FPGA Central

hi all,

Now a days there is a lot of discussion in my peer grp as what the next
technology beakthrough is gonna be, i hav got some choices of which it
will be one.

1. Nano technology

2. Quantum mechanics

3. Artificial Intelligence, Robotics

4. Genetics and bioinformatics

I would like to know what ya opinion, knowing which I will be extremely
lucky and happy.

NVKISHORE wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> Now a days there is a lot of discussion in my peer grp as what the next
> technology beakthrough is gonna be, i hav got some choices of which it
> will be one.
>
> 1. Nano technology
>
> 2. Quantum mechanics
>
> 3. Artificial Intelligence, Robotics
>
> 4. Genetics and bioinformatics

None of the above.

The most important technology breakthrough in next couple
of decades will be cheap clean energy.

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would
all the calculators go?" -- Kryten, Red Dwarf

> I would like to know what ya opinion, knowing which I will be extremely
> lucky and happy.

I love to make people extremely lucky and happy, and if I can do this by
simply giving my opinion I will most definitely not let this opportunity
slip. My opinion:

I don't know. (you may quote me)

What a great way to start the last day of the week ! The sun just started
shining and I can hear beautiful music playing. Even my boss seems friendly
and boy do I love my wife ! Look at those rabits playing and jumping around
outside in the field. Hey, hi Bambi ! How's your mother ?

Have an extremely nice weekend! (I'm sure you will, you extremely lucky
happy bastard, you!)

DF

Deefoo wrote:

> Hey, hi Bambi ! How's your mother ?

Oohhh!! That was CRU-EL !!!!! ;-)

(not uncalled for, mind you ;-))

Carlos
--

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> The most important technology breakthrough in next couple
> of decades will be cheap clean energy.

We've had that for the last half-a-century (well, maybe
just a quarter-of-a-century?). It's called nuclear
energy. According to all specialists I've known, it's
by far the most environmental-friendly form of energy...
(yes, they agree that the irony is kind of thick, but
when you think about it, they're right -- they're very
very right).

Carlos
--

in article 4333B3F5.7D9DCDC2@mega-nerd.com, Erik de Castro Lopo at
nospam@mega-nerd.com wrote on 09/23/2005 03:51:

> NVKISHORE wrote:
>>
>> hi all,
>>
>> Now a days there is a lot of discussion in my peer grp as what the next
>> technology beakthrough is gonna be, i hav got some choices of which it
>> will be one.
>>
>> 1. Nano technology
>>
>> 2. Quantum mechanics
>>
>> 3. Artificial Intelligence, Robotics
>>
>> 4. Genetics and bioinformatics
>
> None of the above.
>
> The most important technology breakthrough in next couple
> of decades will be cheap clean energy.

i think it's gonna be personal rocket packs or anti-gravity levitation or
something.

--

r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

I REALLY miss Red Dwarf. Unfortunately it isn't on any of the stations
where I moved to. I don't think I have laughed as hard as when I
watched that show.

I agree with that... Windpower also seems to be in the rise...

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
>> The most important technology breakthrough in next couple
>> of decades will be cheap clean energy.
>
>
> We've had that for the last half-a-century (well, maybe
> just a quarter-of-a-century?). It's called nuclear
> energy. According to all specialists I've known, it's
> by far the most environmental-friendly form of energy...
> (yes, they agree that the irony is kind of thick, but
> when you think about it, they're right -- they're very
> very right).

Where do you propose to put the ashes?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 22 Sep 2005 23:47:52 -0700, "NVKISHORE" <nvk255@yahoo.com> wrote:

>hi all,
>
>Now a days there is a lot of discussion in my peer grp as what the next
>technology beakthrough is gonna be, i hav got some choices of which it
>will be one.
>
>1. Nano technology
>
>2. Quantum mechanics
>
>3. Artificial Intelligence, Robotics
>
>4. Genetics and bioinformatics
>
>I would like to know what ya opinion, knowing which I will be extremely
>lucky and happy.

George Jetson had that machine that picked him up out of bed, showered
and shaved him, and put him on a conveyor to come out the other end
still asleep.

I'm still waiting for that one.


Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Carlos Moreno wrote:
>
>> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>>
>>> The most important technology breakthrough in next couple
>>> of decades will be cheap clean energy.
>>
>> We've had that for the last half-a-century (well, maybe
>> just a quarter-of-a-century?). It's called nuclear
>> energy. According to all specialists I've known, it's
>> by far the most environmental-friendly form of energy...
>> (yes, they agree that the irony is kind of thick, but
>> when you think about it, they're right -- they're very
>> very right).
>
> Where do you propose to put the ashes?

Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
potentially is, and nuclear could be)

(the numbers above are most likely a gross exaggeration,
of course -- I'm using them just to illustrate the idea)


BTW, given that we're already off-topic for comp.dsp (:-)),
I'll take the opportunity to ask you how's Isabelle doing?
You haven't mentioned anything (well, or I haven't been
reading the newsgroup enough and missed it, if you did),
so I'm hoping that no news in this case is good news?

Cheers,

Carlos
--

robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> i think it's gonna be personal rocket packs or anti-gravity levitation or
> something.

Ohh, anti-gravity would be s-w-eeeet !!! Really, I'm *so* fed up
with having to put up with gravity!! What kind of idiot could have
come up with such a stupid idea as gravity !!!! :-)

Apparently, space elevators could be a big thing as early as within
the next few decades -- see http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690

Carlos
--

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
...
>> Where do you propose to put the ashes?
>
>
> Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
> that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
> ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
> or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
> hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
> it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
> potentially is, and nuclear could be)
>

There is an ineluctable logic to this, which is surely why so many countries
across the globe want to develop it. Now they know for sure that objections to
their pursuit of nuclear power are clearly without foundation. It is their
natural human right, after all, and offers exciting commercial opportunitss for
those countries able to export nuclear know-how.


Richard Dobson

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:

...

>> Where do you propose to put the ashes?
>
>
> Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
> that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
> ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
> or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
> hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
> it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
> potentially is, and nuclear could be)

I can form non-nuclear ashes into cinder blocks, and build things with
them. You can't do that with nuclear waste.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:

>>> Where do you propose to put the ashes?
>>
>> Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
>> that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
>> ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
>> or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
>> hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
>> it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
>> potentially is, and nuclear could be)
>
>
> I can form non-nuclear ashes into cinder blocks, and build things with
> them. You can't do that with nuclear waste.

Yes, this is a good point. But still, think about it; two
details: 1) it's not only non-nuclear ashes what you produce;
it's harmful amounts of CO2 and other pollutants (harmful for
the environment) that go to the atmoshpere, rivers and oceans,
etc.

And 2) the thing is, again, we're not comparing non-nuclear
ashes that result from generating a megajoule of energy by
burning petroleum vs. the nuclear ashes that result from
generating a megajoule of energy in a nuclear plant.

For the same amount of waste, you had an extra terajoule of
energy -- perhaps sufficient to do something sensible about
those ashes -- yes, perhaps even launch them in a capsule
that goes to outer space (I mean, why not? You had an
extra terajoule of energy! Spend half a terajoule in
sending those ashes straight to the Sun, and you still
had half a terajoule more energy than you would have)

Or, conversely, you could say that for the same gigajoule
that you generated -- which was after all the amount of
energy that you needed, so why gebnerate more? -- instead
of creating one ton of non-nuclear ashes, you're now stuck
with several milligrams of nuclear ashes... I still buy it!

No, really -- the numbers that I'm using may be an exaggeration,
but the principle is the same, and it's the reason why the
Energy Engineers keep insisting -- and it is my opinion that
they are right -- that nuclear energy is by far the most
environmental-friendly form of generating energy. It's so
many orders of magnitude more efficient than anything else!

Carlos
--

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>>>> Where do you propose to put the ashes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
>>> that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
>>> ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
>>> or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
>>> hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
>>> it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
>>> potentially is, and nuclear could be)
>>
>>
>>
>> I can form non-nuclear ashes into cinder blocks, and build things with
>> them. You can't do that with nuclear waste.
>
>
> Yes, this is a good point. But still, think about it; two
> details: 1) it's not only non-nuclear ashes what you produce;
> it's harmful amounts of CO2 and other pollutants (harmful for
> the environment) that go to the atmoshpere, rivers and oceans,
> etc.
>
> And 2) the thing is, again, we're not comparing non-nuclear
> ashes that result from generating a megajoule of energy by
> burning petroleum vs. the nuclear ashes that result from
> generating a megajoule of energy in a nuclear plant.
>
> For the same amount of waste, you had an extra terajoule of
> energy -- perhaps sufficient to do something sensible about
> those ashes -- yes, perhaps even launch them in a capsule
> that goes to outer space (I mean, why not? You had an
> extra terajoule of energy! Spend half a terajoule in
> sending those ashes straight to the Sun, and you still
> had half a terajoule more energy than you would have)
>
> Or, conversely, you could say that for the same gigajoule
> that you generated -- which was after all the amount of
> energy that you needed, so why gebnerate more? -- instead
> of creating one ton of non-nuclear ashes, you're now stuck
> with several milligrams of nuclear ashes... I still buy it!
>
> No, really -- the numbers that I'm using may be an exaggeration,
> but the principle is the same, and it's the reason why the
> Energy Engineers keep insisting -- and it is my opinion that
> they are right -- that nuclear energy is by far the most
> environmental-friendly form of generating energy. It's so
> many orders of magnitude more efficient than anything else!

