I don't know if "awesome" is the right reaction here but the "a" part definitely is, as in aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Edit: Okay, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is essentially just a finite-state machine where the states and transitions aren't really understood, they were just copied over, right?
So it's less, "IT'S ALIIIIIIIVE!" and more, "oh it looks like this model we've built gives us some expected results."
They appear to have mapped the neurons and connections. The particular link uses a rough approximation of the neurons and inputs to get the robot to work, but the linked-to project seems like they're trying to do a complete simulation
In a way, yes it is a finite state machine, since you have a set of inputs and a "current state" as defined by which neurons are excited
I don't know if "awesome" is the right reaction here but the "a" part definitely is, as in aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Edit: Okay, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is essentially just a finite-state machine where the states and transitions aren't really understood, they were just copied over, right?
So it's less, "IT'S ALIIIIIIIVE!" and more, "oh it looks like this model we've built gives us some expected results."
Haven't read the article yet, but: Your brain is a finite state machine in that it has a finite number if particles in it that can be configured in a finite number of ways. So is your desktop computer. The Turing machine is a more useful model for an information system, but anything finite could in theory be modeled with a FSM, sure.
Edit: after reading, it looks like they implemented a (302 node) neural network. Each node also has some internal state that affects its outputs, I'll have to look deeper into this to see what they're doing there. You can get some interesting emergent behavior from these kinds of systems, but it isn't yet known for sure if this is sufficient to model the behavior of an actual complex organism. I guess the worm is a good start though!
I don't know if "awesome" is the right reaction here but the "a" part definitely is, as in aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Edit: Okay, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is essentially just a finite-state machine where the states and transitions aren't really understood, they were just copied over, right?
So it's less, "IT'S ALIIIIIIIVE!" and more, "oh it looks like this model we've built gives us some expected results."
Haven't read the article yet, but: Your brain is a finite state machine in that it has a finite number if particles in it that can be configured in a finite number of ways. So is your desktop computer. The Turing machine is a more useful model for an information system, but anything finite could in theory be modeled with a FSM, sure.
Edit: after reading, it looks like they implemented a (302 node) neural network. Each node also has some internal state that affects its outputs, I'll have to look deeper into this to see what they're doing there. You can get some interesting emergent behavior from these kinds of systems, but it isn't yet known for sure if this is sufficient to model the behavior of an actual complex organism. I guess the worm is a good start though!
We'll definitely get around to colonizing other planetary bodies, but my bet is that it will always be a subsurface type of colonization; except for Earth, the other usable objects in the system are simply too harsh to be able to convert to a proper breathable atmosphere, at least in a timeline that modern humanity is capable of sticking with. In the case of something like Mars, even if you threw out the radiation issues, you'd have to hyper-oxygenate the surface of the planet so much in order to reach a level where hemoglobin could successfully bind oxygen despite the low pressure that there would be no such thing as a "small fire", anywhere. And the level of oxygen would actually probably be toxic for prolonged exposure as well. Just can't get around the physics of the issue there, the planet is just too small and lacks the right traits.
But constructing underground and domed stuff? Yeah, that would work. They would pressurize just fine, along with shielding people from the radiation. I'm certain you could also grow stuff on the surface with heavy genetic tampering, you just wouldn't be able to have people living out on the surface without life support gear.
Not to mention that using tunnels and domes would be immensely faster than trying to alter the entire planet. Putting aside the issue of actually reaching Mars, we already could easily dig atmosphere-worthy tunnels and whatnot, no terraforming needed. Could probably build some fairly spaceous underground areas as well, due to the lower gravity.
IIRC, basically any long term plan proposed for the moon does this; with no atmosphere to protect from micro-meteorites, any long term structures are at risk of taking minor damage over time, not to mention problems with radiation and the solar wind. The easy way around it is to build ~6-10 feet under the surface of the moon, which would protect from small meteorites and radiation. The downside is building down is harder, since you have to excavate before or as you build. There's some plans that involve building on surface THEN digging up a bunch of lunar soil to cover whole thing up to achieve the same effect, with hopefully less engineering problems.
I think the biggest impediment is the lack of trees. But this could be circumvented by bring a decent supply of wood planks with us. That would let us build enough wooden tools to last until we mine sufficient rock to build us a good set of stone tools, and after that as long as the moon provides us with enough iron ore to manufacture better equipment, were golden.
