From the desk of a scientist to the escapist community:
OK, so these questions are not part of my expertise seeing as they are not about computational models of DNA on a surface, but I can give a scientific view of each of them.
1)The major problem with jet packs is actually in the safety more than anything else. This is true with almost all forms of aviation and is why we don't see flying cars etc. The most common forms of general public aviation are hang gliders and sky diving and I believe this is related to the fail state.
You see, in industry, engineers have to worry about the fail state of their system. If they are designing a valve that controls how much reactive chemical is released into a reaction chamber, they want it to fail-to-closed, so that if the power fails, the reaction doesn't continue uncontrolled. If the engineer is designing a cooling system for a nuclear reactor, they want it to fail-to-open so that the reactor doesn't heat uncontrollably to a meltdown in the case of catastrophic power failure.
In powered flight, your options are severely limited if you loose power. Most aviation has some sort of ability to glide to an emergency landing, but jetpacks are limited in this area. Most engineers are hesitant to make a product that means almost certain death to the user in the case of systems failure. This is why the few jetpacks that you do see on YouTube are just side projects that nerdy people make just to see if they can and to ever test with an actual human.
Add to this a lack of understanding of the law of conservation of momentum among the general public and jetpacks are just not a good idea.
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
? Captain A. G. Lamplugh
2)Artificial meat, it's expensive. I mean 18 people die every day because they can't get an organ transplant (see http://www.organdonor.gov). If this was the whole reason that the process was developed, then why is our government spending millions on campaigns to get more people to sign up as donors instead of spending it on making the artificial organs? I mean, if we can't use this technique to make 18 organs a day, then how are we supposed to use it to feed 7 billion people a day?
I'm with you in thinking that this would be a neat thing to see, but I don't know if it's practical.
3)Space, it's a matter of priorities. Space programs could be funded by the government or by private industries. Right now however, both entities have most of their assets tied up, or, all of their income is already promised to other projects. I mean, there aren't any Scrooge McDucks running around with a huge wad of cash collecting dust in a money bin (except maybe the Kennedys and their ilk). This means that spending on space needs to come from cuts in other places. As far as the government goes, I can see bringing our troops home, rewriting the tax code, and performing an overhaul of our non-discretionary spending (medicare, social security, etc.) as good first steps towards freeing up money for space travel (Ron Paul?). As far as private industry goes, I think we spend way too many billions of dollars addressing an unsubstantiated carbon dioxide threat (if you don't think industries are seriously spending billions of dollars on this check out this site http://chenected.aiche.org/annual/ The American Institute of Chemical Engineers just held their annual convention last month and you can see from their highlights that the most talked about subjects were sustainability and the environment). I'm with you in thinking that there are much better things that we could be spending our money on.
4)Designer breeds are the result of strenuous breeding. In order to do the same for bears, some one would need to breed several generations of bears to produce a smaller variety. It should be noted that large breeds of dogs still exist and smaller dogs only survive due to a large population that sustains them. Sure they would be cool, but where would they fit in, exotic pets, circus attractions, a new endangered species?
OK, so these questions are not part of my expertise seeing as they are not about computational models of DNA on a surface, but I can give a scientific view of each of them.
1)The major problem with jet packs is actually in the safety more than anything else. This is true with almost all forms of aviation and is why we don't see flying cars etc. The most common forms of general public aviation are hang gliders and sky diving and I believe this is related to the fail state.
You see, in industry, engineers have to worry about the fail state of their system. If they are designing a valve that controls how much reactive chemical is released into a reaction chamber, they want it to fail-to-closed, so that if the power fails, the reaction doesn't continue uncontrolled. If the engineer is designing a cooling system for a nuclear reactor, they want it to fail-to-open so that the reactor doesn't heat uncontrollably to a meltdown in the case of catastrophic power failure.
In powered flight, your options are severely limited if you loose power. Most aviation has some sort of ability to glide to an emergency landing, but jetpacks are limited in this area. Most engineers are hesitant to make a product that means almost certain death to the user in the case of systems failure. This is why the few jetpacks that you do see on YouTube are just side projects that nerdy people make just to see if they can and to ever test with an actual human.
Add to this a lack of understanding of the law of conservation of momentum among the general public and jetpacks are just not a good idea.
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
? Captain A. G. Lamplugh
2)Artificial meat, it's expensive. I mean 18 people die every day because they can't get an organ transplant (see http://www.organdonor.gov). If this was the whole reason that the process was developed, then why is our government spending millions on campaigns to get more people to sign up as donors instead of spending it on making the artificial organs? I mean, if we can't use this technique to make 18 organs a day, then how are we supposed to use it to feed 7 billion people a day?
I'm with you in thinking that this would be a neat thing to see, but I don't know if it's practical.
3)Space, it's a matter of priorities. Space programs could be funded by the government or by private industries. Right now however, both entities have most of their assets tied up, or, all of their income is already promised to other projects. I mean, there aren't any Scrooge McDucks running around with a huge wad of cash collecting dust in a money bin (except maybe the Kennedys and their ilk). This means that spending on space needs to come from cuts in other places. As far as the government goes, I can see bringing our troops home, rewriting the tax code, and performing an overhaul of our non-discretionary spending (medicare, social security, etc.) as good first steps towards freeing up money for space travel (Ron Paul?). As far as private industry goes, I think we spend way too many billions of dollars addressing an unsubstantiated carbon dioxide threat (if you don't think industries are seriously spending billions of dollars on this check out this site http://chenected.aiche.org/annual/ The American Institute of Chemical Engineers just held their annual convention last month and you can see from their highlights that the most talked about subjects were sustainability and the environment). I'm with you in thinking that there are much better things that we could be spending our money on.
4)Designer breeds are the result of strenuous breeding. In order to do the same for bears, some one would need to breed several generations of bears to produce a smaller variety. It should be noted that large breeds of dogs still exist and smaller dogs only survive due to a large population that sustains them. Sure they would be cool, but where would they fit in, exotic pets, circus attractions, a new endangered species?
