The Top 5 Technology Panics of 2009 146
destinyland writes "An A.I. researcher lists the Top 5 Technology Panics of 2009 — along with the corresponding reality. There's exploding iPods, the uproar over 'bombing' the moon, and even a flesh-eating robot. But in each case, he supplies some much-needed perspective. 'These incidents are incredibly rare ... the rocket stage weighs around two tons, while the Moon weighs in at a 73,477,000,000,000,000,000 tons... and desecration of the dead is against the laws of war — and plant matter is a much better fuel source anyway.'"
Re:Weight... (Score:2, Informative)
You cannot weigh the moon, this is nonsense.
BS. Sure you can weigh the moon. We can calculate it's weight very well by multiplying it's mass by g (F=M*a). Even so, in my country a tonne is exactly 1000kg. So even when the guy is referring to "weight" he really means mass.
Re:Weight... (Score:2, Informative)
Uhh, you can do it really easy: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99487.htm
Re:Weight... (Score:4, Informative)
No. The correct nomenclature is 7.3477x10^19. And we certainly know it to 5 significant figures, which is all original value in TFA states.
Brett
Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (Score:3, Informative)
well, "the internet" is slightly less portable than a cell phone.
"The Internet" is just a giant network, so qualifying or quantifying its "portability" is pretty meaningless. The Internet is already everywhere that the network reaches, and so does not need to travel from place to place. However, if we define the "portability" of something as the "ability of a person to use the thing regardless of physical location", then the portability of the Internet is entirely dependent on the portability of the computer and the ubiquity of Internet access points (likely wireless) in the area.
And given that mobile telecommunication networks are being used increasingly for Internet access as well as mobile phone service, one might argue that the Internet is exactly as portable as a cell phone. Maybe even more portable, since more portable devices than just cell phones can access the Internet.
Re:Weight... (Score:3, Informative)
In the US and most the rest of the world, it is too. But the article wrote ton which is short for a "short ton" which refers to a short imperial ton.
The differences is that a tonne is a "metric ton" equal to 1000 kg or 2204 lbs, an "Imperial ton" (also known as a long ton) is 2240 lbs, or about 1016 kg, and a ton, known also as a short ton, is 2000 lbs or roughly 907 kg.
It gets a little more confusing when they use the word tonne in combination with energy proxies like in explaining the strength of a bomb or explosion as in how many tonnes of TNT it is comparable to or with amounts of force as in a 10mega tonne bomb. Or in combination with certain metal trades where they calculate the amount of metal in a long ton of ore by the percentage or metal within the ore. Then there are hold overs from traditions like in the HVAC world where AC is generally measure in ton(s) referring to how heat absorption and how heat would be displaced by a ton of ice in one day. Melting one ton of ice in this way or a 1 ton AC unit would be equal to about 12,000 BTU/h or 3517 Watts/h or 12,661,200 joules of energy per hour.
Re:Conficker April 1st (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Weight... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How is the LHC not on here? (Score:4, Informative)
The mathematics is largely redundant is answering the question of whether the LHC will destroy the earth. Particle collisions that are exactly the same (as well as some that are more powerful) as the ones in the LHC have been occurring in the earth's atmosphere ever since it first formed. If the earth has had several billion years to be eaten by blackholes or stranglets produced by one of these interactions, and still hasn't, then it's pretty safe to assume that those interactions simply don't produce those byproducts.