News Stories

[MrTerrorist]

Is the Facebook movie the truth about Mark Zuckerberg?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

But why would you go to space? Alternatives to energy that are being looked into are all renewable. Ie there's no chance of running out of those means of production, unless you're implying that we're going to run out of space. And, as I said, overpopulation isn't yet a factor and won't be several generations down the line. Megacities and their numbers will just keep growing.

Overpopulation in what sense? I've said it several times, world population is expected to continue to rise, and food shortages already exist. Either we become extremely economically efficient in the next 100 years (unlikely) or find a miracle energy source to support massive-scale farming. And can you link me to some sustainable farming techniques that don't rely on limited resources? I don't know of any.

Originally Posted by Frenchie

During the first financial crisis, single-child families boomed to 30~ something %. Food shortages do much of the same. And population growth in European countries was roughly 1.6 child/family on average. With effective birth control and contraception, why would you worry about overpopulation?

You're missing the point. The world population is currently estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050, and there are already severe problems supplying a large percent of our current population with the resources they need to survive. Thus, at some point there is going to be a resource squeeze that will cut a large amount of people from even having one child, leading to world population dropping. Global warming is expected to make the problem even worse as farming will become even more unwieldy as global temperatures and sea levels rise.

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Are you often this literal? Considering the things I said about the current circumstances and the current level of technology being insufficient for the effective extraction and refining of 'off-world' resources, I am of the opinion that the money spent on that space program would be more relevantly spent on actual problems that our planet has.

Why'd you say it if you didn't mean it, lol? And as I said before, research into space is an investment for future needs. It is good to balance both present and future needs otherwise we will keep running into disasters due to no foresight. I don't see why NASA of all things should be axed in favor of other funds, we could easily get rid of far less efficient and useless entities.

Originally Posted by Frenchie

@justsomeguy Thank you for your support, I was feeling a little bit attacked. :s

I disagree with you, but it isn't personal. So I hope you don't take it as such. You put your opinion out there and I'm doing the same, no hard feelings.

[Reckoner]

Surprised no one posted about this one.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2455876.story

House votes to pressure China over yuan

Lawmakers vote 348 to 79 to open the way for the U.S. to slap tariffs on Chinese goods. But the bill faces an uncertain fate in the Senate and White House. The move risks retaliation, and some say it may not help the economy.

Reporting from Washington — With the politically charged issue of unemployment weighing heavily in midterm elections, lawmakers took a big step Wednesday toward punishing China for holding down the value of its currency — a policy the Obama administration and other critics say hurts U.S. companies and workers.

In one of their final actions before returning to campaign in their districts, members of the House voted 348 to 79, with dozens of Republicans joining in support, for a bill that would open the way for the U.S. to slap tariffs on Chinese goods.

But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate and the White House because — while offering a tempting political target at a time when many voters are unhappy with the still-troubled economy — imposing sanctions on Beijing risks retaliation that could add to the nation's problems.

Get a daily snapshot of market numbers and trends, delivered right to your mobile phone. Text BUSINESS to 52669.

And the fact that Chinese monetary policy makes its products relatively cheaper, and thus more competitive in the global economy, is only one of many factors contributing to America's huge trade deficits and other problems.

In Wednesday's House debate, supporters cast the measure as a tonic for the weary U.S. economy and beleaguered small manufacturers, which have been among the most vocal critics of China's currency and economic policies.

"If we want to turn this country around, we have to do things that are going to resuscitate the middle class in the United States," Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio said at a Democratic news conference before the vote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco), in urging the bill's passage, said it could help create 1 million American jobs. "So this is about America's workers. This is about making it in America," she said.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has estimated that China's currency policy — and resulting large trade surpluses — may cost 1.4 million U.S. jobs in the next couple of years.

Threatening to impose higher tariffs on Chinese imports would give Washington greater leverage in pressing Beijing to lift the value of the yuan, supporters of the legislation argued. And reforming China's monetary policy would be a major tool to rebalance a U.S. economy that has long relied on American consumption of foreign-made goods, they said.

A stronger yuan would make Chinese goods more expensive in the U.S., helping out American manufacturers competing against Chinese suppliers, supporters said. At the same time, American products would be cheaper for Chinese consumers, who would also have greater buying power with a stronger currency.

But major business groups representing a diverse array of trades — including cattle ranchers, Los Angeles freight forwarders and Wall Street firms — lined up against the bill, saying it would do more harm than good for economic growth and job creation.

Despite bipartisan support in the House, the bill faces a much tougher hurdle in the Senate, which could take it up after the Nov. 2 election.

And President Obama would be hard-pressed to sign a measure that would anger Beijing and further complicate a relationship with America's largest foreign creditor — particularly when penalizing Chinese imports might not yield substantial benefits to the domestic economy.

Although most experts agree that China's currency, the yuan, would rise if freely traded, it's far from clear by how much. Analysts also point out that the U.S. has a trade shortfall with about 90 countries, not just China, though the Asian nation accounts for about 40% of the $376-billion trade deficit in goods through July of this year.

"We don't have a bilateral problem; we have a multilateral problem," said Stephen Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University and former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia.

He said a big part of the problem is the low American savings rate, which makes the U.S. economy heavily dependent on foreign investors.

Shang-Jin Wei, a finance and economics professor at Columbia University, said that in addressing economic imbalances with China, American officials would do better to focus on how to boost Chinese consumption rather than its currency value.