The nuclear waste builds up and with only our current knowledge, will
accumulate essentially forever. CO2 accumulates too, but it is also
converted. So2 needn't be released (and is washed out of the air as acid
rain). We pump it into the atmosphere only because that's cheaper in the
short run. (Increases hurricane activity because of warmer ocean water
probably should be counted as an economic cost of using the air as a
garbage dump, as should the worth of lost timber.)

Cheap low-pollution energy won't help. There are more than four times as
many people alive now as the day that I was born. Half of the scientists
and engineers who ever lived on this earth are alive today. Reducing the
number of consumers is the only way to adequately reduce consumption. We
need a humane way to do that. Educating people and raising their
standard of living would probably accomplish it.

Killing the "unwanted" isn't the answer. A few years ago, 40,000
children a day died of starvation and malnutrition-related diseases.
Today, the situation has improved; the number is only 30,000. We need to
find a new way to live.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"NVKISHORE" <nvk255@yahoo.com> writes:

> hi all,
>
> Now a days there is a lot of discussion in my peer grp as what the next
> technology beakthrough is gonna be, i hav got some choices of which it
> will be one.
>
> 1. Nano technology
>
> 2. Quantum mechanics
>
> 3. Artificial Intelligence, Robotics
>
> 4. Genetics and bioinformatics
>
> I would like to know what ya opinion, knowing which I will be extremely
> lucky and happy.

A practical fusion reactor will change the world as we know it. Now if the
US would apply a little more than a few million a year on the plasma containment
problem, we'd probably be there soon.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Carlos Moreno wrote:
> >> Where do you propose to put the ashes?
> >
> >
> > Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
> > that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
> > ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
> > or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
> > hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
> > it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
> > potentially is, and nuclear could be)
>
> I can form non-nuclear ashes into cinder blocks, and build things with
> them. You can't do that with nuclear waste.

What makes you think that the total radioactive content of all those
cinder blocks (plus the carbon that went up the smokestack) is less
than that of your share of the output of a nuclear power plant?


IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn

Carlos Moreno wrote:
>
> Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
> that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
> ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
> or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
> hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
> it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
> potentially is, and nuclear could be)

If you are talking about fission then the ashes simply cannot
be brushed off so lightly. Yes, the ashes of burning fossil
fuels are harmful to the envirnoment and far larger in volume
that for nuclear fission.

However, how do you propose to safely store fission byproducts
which are highly toxic to all life and need to be safely stored
for tens of thousands of years or more.

Nuclear fission is a really good short term solution that
completely ignores long term consequences.

If we knew in the 1850s what we know now about the burning of
fossil fuels, we may have been a bit smarter about their use.
Simply dropping fossil fuels in favour of nuclear fission
considering that we have no guaranteed method of storing the
waste would be nuts.

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Spammer: Any of you guys looking for a permanent position in Scotland?
Kaz Kylheku: No, I'm looking for a thug in Scotland who might be interested
in beating up off-topic Usenet spammers, on a pro bono basis.

"NVKISHORE" <nvk255@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127458072.446270.152600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> hi all,
>
> Now a days there is a lot of discussion in my peer grp as what the next
> technology beakthrough is gonna be, i hav got some choices of which it
> will be one.
>
> 1. Nano technology
>
> 2. Quantum mechanics
>
> 3. Artificial Intelligence, Robotics
>
> 4. Genetics and bioinformatics
>
> I would like to know what ya opinion, knowing which I will be extremely
> lucky and happy.
>
I think zero-point energy.

Shytot

Carlos Moreno wrote:

> For the same amount of waste, you had an extra terajoule of
> energy -- perhaps sufficient to do something sensible about
> those ashes -- yes, perhaps even launch them in a capsule
> that goes to outer space (I mean, why not? You had an
> extra terajoule of energy! Spend half a terajoule in
> sending those ashes straight to the Sun, and you still
> had half a terajoule more energy than you would have)

Aha. Have you ever thought to figure the impact of such use of
reserves of iron, silicon, etc.? Mind you that ore mining and
processing is one of the more intrusive things we do. You might also
be interested to consider that your "illustrative" numbers are
annoying the heck out of me personally. Your opponents in this kind
of argument will take you more seriously if you can found your
estimations, or else keep them to yourself.