Ultimately, building downward would be preferable to building above ground, honestly. A little extra work upfront, but it buys us protection from creepers. Because man, fuck creepers.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think something people tend to miss is that the geology of the Moon is not like the geology of Earth. Our moon has never had a hydrosphere; there are no sedimentary rocks and no hydrothermally concentrated ores. Consider iron ore on Earth--it's mainly sourced from "banded iron formations" which are alternating layers of iron oxides (hematite, magnetite) and other sedimentary materials. The formation of these deposits occurred as a direct result of the development of cyanobacteria (producing oxygen and oxidizing iron out of solution in the oceans). Our major source of iron--probably the most mundane, but critical, of all mineral resources--exists here only because Earth's history is characterized by the presence of both liquid water and life.
The Moon has nothing like that; it's a lot more uniform. I honestly don't know if ore bodies that aren't dependent on a hydrosphere have formed there--there's no long-term volcanism, either, beyond what you got during the cooling process after the Moon's formation, and re-melting from impact events.
So, this is an advantage and a disadvantage--you don't have most of the highly concentrated "ores" we're dependent on here on Earth, but because the Moon is less well fractionated than the Earth, you do have a crust that is relatively enriched in heavier elements.
Anyway, the point is that mining on another world is going to be very different from Earth, right down to the geology of the materials we're trying to exploit.
I think something people tend to miss is that the geology of the Moon is not like the geology of Earth. Our moon has never had a hydrosphere; there are no sedimentary rocks and no hydrothermally concentrated ores. Consider iron ore on Earth--it's mainly sourced from "banded iron formations" which are alternating layers of iron oxides (hematite, magnetite) and other sedimentary materials. The formation of these deposits occurred as a direct result of the development of cyanobacteria (producing oxygen and oxidizing iron out of solution in the oceans). Our major source of iron--probably the most mundane, but critical, of all mineral resources--exists here only because Earth's history is characterized by the presence of both liquid water and life.
The Moon has nothing like that; it's a lot more uniform. I honestly don't know if ore bodies that aren't dependent on a hydrosphere have formed there--there's no long-term volcanism, either, beyond what you got during the cooling process after the Moon's formation, and re-melting from impact events.
So, this is an advantage and a disadvantage--you don't have most of the highly concentrated "ores" we're dependent on here on Earth, but because the Moon is less well fractionated than the Earth, you do have a crust that is relatively enriched in heavier elements.
Anyway, the point is that mining on another world is going to be very different from Earth, right down to the geology of the materials we're trying to exploit.
However we have millions of years of meteor impacts undegraded by friction in the atmosphere. Some of the areas on Earth we're mining now for precious materials are ancient impact sites.
We'll definitely get around to colonizing other planetary bodies, but my bet is that it will always be a subsurface type of colonization; except for Earth, the other usable objects in the system are simply too harsh to be able to convert to a proper breathable atmosphere, at least in a timeline that modern humanity is capable of sticking with. In the case of something like Mars, even if you threw out the radiation issues, you'd have to hyper-oxygenate the surface of the planet so much in order to reach a level where hemoglobin could successfully bind oxygen despite the low pressure that there would be no such thing as a "small fire", anywhere. And the level of oxygen would actually probably be toxic for prolonged exposure as well. Just can't get around the physics of the issue there, the planet is just too small and lacks the right traits.
But constructing underground and domed stuff? Yeah, that would work. They would pressurize just fine, along with shielding people from the radiation. I'm certain you could also grow stuff on the surface with heavy genetic tampering, you just wouldn't be able to have people living out on the surface without life support gear.
Not to mention that using tunnels and domes would be immensely faster than trying to alter the entire planet. Putting aside the issue of actually reaching Mars, we already could easily dig atmosphere-worthy tunnels and whatnot, no terraforming needed. Could probably build some fairly spaceous underground areas as well, due to the lower gravity.
IIRC, basically any long term plan proposed for the moon does this; with no atmosphere to protect from micro-meteorites, any long term structures are at risk of taking minor damage over time, not to mention problems with radiation and the solar wind. The easy way around it is to build ~6-10 feet under the surface of the moon, which would protect from small meteorites and radiation. The downside is building down is harder, since you have to excavate before or as you build. There's some plans that involve building on surface THEN digging up a bunch of lunar soil to cover whole thing up to achieve the same effect, with hopefully less engineering problems.
I think the biggest impediment is the lack of trees. But this could be circumvented by bring a decent supply of wood planks with us. That would let us build enough wooden tools to last until we mine sufficient rock to build us a good set of stone tools, and after that as long as the moon provides us with enough iron ore to manufacture better equipment, were golden.
Ultimately, building downward would be preferable to building above ground, honestly. A little extra work upfront, but it buys us protection from creepers. Because man, fuck creepers.
Trees are easy. Just bring some saplings and they grow just fine even in zero atmosphere. You need them for the oxygen collection and distribution machines that the Galacticraft mod adds.
Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
So you plan on growing a sapling in to a tree on your voyage? You do realize you'd have to bring more then the tree's adult weight in food and water along for the trip as well.
So you plan on growing a sapling in to a tree on your voyage? You do realize you'd have to bring more then the tree's adult weight in food and water along for the trip as well.
So you plan on growing a sapling in to a tree on your voyage? You do realize you'd have to bring more then the tree's adult weight in food and water along for the trip as well.
It would be lighter to bring logs.
It's a Minecraft joke.
Logs are certainly preferable to planks since they're more space-efficient. Plus, unlike saplings they can be used straight away. The moon's surface is all rock and sand, so I doubt you'd be able to grow a sapling into a tree. Unless you bring a lot of dirt blocks, that is...
So you plan on growing a sapling in to a tree on your voyage? You do realize you'd have to bring more then the tree's adult weight in food and water along for the trip as well.
It would be lighter to bring logs.
It's a Minecraft joke.
Logs are certainly preferable to planks since they're more space-efficient. Plus, unlike saplings they can be used straight away. The moon's surface is all rock and sand, so I doubt you'd be able to grow a sapling into a tree. Unless you bring a lot of dirt blocks, that is...
Nah they grow perfectly fine in moon dust or even on Mars.
Just make sure you hold space down while landing.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
N.B. NASA did actually do lunar soil plant growth experiments with the material collected by the Apollo missions. The results were fairly positive as I recall, but I don't remember the specifics.
So you plan on growing a sapling in to a tree on your voyage? You do realize you'd have to bring more then the tree's adult weight in food and water along for the trip as well.
It would be lighter to bring logs.
It's a Minecraft joke.
He's wrong anyway. You can create portals on moon dust so getting saplings to the moon should be very easy and cost efficient.
From the looks of it this assembles in to tubulin similar to mature collagen found in later stages of wound healing.
Current wound healing support structures are fine plastic meshes that are inserted in to the patient and is later dissolved, and trust me, that method is nasty.
LHC may not have discovered the Higgs Boson, the boson that imparts mass to everything, the god particle as some have called it.
The Higgs Boson particle is actually a prediction of the theory proposed by Peter Higgs and several others beginning in the early 1960s. It is a predicted particle from gauge theory* developed by Higgs, Englert and others, at the heart of the Standard Model.
This recent paper is from a team of researchers from Denmark, Belgium and the United Kingdom led by Dr. Mads Toudal Frandsen. Their study entitled, "Technicolor Higgs boson in the light of LHC data" discusses how their supported theory predicts Technicolor quarks through a range of energies detectable at LHC and that one in particular is within the uncertainty level of the data point declared to be the Higgs Boson. There are variants of Technicolor Theory (TC) and the research paper compares in detail the field theory behind the Standard Model Higgs and the TC Higgs (their version of the Higgs boson). Their conclusion is that a TC Higgs is predicted by Technicolor Theory that is consistent with expected physical properties, is low mass and has an energy level – 125 GeV – indistinguishable from the resonance now considered to be the Standard Model Higgs. Theirs is a composite particle and it does not impart mass upon everything.
If the theory surrounding Technicolor is correct, then there should be many techni-quark and techni-Higgs particles to be found with the LHC or a more powerful next generation accelerator; a veritable zoo of particles besides just the Higgs Boson. The theory also means that these 'elementary' particles are composites of smaller particles and that another force of nature would be needed to bind them. And this new paper by Belyaev, Brown, Froadi and Frandsen claims that one specific techni-quark particle has a resonance (detection point) that is within the uncertainty of measurements for the Higgs Boson. In other words, the Higgs Boson might not be "the god particle" but rather a Technicolor Quark particle comprised of smaller more fundamental particles and another force binding them.
Resolving the doubts and choosing the right additions to the Standard Model does depend on better detectors, more observations and collisions at higher energies. Presently, the LHC is down to increase collision energies from 8 TeV to 13 TeV. Among the observations at the LHC, Super-symmetry has not fared well and the observations including the Higgs Boson discovery has supported the Standard Model. The weakness of the Standard Model of particle physics is that it does not explain the gravitational force of nature whereas Super-symmetry can. The theory of Technicolor maintains strong supporters as this latest paper shows and it leaves some doubt that the Higgs Boson was actually detected. Ultimately another more powerful next-generation particle accelerator may be needed.
A gauge theory is a type of theory in physics. Modern physical theories, such as the theory of electromagnetism, describe the nature of reality in terms of fields, e.g., the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, and fields for the electron and all other elementary particles. A general feature of these field theories is that the fundamental fields cannot be directly measured; however, there are observable quantities that can be measured experimentally, such as charges, energies, and velocities. In field theories, different configurations of the unobservable fields can result in identical observable quantities.
Interesting stuff.
Wonder who'd be willing to fund a better collider.
Look at it this way: once we've turned Mars into a particle accelerator, we can use it to both find new particles, and when we get invaded by aliens we can take a chunk out of it and use it as a particle cannon!
Finding a fifth fundamental force of nature would be worthwhile investment regardless of the cost and would profoundly improve our understanding of the universe. Though I'm sure most governments would probably share your reaction.
Look at it this way: once we've turned Mars into a particle accelerator, we can use it to both find new particles, and when we get invaded by aliens we can take a chunk out of it and use it as a particle cannon!
Finding a fifth fundamental force of nature would be worthwhile investment regardless of the cost and would profoundly improve our understanding of the universe. Though I'm sure most governments would probably share your reaction.
"Well Senator, despite the costs involved I'm sure anyone in the room will agree our Doom Accelerator will prove to have an excellent return on investment while at the same time acting as a potent deterrent."
Look at it this way: once we've turned Mars into a particle accelerator, we can use it to both find new particles, and when we get invaded by aliens we can take a chunk out of it and use it as a particle cannon!
Finding a fifth fundamental force of nature would be worthwhile investment regardless of the cost and would profoundly improve our understanding of the universe. Though I'm sure most governments would probably share your reaction.
"Well Senator, despite the costs involved I'm sure anyone in the room will agree our Doom Accelerator will prove to have an excellent return on investment while at the same time acting as a potent deterrent."
Can't we make it torus knot instead of a circle? That would save on some space.
It would mean a smaller radius in which to cause the particles to turn, which would require a greater angular acceleration, for a given linear velocity, which means stronger magnets, which is generally a significant limiting factor in current design.
Like, they already have the particle packets make multiple trips around when getting the last few fractional c.
Do they say how many inverse femtobarn they need to distinguish the multiple technicolor higg bosons, or what energies they would need to smash them up?
Edit: not in the article. It sounds like all this is definitely happening in energy levels they can do at CERN, the just need an experiment... A set of detectors and such, that can find what they are looking for. So. Not a new colider...
Do they say how many inverse femtobarn they need to distinguish the multiple technicolor higg bosons, or what energies they would need to smash them up?
Looks like NASA may send a quadcopter + base station to Titan. Not a bad plan, considering the low gravity and dense atmosphere will fix a lot of the flight endurance and range issues of a quadcopter, but there are a lot of low-temperature issues they'll need to tackle with the probe's mechanisms.
I don't know if "awesome" is the right reaction here but the "a" part definitely is, as in aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Edit: Okay, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is essentially just a finite-state machine where the states and transitions aren't really understood, they were just copied over, right?
So it's less, "IT'S ALIIIIIIIVE!" and more, "oh it looks like this model we've built gives us some expected results."
Haven't read the article yet, but: Your brain is a finite state machine in that it has a finite number if particles in it that can be configured in a finite number of ways. So is your desktop computer. The Turing machine is a more useful model for an information system, but anything finite could in theory be modeled with a FSM, sure.
Edit: after reading, it looks like they implemented a (302 node) neural network. Each node also has some internal state that affects its outputs, I'll have to look deeper into this to see what they're doing there. You can get some interesting emergent behavior from these kinds of systems, but it isn't yet known for sure if this is sufficient to model the behavior of an actual complex organism. I guess the worm is a good start though!
Everything tangible is finite.
It does seem like they're gasping in shock at the fact that simulating an animal with reasonably simple behavior via a neural network has produced animal-like behavior.
Like imagine if they breathlessly reported this exact thing but were talking about how insane it was that their short series of if-then-else statements could move the machine forward if food was nearby and stop it if the front sensor was activated.
Posts
I'm gonna try it out on my pi and my diy robot platform
They appear to have mapped the neurons and connections. The particular link uses a rough approximation of the neurons and inputs to get the robot to work, but the linked-to project seems like they're trying to do a complete simulation
In a way, yes it is a finite state machine, since you have a set of inputs and a "current state" as defined by which neurons are excited
Haven't read the article yet, but: Your brain is a finite state machine in that it has a finite number if particles in it that can be configured in a finite number of ways. So is your desktop computer. The Turing machine is a more useful model for an information system, but anything finite could in theory be modeled with a FSM, sure.
Edit: after reading, it looks like they implemented a (302 node) neural network. Each node also has some internal state that affects its outputs, I'll have to look deeper into this to see what they're doing there. You can get some interesting emergent behavior from these kinds of systems, but it isn't yet known for sure if this is sufficient to model the behavior of an actual complex organism. I guess the worm is a good start though!
Everything tangible is finite.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I think the biggest impediment is the lack of trees. But this could be circumvented by bring a decent supply of wood planks with us. That would let us build enough wooden tools to last until we mine sufficient rock to build us a good set of stone tools, and after that as long as the moon provides us with enough iron ore to manufacture better equipment, were golden.
Ultimately, building downward would be preferable to building above ground, honestly. A little extra work upfront, but it buys us protection from creepers. Because man, fuck creepers.
The Moon has nothing like that; it's a lot more uniform. I honestly don't know if ore bodies that aren't dependent on a hydrosphere have formed there--there's no long-term volcanism, either, beyond what you got during the cooling process after the Moon's formation, and re-melting from impact events.
So, this is an advantage and a disadvantage--you don't have most of the highly concentrated "ores" we're dependent on here on Earth, but because the Moon is less well fractionated than the Earth, you do have a crust that is relatively enriched in heavier elements.
Anyway, the point is that mining on another world is going to be very different from Earth, right down to the geology of the materials we're trying to exploit.
However we have millions of years of meteor impacts undegraded by friction in the atmosphere. Some of the areas on Earth we're mining now for precious materials are ancient impact sites.
Trees are easy. Just bring some saplings and they grow just fine even in zero atmosphere. You need them for the oxygen collection and distribution machines that the Galacticraft mod adds.
It would be lighter to bring logs.
It's a Minecraft joke.
Logs are certainly preferable to planks since they're more space-efficient. Plus, unlike saplings they can be used straight away. The moon's surface is all rock and sand, so I doubt you'd be able to grow a sapling into a tree. Unless you bring a lot of dirt blocks, that is...
Nah they grow perfectly fine in moon dust or even on Mars.
Just make sure you hold space down while landing.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
He's wrong anyway. You can create portals on moon dust so getting saplings to the moon should be very easy and cost efficient.
Medi-gel is real now.
Warning: Medical imagery.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Ya, but you can only carry 5 of them.
Seriously though, science is fucking awesome. Thanks for sharing that.
From the looks of it this assembles in to tubulin similar to mature collagen found in later stages of wound healing.
Current wound healing support structures are fine plastic meshes that are inserted in to the patient and is later dissolved, and trust me, that method is nasty.
Brand new versions of the photos taken of Europa by NASA.
These ones have been created with some more modern image processing technology.
there's also a link on there to the older version of the photos.
edit: they also released a bunch of videos:
*
Interesting stuff.
Wonder who'd be willing to fund a better collider.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1452
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Finding a fifth fundamental force of nature would be worthwhile investment regardless of the cost and would profoundly improve our understanding of the universe. Though I'm sure most governments would probably share your reaction.
"Well Senator, despite the costs involved I'm sure anyone in the room will agree our Doom Accelerator will prove to have an excellent return on investment while at the same time acting as a potent deterrent."
It would mean a smaller radius in which to cause the particles to turn, which would require a greater angular acceleration, for a given linear velocity, which means stronger magnets, which is generally a significant limiting factor in current design.
Like, they already have the particle packets make multiple trips around when getting the last few fractional c.
Edit: not in the article. It sounds like all this is definitely happening in energy levels they can do at CERN, the just need an experiment... A set of detectors and such, that can find what they are looking for. So. Not a new colider...
That's, hundreds of millions of dollars? Tens?
All the energies?
They should be able to predict them.
And of course, the rocket:
http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/
Full audio, video, and updating transcripts plus telemetry (like the current lunar module pitch angle) from the Apollo 11 landing.
edit: hell, they've got Neil Armstrong's Heart Rate readout on this thing
It does seem like they're gasping in shock at the fact that simulating an animal with reasonably simple behavior via a neural network has produced animal-like behavior.
Like imagine if they breathlessly reported this exact thing but were talking about how insane it was that their short series of if-then-else statements could move the machine forward if food was nearby and stop it if the front sensor was activated.
"Is it alive?" go fuck yourselves.