If the bill were to become law, Beijing would almost certainly challenge its legality with the World Trade Organization.

In Beijing, China's central bank posted a statement before the House vote Wednesday pledging to increase the exchange-rate flexibility of the yuan.

The People's Bank of China had issued a similar statement June 19, signaling its intent to let the value of the yuan drift upward after about two years of pegging it tightly to the dollar. Since then, the yuan has risen 2.1% against the dollar.

American officials have expressed frustration at the slow pace of appreciation, and President Obama voiced concerns directly to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao last week on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Treasury Department issued a statement noting that the House vote shows that lawmakers have "serious concerns about this issue," adding that the president and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner "share those concerns."

But the Obama administration has been reluctant to put heavy, overt pressure on the Chinese, preferring instead to take a softer, more patient approach as it negotiates with China's leaders and seeks support not only on economic issues but also vital regional and international political and security matters, such as Iran and North Korea.

Nicholas Lardy, a China expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the White House was angling to get Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington for a state visit in January.

"The president is not going to want to sign this legislation just in advance of that potential trip. Hu would cancel," said Lardy, who doesn't support the bill. "Other countries could take similar measures against us, so this could be the beginning of a slippery downward slope."

don.lee@latimes.com

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Give me the numbers and change my mind.

SaintessHeart gave you numbers. Didn't change your mind. I doubt anything short of a civilization ending asteroid strike would. Of course by then it's too late.

And are ridiculously costly at our current level of tech.

Because very little money is being put into research in the relevant technologies as people have a "yeah how does this benefit me now" attitude.

A space program isn't an infrastructure program. You're talking about highly educated job positions, and while they'll certainly contribute, the numbers involved just won't affect that unemployment rate. If you want to reduce that rate, you need to look at level-entry positions: Small businesses, retail industry, infrastructure projects.

You don't think that more jobs will spring up around it? If you're putting a major puch into space, you'll need more than some scientists and engineers. Who do you think is going to build and maintain the facilities to construct the launch vehicles? Who do you think is going to provide food and services to the people working there? Who do you think is going to drive the parts from the suppliers to the final assembly plant?

Sigh, and at our current level of technology, such exploitation and refining (Which could also be done on Earth, btw) wouldn't be worth the risks involved (No atmosphere means you can't rely on debris burning up before they reach you. You need to have some serious asteroid protection), not mentioning the costs involved.

You seem to be completely ignoring the pollution factor and destruction of wild habitats on Earth.

This is going to get old real quick. I was replying to the griefing going on about cutting funds to the space program. I don't disapprove of NASA R&D, I just don't think it's realistic or productive to look into offworld life, especially when we've got problems that need solving right here on our planet. To me it feels like trying to invent highways without thinking of finding out about the automobile first.

And just how many of those problems could be fixed with the few billion dollars that's being cut from NASA? Not to mention a lot of things developed for space travel have further applications on Earth.

But why would you go to space? Alternatives to energy that are being looked into are all renewable. Ie there's no chance of running out of those means of production, unless you're implying that we're going to run out of space. And, as I said, overpopulation isn't yet a factor and won't be several generations down the line. Megacities and their numbers will just keep growing.

It's not about over population, it's about how much resources each person uses. If you have everyone approaching first world levels, things become unsustainable very quickly. Also megacities are generally not considered great places to live. The entire planet covered with urban sprawl is not a good thing.

What, you really think planet Earth is anywhere close to this (Coruscant)?

You of course realize Coruscant can't feed itself, and can only exist due to exploiting space with magic FTL drives allowing it to produce food off world and return it relatively cheaply and magic energy sources, right? How this is an argument in favor of your position is beyond me. A city planet like that would not work in real life. The planet would not be able to feed its population.

During the first financial crisis, single-child families boomed to 30~ something %. Food shortages do much of the same. And population growth in European countries was roughly 1.6 child/family on average. With effective birth control and contraception, why would you worry about overpopulation?

Overpopulation is really a strawman here. The simple fact is we are currently extracting an unsustainable amount of resources. As more and more developing nations approach first world living standards, things will only get worse.

Are you often this literal? Considering the things I said about the current circumstances and the current level of technology being insufficient for the effective extraction and refining of 'off-world' resources, I am of the opinion that the money spent on that space program would be more relevantly spent on actual problems that our planet has.

How exactly will it ever become feasible if no one puts the research into making it so? There are always going to be "more immediate problems" getting in the way.

@justsomeguy Thank you for your support, I was feeling a little bit attacked. :s

Seriously? If you're feeling attacked by this you need to develop a thicker skin or get off the internet. This is by most internet standards a fairly civil debate. Try visiting 4chan sometime. Then remember, there are lots of sites out there that make 4chan seem civil. It might seem abrasive, and if so I apologize.

Also, since you question cosmology for the sake of cosmology, maybe this will change your mind more than anything I could say.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/30...planet/?hpt=C2

The 100% change of life strikes me as hyperbola, but it's an Earth like planet in another star system. (Note that by the definition of earth like being used Venus and Mars would also be Earth like) A space telescope like this NASA project, currently suffering from a lack of funding, could detect far more extrasolar planets. Is this not valuable research that should be funded?

[Ithekro]

The discovery of a planet within a habitable zone of another star system is encouraging, yet the distance involved with our currect technology level makes confirmation of the data difficult (20 light years away).

As for the overpopulation problem, there is a secondary concern that has cropped up in the last decade. The overturning of a civilization with a new one. The European and other First World nations are currently declining in numbers due to stable or less birth rates. Second and Third World populations are increasing at a rapid pace. Some of these regions are gaining benefits of First World medical technology to increase the life span of their peoples, but the rate of procreation is not reducing all that much...sometimes intensionally. The old motto was to "go forth and multiply"...well there is something to that. If you can't beat your enemy in a war, outnumber them and infiltrate their society to the point would you become the majority and take it over. The Christians did this to Rome and eventually Europe and the Americans quite effectively over the last 2000 years. Without the Black Death, one wonders how large the population would be right now?

Some suggest that other cultures are effectly doing this "go forth and multiply" tactic against the First World cultures and that in the near future (due to the population increase rates) can become the majority in Europe and America without having to fire a shot. Majority means that the new majority can dominate politics, the work force, and give time, recreate the culture in their own image. It has been done before (the mentioned Christian to Rome).

What I see in the Space Program and the potental for Exploration and Colonization, is a way out of stagnation. The First World is stagnent. It has very little in the terms of long term goals. Aside from the economic problems, a look into the cities suggest that nation is demoralized. There is nothing to look forward toward. I say this from an American point of view because there is the notion that American fancy themselves as pioneers (or squatters if you ask the natives). Our spirit wants someplace to expand, and unfortunately Antartica hasn't settled that dream (and the Ocean Floor has yet to draw as much of the imagination as the stars do).

There is something that still has value...land. If one could find a way to open a way to claim and get to land on any other world or orbital object, you would have people laying down money to do so. Then they would attempt to either find a way to make a profit of their new land or just find a way to live off that land to get away from whereever they are now.

It is not so much about what is more efficient in terms of resources we have now...it is more about how the cultures will survive. What will the humans do in the future? Will be sit on this planet until it is effectly killing us from it not being able to sustain our existance? Or will be expand outward (to possibly get killed the same way because wherever we go can't sustain us)? The question is not so much will we go into space...the question is will be make it in time? If we wait too long we won't have the resources to pull it off. If we go too early we will fail and cloud human judgement that is isn't possible and thus doom the idea for generations.

What will we do?

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Overpopulation in what sense? I've said it several times, world population is expected to continue to rise, and food shortages already exist. Either we become extremely economically efficient in the next 100 years (unlikely) or find a miracle energy source to support massive-scale farming. And can you link me to some sustainable farming techniques that don't rely on limited resources? I don't know of any.

I don't believe in overpopulation but I thought you were bringing it up. As you, yourself, said: It's not the point either. More in your second paragraph. Miracle energy source? Nuclear? Solar/wind/tidal/hydro? There's plenty of alternatives.

Also, some (awesome) links
Vertical Farming
Hydroponics
Sustainable city

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

You're missing the point. The world population is currently estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050, and there are already severe problems supplying a large percent of our current population with the resources they need to survive. Thus, at some point there is going to be a resource squeeze that will cut a large amount of people from even having one child, leading to world population dropping. Global warming is expected to make the problem even worse as farming will become even more unwieldy as global temperatures and sea levels rise.

Wait. It feels like you're saying the human species are completely inept at adapting to an austere environment. 9 billion by 2050? What's your point, exactly? Are you assuming that every 1st world inhabitant has the same carbon footprint as a US individual? You can live on less resources without having to forfeit all your technology, I don't think the US is beyond reform.

US carbon footprint/individual: 19.62 tonnes/year.
France carbon footprint/individual: 6.58 tonnes/year.
Sweden carbon footprint/individual: 5.70 tonnes/year.

Breathing Earth

Saying sea levels rise is going to make farming hard is like saying aliens are going to make space colonization hard. It hasn't happened yet and we don't know when it's going to happen. It's kind of hard for me to see its validity.

Why'd you say it if you didn't mean it, lol? And as I said before, research into space is an investment for future needs. It is good to balance both present and future needs otherwise we will keep running into disasters due to no foresight. I don't see why NASA of all things should be axed in favor of other funds, we could easily get rid of far less efficient and useless entities.

They axed Constellation. That's all they did. What I said was an off-hand comment, I never meant it to be taken so literally. Everyone just jumped the gun and started 'implying' I was retarded.

I disagree with you, but it isn't personal. So I hope you don't take it as such. You put your opinion out there and I'm doing the same, no hard feelings.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

SaintessHeart gave you numbers. Didn't change your mind. I doubt anything short of a civilization ending asteroid strike would. Of course by then it's too late.

Actually, I believe in research for a shield to counter asteroid threats. I believe this system is called the atmosphere. () I don't remember the exact odds, but the probability of -another- asteroid hitting this planet and obliterating life is actually smaller than the probability of our Sun expanding and raining geomagnetic storms (Solar flare!) in our face.

Because very little money is being put into research in the relevant technologies as people have a "yeah how does this benefit me now" attitude.

NASA budget

From this, you can see that while the proportion the NASA budget takes in the US federal budget has decreased, its actual budget amount in billions of dollars has grown by 3 billion between 2000 and 2010.

You don't think that more jobs will spring up around it? If you're putting a major puch into space, you'll need more than some scientists and engineers. Who do you think is going to build and maintain the facilities to construct the launch vehicles? Who do you think is going to provide food and services to the people working there? Who do you think is going to drive the parts from the suppliers to the final assembly plant?

You realize that I'm talking about Constellation, right? I don't see how you can describe it as a push into space, and how it would equate infrastructure projects in terms of job creation. I really don't.

You seem to be completely ignoring the pollution factor and destruction of wild habitats on Earth.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I am far from ignoring the pollution factor. In fact, I believe it is more important to address the pollution factor and the destruction of ecosystems than it is to send people into space.

And just how many of those problems could be fixed with the few billion dollars that's being cut from NASA? Not to mention a lot of things developed for space travel have further applications on Earth.

Refer to my answer on the NASA budget.

It's not about over population, it's about how much resources each person uses. If you have everyone approaching first world levels, things become unsustainable very quickly. Also megacities are generally not considered great places to live. The entire planet covered with urban sprawl is not a good thing.

Refer to my answer to ChainLegacy on tonnes/individual for countries like France, Sweden and then compare them to the US.

You of course realize Coruscant can't feed itself, and can only exist due to exploiting space with magic FTL drives allowing it to produce food off world and return it relatively cheaply and magic energy sources, right? How this is an argument in favor of your position is beyond me. A city planet like that would not work in real life. The planet would not be able to feed its population.

... Did you even read my post? I was asking you: Whether you thought Earth was going to look like this very soon, and I was obviously being ironic.

Overpopulation is really a strawman here. The simple fact is we are currently extracting an unsustainable amount of resources. As more and more developing nations approach first world living standards, things will only get worse.

Refer to my answer to ChainLegacy on tonnes/individual for countries like France, Sweden and then compare them to the US. I'll add that the French and the Swedish are hardly very eco-friendly and that further improvements can be made and will be made. You're basing your observations on a consumption model that will be outdated by the time the problem materializes itself.

Also:

Originally Posted by Oil Depletion, an overview

"Since the amount of oil is in principle unknown we can never know how big the resources are. What is relevant is whether we can find more oil or not. A rise of oil prices will motivate people to develop new methods to find more oil, to extract more oil from known wells, or to make development of shut-in wells economically possible."

The data on resources only include the resources we know of. Deficiencies in supply will only prompt the construction of new mines on top of new deposits that were either unknown or saved for later. (Which is a wonderful idea.)

How exactly will it ever become feasible if no one puts the research into making it so? There are always going to be "more immediate problems" getting in the way.

Scrapping the Constellation program doesn't mean an end to research. It doesn't mean the budget of NASA is dropping. More immediate problems that have important ramifications for the future as well. An improved renewable energy technology here on Earth means that we will have developed, and made affordable, important aspects of space exploration. Hydroponics for long-term space flights will also be extremely important. As I said, before inventing the highway, let's start by inventing the car. Or before inventing the car, let's start by inventing the wheel.

Trust me. Future generations will thank you for supporting this idea.

Seriously? If you're feeling attacked by this you need to develop a thicker skin or get off the internet. This is by most internet standards a fairly civil debate. Try visiting 4chan sometime. Then remember, there are lots of sites out there that make 4chan seem civil. It might seem abrasive, and if so I apologize.

I have my own standard of what civil debate is. 4chan isn't a place I go to for debate, civil or not.

Also, since you question cosmology for the sake of cosmology, maybe this will change your mind more than anything I could say.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/30...planet/?hpt=C2

The 100% chance of life strikes me as hyperbola, but it's an Earth like planet in another star system. (Note that by the definition of earth like being used Venus and Mars would also be Earth like) A space telescope like this NASA project, currently suffering from a lack of funding, could detect far more extrasolar planets. Is this not valuable research that should be funded?

I am interested, but the research is clearly already being funded. This will be the last time I say it, but I was talking about Constellation as a space program. I wasn't talking about probes, or telescopes or the ISS. I hope that's clear.

On the other hand, not to burst your bubble, but it's 20 light years away from our planet. Our current fastest spacecraft (a probe sent to analyze the sun) has attained 250000 km/h (or 69444.4 m/s). Let's assume we can attain that same navigating speed without destroying a big-ass colony ship on cast-off asteroids. Speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Take your calculator and you will find that it is approx. 4317 times faster than your top speed.

Take your 20 light years and multiply by that amount. The voyage would last 86340 earth years.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, 'Homo Sapiens'

"Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago"

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, 'Behavioral modernity'

It is the point at which Homo sapiens began to demonstrate a reliance on symbolic thought and to express cultural creativity. These developments are often thought to be associated with the origin of language.

I don't know about you, but I sure as heck hope our renewables are up to speed before even attempting something like this. Heck, at arrival, I'm not sure we'd still be humans.

Which is why I am more interested in this.

[SSIlanya]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Surprised no one posted about this one.

Alors c'est la guerre

F-35, Aircraft Carriers, laser guided munitions, lasers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-29/pentagon-losing-control-of-afghanistan-bombs-to-china-s-neodymium-monopoly.html
A senior manager at a company that churns out metals routinely used in U.S. smart bombs pauses in mid-sentence when his phone rings: a Wall Street stockbroker looking for information. He makes a note to have an assistant call back -- someone who is fluent in English, not just Chinese.

“It’s a seller’s market now,” says Bai Baosheng, 43, puffing a cigarette in his office in Baotou, China, where his company sells bags of powder containing a metallic element known as neodymium, vital in tiny magnets that direct the fins of bombs dropped by U.S. Air Force jets in Afghanistan.

A generation after Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping made mastering neodymium and 16 other elements known as rare earths a priority, China dominates the market, with far-reaching effects ranging from global trade friction to U.S. job losses and threats to national security.

The U.S. handed its main economic rival power to dictate access to these building blocks of modern weapons by ceding control of prices and supply, according to dozens of interviews with industry executives, congressional leaders and policy experts. China in July reduced rare-earth export quotas for the rest of the year by 72 percent, sending prices up more than sixfold for some elements.

US will soon be feeding off the hands of China. Feels good. If the day comes when this preposterous bill places China in the same position Japan was in, it is only right to force China's enemies to it's knees by calling in the debt.

If America so dares to challenge the economy of the Chinese people for some populist election measure, so be it. They should be dragged to the 7th level of Hell. You brought this upon yourself Obama.

Also

After two years of doing their thing fairly quietly, a few weeks ago private BitTorrent tracker ICTorrent suddenly had its name splashed across mainstream news articles.

The site, which specializes in Asian content, was reported and confirmed to be a target for an Indian anti-piracy company with an unconventional approach to enforcement.

AiPlex Software had admitted to carrying out DDoS attacks for movie companies against ICTorrent (something it later denied) but the suspicion in the community was that its activities were wider. Word quickly spread that it had also attacked The Pirate Bay and this resulted in the first wave of attacks in Operation Payback, the DDoS attacks carried out by 4chan and their supporters against anti-piracy operations.

While AiPlex Software went down in dramatic fashion, ICTorrent remained cheerfully up. According to an admin at the site, all is quiet at the moment. He told us that he’s had no DDoS attacks from AiPlex Software for 2 weeks.

It’s perhaps no coincidence that on and off, AiPlex has been under 4chan-inspired DDoS attacks itself for a similar period.

“Its just nice to see that there are anti-anti-pirates out there who are ready to fight companies who don’t seem to live by the law,” an ICTorrent admin told TorrentFreak. “I am glad to see that AiPlex got a taste of their own medicine and I would like to support 4chan in any way possible.”

"Political powers grows out of the barrel of a gun" Mao Zedong

[saya_leviathan]

North Korea publishes first photo of heir apparent

SEOUL (AFP) - – Secretive North Korea finally put its heir apparent on show to the world Thursday, releasing a photograph of a chubby and serious-faced Kim Jong-Un seated close to his ailing father Kim Jong-Il.

Analysts said the issuance of the first-ever official photo confirms the young man's status as leader-in-waiting of the impoverished but nuclear-armed communist nation.

Official media published the photo of the son -- part of a group of leading ruling party officials at an outdoor photo session -- two days after the party bestowed powerful posts on Jong-Un at its highest-level meeting for 30 years.

Hours later, South Korean TV carried North Korean video footage showing a man who closely resembles the son applauding vigorously with other delegates during Tuesday's party conference inside a huge conference hall.

The heir apparent is a mystery to the outside world. Even his age is unclear, although he is thought to be about 27. The only photos previously seen have been images taken during his time as a schoolboy in Switzerland.

[Kusa-San]

About the overpopulation thing, the problem is not the overpopulation in itself but how this population live. This is symbolized by the actual economic system which is a system based on the devlopment. This is an irrealistic system which said that we can always growth even if our world is not infinite. The economist said that with the help of technology we will awlays growth and solve all the problem. But how can they say that when they don't even know which technology will help us in the future ? They don't know it and they just bet that it will works because they don't want to face the truth, to face that the actual econoimic system is a bad system which only create dipsarity all around the world and make us poorer than ever.

The only way to save this world is to abandon this stupid system and replace it by a system which is based on the decrease.

I will ciontinur later because I'll be late for class

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What I see in the Space Program and the potental for Exploration and Colonization, is a way out of stagnation. The First World is stagnent. It has very little in the terms of long term goals. Aside from the economic problems, a look into the cities suggest that nation is demoralized. There is nothing to look forward toward. I say this from an American point of view because there is the notion that American fancy themselves as pioneers (or squatters if you ask the natives). Our spirit wants someplace to expand, and unfortunately Antartica hasn't settled that dream (and the Ocean Floor has yet to draw as much of the imagination as the stars do).

Not sure how viable space colonization is as a means to have an outlet for excessive population on earth. Not when sending person to space even on a short term basis costs millions of dollars. Sending a million people into space as colonists would be a herculean endeavor unmatched by anything in human history...and it wouldn't do spit to effect the population demographics on earth.

The reason you would send colonists out to space would be because there would be specific resources there that you'd want to acquire so they could be sent back to earth.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

I don't believe in overpopulation but I thought you were bringing it up. As you, yourself, said: It's not the point either. More in your second paragraph. Miracle energy source? Nuclear? Solar/wind/tidal/hydro? There's plenty of alternatives.

Also, some (awesome) links
Vertical Farming
Hydroponics
Sustainable city

None of those are currently as efficient on a massive scale as current farming techniques. Now, I want to continue research into these techniques as they will do good in the long run. See what I did there? Those techniques currently aren't as efficient as the ones we use today, but they have potential - just like the potential to harvest resources, and possibly solar energy, from outer space. Which is why it is a prudent investment to continue research in space.

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Wait. It feels like you're saying the human species are completely inept at adapting to an austere environment. 9 billion by 2050? What's your point, exactly? Are you assuming that every 1st world inhabitant has the same carbon footprint as a US individual? You can live on less resources without having to forfeit all your technology, I don't think the US is beyond reform.

US carbon footprint/individual: 19.62 tonnes/year.
France carbon footprint/individual: 6.58 tonnes/year.
Sweden carbon footprint/individual: 5.70 tonnes/year.

Breathing Earth

I'm not saying they're incapable, but it is a huge leap of faith on your part to assume it is going to happen. We haven't really seen any evidence of responsibility by global leaders in cooperating against global warming. Either way I do think we should keep pushing for global responsibility but you are being too optimistic, there are going to be some huge problems on Earth in the next coming century, whether we like them or not.

Secondly, and read this part carefully because I've tried explaining this to you a few times now and I don't know if I'm being unclear or you're just ignoring it: 9 billion by 2050 matters because of farming. Large scale farming requires a ton of different resources, and even with our current methods we aren't properly feeding our global population. So it is going to be an issue when the population grows even higher. The first world may be able to weather that storm, but others won't be so lucky.

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Saying sea levels rise is going to make farming hard is like saying aliens are going to make space colonization hard. It hasn't happened yet and we don't know when it's going to happen. It's kind of hard for me to see its validity.

We do know when it is going to happen. Unless we somehow rapidly reduce CO2 emissions on a global scale, it will inevitably occur over the next century. It is completely different from aliens, that is a strawman.

Anyway we're probably going to keep going on circles on this so this post will be my last on the subject.

[Ithekro]

It does bring up the question: Will the world's population continue to increase along the curve it has at present, or will something change and the population will actually decrease on its own once the theoretical limits of the planet are met?

THe other question is more cultural. The First World population is stable or in decline. The Third World population is booming (at what some would call an alarming rate). With immigration to First World countries (natural or due to the wars) there is what some consider a threat of being overrun culturally.

The Human race might survive...but will Western Civilization survive? People seem to only focus on the First World and its carbon footprint and all that jazz. The First World is not the source of the "Overpopulation" problem...if it is a problem. The natural balance to the problem tends to be disease, natural disasters, and wars more so that people stopping procreation. The First World has mostly contained its population growth due to education and the simple effects of technology in that a family no longer needs eight children to survive (not only to eat or work, but also for at least one or two to survive to continue the species). The question is...can it contain the Third World's as well?

[Kusa-San]

So as I said, the real problem is the economic system which is based on development. The GDP is only based around money and profit and does no take into consideration ecology factor or hapiness factor. It's the symbol of this economic system and how bad it is.

People need to understand something important : Developed country will not be able to growth anymore. The only realitic solution for them is to decrease.

Decrease is not about having less, it's about to stop wanting more and more and more when it's not necessary at all. With decrease, what is at the center is not money and profits but ecology and happiness. It's human and nature who is at the center not money.

However, many prople don't know what decrease is and think that because of decrease people will be poorer. It's not true . Atcually, it's our actual system which make people poorer and poorer. With our actual system, only a minority have a good life when the majority have a bad life. Economic crisis is the best example of this. This kind of crisis play an integral part in the actual economic system. In fact, it regulates this sytem and without it, the system can't work.

I highly suggest to everyone here to buy some serious book about the decrease and read a lot about what kind of answer it can offers. It's really interresting and you will see that actually, it's propably thge most realitic system which exist.

I will maybe try to open a thread about decrease this week-end

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SSIlanya

Alors c'est la guerre

F-35, Aircraft Carriers, laser guided munitions, lasers.



US will soon be feeding off the hands of China. Feels good. If the day comes when this preposterous bill places China in the same position Japan was in, it is only right to force China's enemies to it's knees by calling in the debt.

Debt doesn't work that way. China can't "call in debt". They can try to resell the bonds they have, flooding the market and making it hard for the US to sell more to raise new capital, which would be bad for the US (and for China too, since they'd lose a ton of money on the deal as the bonds they're trying to dump and their capital being held in US dollars lose a lot of value, not to mention trade), but if they do something like ask for the US to pay them before the bonds come due, they'll just get a "ahaha oh wow" response.

Also, China's "stranglehold" on rare earths is overstated. Your own article mentions the new rare earth mines coming on line in Australia and US production restarting.

If America so dares to challenge the economy of the Chinese people for some populist election measure, so be it. They should be dragged to the 7th level of Hell. You brought this upon yourself Obama.

Wait, what?

Also

"Political powers grows out of the barrel of a gun" Mao Zedong

Wait, what?

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by SSIlanya

Alors c'est la guerre

F-35, Aircraft Carriers, laser guided munitions, lasers.



US will soon be feeding off the hands of China. Feels good. If the day comes when this preposterous bill places China in the same position Japan was in, it is only right to force China's enemies to it's knees by calling in the debt.

If America so dares to challenge the economy of the Chinese people for some populist election measure, so be it. They should be dragged to the 7th level of Hell. You brought this upon yourself Obama.

Also

"Political powers grows out of the barrel of a gun" Mao Zedong

Ok let's settle this beef.

We can let your tires get in our market, but let more of our chicken feet get into your market!


oh and btw China doesn’t have a monopoly on rare earth, although they pretty much are the only country actively mining it. The US has a fair amount of rare earth metals, but because of regulatory and environmental reasons, the mines have been closed. If you don’t believe me, google it and you’ll see.

[Nosauz]

Wow looks like the Muslim boogey man is dead. Rare earth metals aren't really rare. As many have said their just extremely hard to mine and the damage to the land and pollution wise they are not really worth it if your an industrial nation to mine yourself especially when someelse can undercut your price. Worst case scenario is that America would have to reopen the mines in America which would be an estimated five years but that could easily be reduced due to sheer overproduction.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Wait, what?

He is basically just saying that Obama is bringing American to the 7th level of Hell which I have never even heard of a 4th layer for Hell. In short-terms, its just more hate on Obama going around...

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Wow looks like the Muslim boogey man is dead. Rare earth metals aren't really rare. As many have said their just extremely hard to mine and the damage to the land and pollution wise they are not really worth it if your an industrial nation to mine yourself especially when someelse can undercut your price. Worst case scenario is that America would have to reopen the mines in America which would be an estimated five years but that could easily be reduced due to sheer overproduction.

Nothing can be worse then overproduction, then getting beated on the market by just undercutting the price you put.... Either way, America wont be making much money either way if they reopen the mines. The only thing that will come out of it, is hurting the land in general.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Anyway we're probably going to keep going on circles on this so this post will be my last on the subject.

Don't be like that, man. I'm not trying to be annoying or anything.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

None of those are currently as efficient on a massive scale as current farming techniques. Now, I want to continue research into these techniques as they will do good in the long run. See what I did there? Those techniques currently aren't as efficient as the ones we use today, but they have potential - just like the potential to harvest resources, and possibly solar energy, from outer space. Which is why it is a prudent investment to continue research in space.

I don't disapprove of scrapping Constellation. At the same time, I never said I wanted research to stop. What I said is that I felt like we needed development in intermediate technologies before even considering space as a resource. You can't just skip steps.

Before even considering space as exploitable, we need the renewable technologies, the speed necessary, the ability to build safely off-world. That's not either the end of the challenge. The cost involved in building a mine, a launch area, building the renewables and the hydroponics on site (Because you can't farm, unless you also planned to ship food there) are astronomical. (Pun not intended)

Funding better ways of finding those resources on Earth would be, by far, cheaper. That is till the day we truly cannot find anymore of those finite resources. Even then, recycling will be a cheaper way of acquiring construction and industrial minerals than exploiting off world. There probably won't be enough recycled material to go around, but between recycled materials and the added cost of shipping from an off-world mine, recycled materials are going to be used first simply because they are cheaper. It makes economic sense.

I'm not saying they're incapable, but it is a huge leap of faith on your part to assume it is going to happen. We haven't really seen any evidence of responsibility by global leaders in cooperating against global warming. Either way I do think we should keep pushing for global responsibility but you are being too optimistic, there are going to be some huge problems on Earth in the next coming century, whether we like them or not.

I'm not assuming anything. It is happening already and countries have to act. They are. It's not really up for discussion, 1st world countries and developing ones are already starting to build up their renewables. The US has a few projects for self-sufficient towns that only rely on solar or wind. China is pushing it very hard.The push towards renewable is still very young. Give it as much time as oil and you'll see it popping up everywhere.

I feel like hoping for affordable off-world exploitation is a bigger leap of faith than hoping for renewable, sustainable economies.

Secondly, and read this part carefully because I've tried explaining this to you a few times now and I don't know if I'm being unclear or you're just ignoring it: 9 billion by 2050 matters because of farming. Large scale farming requires a ton of different resources, and even with our current methods we aren't properly feeding our global population. So it is going to be an issue when the population grows even higher. The first world may be able to weather that storm, but others won't be so lucky.

I'm not ignoring it, though I'm pretty sure someone addressed this already:

This is more due to economic factors, not a lack of resources. In Africa, lack of food is due to constant warfare and gross mismanagement, not a lack of ability to produce food.

Africa isn't starving because of a lack of fertile land (It has plenty of it), it is starving because of poor governments, management and wars crippling any productivity they may have. Need for more food will just prompt more farming and bring economic stability to an African continent that's starving for it as well as a reliable source of income. China was starving during Mao: Now they're one of the Earth's bread baskets.

The world is a big place with lots of space for farming.

We do know when it is going to happen. Unless we somehow rapidly reduce CO2 emissions on a global scale, it will inevitably occur over the next century. It is completely different from aliens, that is a strawman.

Sea levels rising don't occur on one specific date. It's not 'the day after tomorrow' with a huge wave washing over skyscrapers and annihilating everything. It's a process. Since it's a process, it can be monitored. If it's monitored, there's time to think of contingencies or containment methods. (The Netherlands are an excellent example of containment technology at work)

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Don't be like that, man. I'm not trying to be annoying or anything.

It's not because you're annoying, it is more because we are going off on too many tangents. My original point in the discussion was just that I didn't think NASA was fruitless, but since you didn't fully mean every part of NASA then there's no point to continue. I agree humans can weather the upcoming storm I'm just rather cynical on the subject, for instance right now we are beginning a process of renewable technology but we should have started this earlier as global warming is already affecting the poles and wildlife. So I mainly bring it up because we should learn from this struggle and have more foresight regarding what space can someday offer us. And with more research, you never know if someday space mining (as well as technology to exploit energy from the sun more directly) might actually be more economically viable, that's the point of research. Just like right now we are researching to make ecological, renewable technologies more economically viable. But yeah, since you pretty much agree with that then there's not much more to say.