Martin

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

rhnlogic@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>>Carlos Moreno wrote:
>>
>>>>Where do you propose to put the ashes?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
>>>that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
>>>ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
>>>or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
>>>hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
>>>it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
>>>potentially is, and nuclear could be)
>>
>>I can form non-nuclear ashes into cinder blocks, and build things with
>>them. You can't do that with nuclear waste.
>
>
> What makes you think that the total radioactive content of all those
> cinder blocks (plus the carbon that went up the smokestack) is less
> than that of your share of the output of a nuclear power plant?

I tell you what: propose as a way to dispose of nuclear waste,
distributing it in tiny quantities in all brick hereafter manufactured.
With it so diluted and spread out, that ought to be acceptable to you.
One could look at a brickyard and see a new meaning for "atomic pile".

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Carlos Moreno wrote:
>
>>Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
>>that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
>>ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
>>or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
>>hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
>>it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
>>potentially is, and nuclear could be)
>
>
> If you are talking about fission then the ashes simply cannot
> be brushed off so lightly. Yes, the ashes of burning fossil
> fuels are harmful to the envirnoment and far larger in volume
> that for nuclear fission.
>
> However, how do you propose to safely store fission byproducts
> which are highly toxic to all life and need to be safely stored
> for tens of thousands of years or more.
>
> Nuclear fission is a really good short term solution that
> completely ignores long term consequences.
>
> If we knew in the 1850s what we know now about the burning of
> fossil fuels, we may have been a bit smarter about their use.
> Simply dropping fossil fuels in favour of nuclear fission
> considering that we have no guaranteed method of storing the
> waste would be nuts.

Unfortunately, yours is the only sensible position. It is also
unfortunate that since the 1960s, fusion power had been 20 years away.

I doubt that knowledge of the harm fossil fuels could do would have
restrained the people of 1850. There were few enough of them so that it
didn't matter as much. Compare world-wide energy demand then and now.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Martin Eisenberg wrote:

>>For the same amount of waste, you had an extra terajoule of
>>energy -- perhaps sufficient to do something sensible about
>>those ashes -- yes, perhaps even launch them in a capsule
>>that goes to outer space (I mean, why not? You had an
>>extra terajoule of energy! Spend half a terajoule in
>>sending those ashes straight to the Sun, and you still
>>had half a terajoule more energy than you would have)
>
>
> Aha. Have you ever thought to figure the impact of such use of
> reserves of iron, silicon, etc.? Mind you that ore mining and
> processing is one of the more intrusive things we do. You might also
> be interested to consider that your "illustrative" numbers are
> annoying the heck out of me personally.

Well... get over it!!

> Your opponents in this kind
> of argument will take you more seriously if you can found your
> estimations, or else keep them to yourself.

Why? It's not like what I'm saying here is really changing
the fate of Mankind... I'm just explaining a point of view
that I got from discussions with experts on the area...

Back in College, a couple of friends of mine were doing a
Master in Energy Engineering (don't remember if that was
the exact title -- hope that doesn't annoy you ;-)), and
one day, with my brother, who is an *Environmental* Engineer,
we asked them about efficient and environmental-friendly
energy -- believe me, we were as shocked as you (and Jerry
and Erik and others) seem to be when they told us that
Nuclear energy, hands down, was the best form of energy,
without any other competitor that comes remotely close.
After a few minutes discussing, we ran out of arguments,
and were convinced by their argument ever after... (mind
you, that was approximately 8 years ago, so I'm not sure
if things have changed -- doesn't seem like it, but I keep
an open mind that perhaps their argument is now outdated?).

All I'm doing is trying -- the best I can -- to explain
what I once was explained. I'm sorry that that offends
you (actually, no, I'm not really sorry, now that I think
about it :-)).

Carlos
--

Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> writes:
> [...]
> believe me, we were as shocked as you (and Jerry
> and Erik and others) seem to be when they told us that
> Nuclear energy, hands down, was the best form of energy,
> without any other competitor that comes remotely close.

Carlos,

I remember learning a few years ago that the best solution
we had for disposing of nuclear was placing it in specially
reinforced barrels and placing them deep underground in some
remote area.

Is this what you call a viable, large-scale energy source?
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr