trait selection; it’s opponents derogatively refer to it as designer babies. Either way, it would allow parents to select the characteristics of their progeny, including non-medical attributes like hair and eye color, height, intelligence, greater empathy, sexual orientation, personality type, and basically any other genetically influenced trait.  Its detractors complain that it’s simply a way for parents to control the destiny of their offspring. They also worry that an arms race could occur, where parents will feel compelled to modify their offspring as a way to keep up with the Jones's baby. Some are concerned about the potential for abuse — like parents giving their children superfluous physical characteristics (such as extreme height, or even silly things like a tail). Supporters, on the other hand, say it’s a form of reproductive autonomy, and that well-informed and well-intentioned parents — in conjunction with the laws and their fertility doctor — are well within their rights. Others argue that human trait selection is inherently good, and that parents are simply looking to maximize their child’s potential. What are the most important areas of scientific research? Our civilization is currently facing a number of grave challenges — everything from superstorms through to epidemics and the rise of apocalyptic threats. So, when it comes to the funding of important scientific research, what makes the most sense?  Given the looming threat of global warming, some would say that we should we invest in climate science and various geoengineering schemes. There’s also the threat of a global pandemic, like the avian flu. Shouldn’t that be our greatest concern? Or what about the potential for powerful technologies to serve as potential game-changers — things that could actually fix our planet. It's reasonable to argue that we should invest in additive manufacturing techniques (like 3D printing), molecular nanotechnology — and even artificial intelligence. Which brings up another important area: research into mitigating existential risks. Should people be forced to die once indefinite lifespans are achieved? The day will eventually come when the problem that is biological aging is finally solved. Needless to say, the advent of indefinite lifespans could result in some serious negative consequences, including overpopulation, the rise of a gerontocracy, widespread boredom and restlessness, and a de-valuing of life. And in fact, in consideration of these possibilities, political scientist Francis Fukuyama — back when he was serving on George W. Bush’s bioethics council — said that governments have the right to tell their citizens that they have to die. It would be a kind of Logan’s Run world. Such a turn of events would be highly problematic, to say the least, and a complete affront to our civil rights (i.e. the right to medical treatment, the right to life, the right to self-determination etc.). So how are we going to deal with the prospect of indefinite lifespans once they start to emerge? And what about the right to end one’s life? Should we have guaranteed universal income? Within a few decades, the global economy could face a collapse the likes of which we've never seen. As robots replace manual workers, and as thought workers start to get replaced by artificial intelligence, unemployment rates could reach staggering levels. The concentration of wealth could become extremely atomized. It would be a disruption similar to the one caused by the Great Depression — an economic and social catastrophe that ushered in the modern welfare state. Should this second Great Depression occur, there could be calls for a guaranteed universal income — a social policy that ensures everyone gets a steady paycheck to make sure basic needs are met. Of course, not everyone will be thrilled with this idea; a population dependant on the government — or more accurately, the forced distribution of wealth — certainly rubs conservative elements the wrong way. Which animals have moral value? Last year, an international group of scientists signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in which they proclaimed their support for the idea that many animals are conscious and aware to the degree that humans are — a list of animals that includes all mammals, birds, and even the octopus. As we’re also learning, insects also exhibit some remarkable cognitive capacities. A question is starting to emerge about the moral relevance of these animals, and whether or not we should take more care in ensuring the well-being. To what extent should we work to reduce suffering in the world? Needless to say, not everyone is onboard with these ideas. It’s largely taken for granted, owing to our position of privilege, that we can exploit animals and use them as we see fit, whether it be for meat, our entertainment, or for medical testing purposes. Can only humans be persons? Further, there’s also the issue of non-human animal personhood — the notion that some animals, owing to complex cognitive and emotional attributes, deserve the same sorts of legal protections afforded to all humans. Specifically, these animals would include all great apes, cetaceans (dolphins and whales), and elephants. Looking further ahead, there’s even the potential for artificial intelligence to have not just moral value, but personhood designation itself. Many would argue that only humans can be persons. This is the basic tenet of human exceptionalism — the idea that humans should always occupy an exalted place atop the food chain, and that there’s something inherently and intangibly special about Homo sapiens. Should we biologically enhance non-human animals? Somewhat related to the last point, there’s also the potential for animal uplift. Just last year, scientists demonstrated that a brain implant can improve thinking ability in primates. In short order, and as a consequence of testing human augmentation technologies on animals, we will have it within our means to significantly enhance their cognitive capacities as well. As I’ve argued in the past, we may actually be morally obligated to do this as we bring the entire biosphere into a post-biological, post-Darwinian existence. But others decry this as a form of human imperialism, and as a way to impose human characteristics on animals. Some would simply say that we shouldn’t mess with nature and that it’s none of our business to modify animals in this way. Do people living in the present have more value than future persons? This is a classic question that has baffled moral theorists for years, and it’s one that could soon become quite topical. If we’re to deal with climate change and prevent the exhaustion of our planet’s non-renewable resources, we may be forced to scale back our civilization to ensure ongoing sustainability. Otherwise, future generations will have to reap what we sow. The answer, some would say, is to pull back and live simpler lives. But should people living in the here-and-now have to worry and make sacrifices for people who haven’t even been born yet? But what if things are better in the future? Would it all have been worth it? |
Juciis por ***
13-jun-2013 12:58
#498
|
[...]
Last year, an international group of scientists signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in which they proclaimed their support for the idea that many animals are conscious and aware to the degree that humans are — a list of animals that includes all mammals, birds, and even the octopus. As we’re also learning, insects also exhibit some remarkable cognitive capacities. A question is starting to emerge about the moral relevance of these animals, and whether or not we should take more care in ensuring the well-being. To what extent should we work to reduce suffering in the world? Needless to say, not everyone is onboard with these ideas. It’s largely taken for granted, owing to our position of privilege, that we can exploit animals and use them as we see fit, whether it be for meat, our entertainment, or for medical testing purposes. [...] Veis? el pulpo. Ya sabia yo que el imbecil del scatergoris no era tan imbecil. Por cierto, las imagenes que salen son de una pelicula, no me aucerdo del nombre ahora mismo. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
16-jun-2013 03:57
#504
|
Last spring on a cool afternoon, I saw a honeybee on one of the plants in my garden. It didn't seem to be moving so I gave it a gentle prod with a piece of straw. It moved feebly, but I didn't seem able to fly. So I went into the house, and got some honey on a spoon. I held it out in front of her and she immediately uncurled her proboscis and started drinking. Later I checked on her, when it started to rain, and she had curled up under the leaf I had seen her on. Come morning, I left some more honey in the leaf for her before I went to work. When I got home that evening, she was gone and so was the honey. I like to think she go home, and waggle danced to bring her sisters back to bring the rest of the honey back to her hive. My great-grandfather kept bees. He started during the Second World War with the sugar rationing. Decided he liked honey and maple syrup (from the farm's woodlot) better than sugar so kept with it after the war. My Mom says he could put his bare hands into the hive and not get stung. I used to work in environmental education, and one of the most magical things I ever saw in the bush was when I was walking in a Provincial Park one spring. I started hearing this humming sound. The farther I walked along the trail, the louder it got. Then I came around the corner and saw this bush that was in flower. It was about the only flowers I had seen out that day, and the whole thing was just alive with bees. I just stood there, transfixed. |
Juciis por ***
19-jun-2013 19:56
#510
|
El cockpit del A350 no me parece nada del otro mundo, de hecho de novedoso tiene poco, si acaso las screen de los fmc algo mas grandes e ya. Lo demás nada fuera de lo normal de lo que viene siendo habitual en airbus. PD: los sidesticks siguen siendo mas feos que pegarle a un padre con un calcetin sudao. Aunque bastante mas guapos que los cuernos de vaca de los boeing. |
Editado: 19-jun-2013 19:58 -