Though if someone happens to post a current article revolving around the potential food crisis in the future we can continue that subject.

[SaintessHeart]

Single trade helped spark May's flash crash

(Reuters) - A computer-driven sale worth $4.1 billion by a single trader helped trigger the May flash crash, setting off liquidity shocks that ricocheted between U.S. futures and stock markets, regulators concluded in a report.

The report by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission did not name the trader. Reuters, citing internal documents prepared by exchange operator CME Group Inc, in May identified the trader as money manager Waddell & Reed Financial Inc.

The long-awaited report focused on the relationship between two hugely popular securities -- E-Mini Standard & Poor's 500 futures and S&P 500 "SPDR" exchange-traded funds -- and detailed how high-frequency algorithmic trading can sap liquidity and rock the marketplace.

"The interaction between automated execution programs and algorithmic trading strategies can quickly erode liquidity and result in disorderly markets," the report said.

The "flash crash" sent the Dow Jones industrial average plunging some 700 points in minutes on May 6, exposing flaws in the electronic marketplace dominated by high-speed trading. The Dow was down nearly 1,000 points at its lowest point on that day.

Although the report did not make any recommendations, it lays the foundation for a special commission to propose new rules to avoid a repetition. At least one lawmaker threatened congressional action if regulators did not address the disparity in the markets.

Trading was turbulent that afternoon because of concerns over the European debt crisis. Against that backdrop, a "large fundamental trader" initiated a sell program to sell 75,000 E-Mini contracts as a hedge to an existing equity position, according to the 104-page report.

Citing documents from CME Group, Reuters reported on May 14 that Waddell sold a large order of E-Minis during the market plunge, identifying the firm to which the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler, had alluded in congressional testimony.

The CFTC had resisted naming Waddell in Friday's report because of laws that allow it to withhold such information from the public, sources have said.

SEC and CFTC officials declined to comment on whether they were investigating Waddell for any wrongdoing. Waddell, of Overland Park, Kansas, declined to comment on the report.

THE 'HOT-POTATO' EFFECT

Waddell's selling algorithm had "no regard to price or time," the report said. That, coupled with the "aggressive" reaction by high-frequency traders hedging their positions, led to two separate "liquidity crises" -- one in the E-minis, the other among individual stocks.

Waddell's algo "responded to the increased volume by increasing the rate at which it was feeding the orders into the market, even though orders that it already had sent to the market were arguably not yet fully absorbed by fundamental buyers or cross-market arbitrageurs," the report said.

These arbitrageurs transferred the selling pressure to the stock market, sparking a "hot-potato" effect among high-frequency traders that rapidly passed the same positions back and forth.

The stock market, the report continued, began plunging as trading pauses kicked in at individual firms, as high-frequency traders became net sellers, and as market makers began routing "most, if not all," retail orders to the public markets -- a flood of unusual selling pressure that sucked up more dwindling liquidity.

Shares of Waddell edged higher on Friday. They fell sharply on the day of the initial Reuters report.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE HORIZON

The unprecedented flash crash called into question many of the regulatory and technological changes over the last decade, which ushered in an era of lightning-quick trading on dozens of mostly electronic exchanges and alternative venues.

Data to the beginning of this month show that funds have exited mutual funds in every week since early May. Meanwhile, the 20-day moving average of the S&P 500's daily volume shows a slow decline since late May, according to Reuters data.

"I do not expect today's report to restore the confidence that was lost as a result of the flash crash," said David Joy, Minneapolis-based chief market strategist at Columbia Management, a large money manager.

"Most individual investors do not fully understand how high-frequency trading works, only that it can create volatility and seems to put them at a disadvantage. Only time, and higher stock prices, will restore that lost confidence."

The SEC, under enormous political and public pressure to act, in the last few months adopted new trading curbs known as circuit breakers and proposed establishing a consolidated audit trail of all stock trading.

Lawmakers seized on the latest report as a reason for the SEC to do more to fix the fragmented markets.

"The SEC should seriously consider ways to slow things down when markets get volatile," said Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.

Democratic Representative Paul Kanjorski said regulators must act quickly to revise market rules.

If necessary, Congress must "put in place new rules of the road to ensure the fair, orderly and efficient functioning of the U.S. capital markets," Kanjorski said.

The flash crash report comes just as the SEC and the CFTC have begun drafting nearly 200 rules required by the landmark U.S. Wall Street reform legislation, which includes a revamp of the opaque over-the-counter derivatives market.

That is plenty of bullshit being quoted in 3 lines.

1. The market is run on fear and greed. How are you going to curb fear and greed? Limit share buying per trader?

2. The stock market is free. Any volatility is a result of high volume transactions - to remove the right to buy and sell freely would be to give the companies a chance to withold financial resources in the system even if their business plans are bound to fail (like the dot-com burst - zero business planning for most e-biz); that would be bloody ridiculous.

3. Nobody remembered Mizuho Securities and BNP man? There are always winners and losers in the trading world. It is a natural system of things.

I think it is important to get things into perspective - there are two kinds of shares; preferred shares and common shares. Preferred shares are usually held by major investors affiliated to the company while common shares are usually stuff like IPOs; to blanket everything under one parasol is unfair to the traders of common shares.

It is already fair and functioning, what companies need to do is to keep a close watch on their preference shares and insider traders rather than blaming the market.