Jump to content

TimeLord

Member
  • Content Count

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

TimeLord last won the day on December 30 2012

TimeLord had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

About TimeLord

  • Rank
    Time Lord
  • Birthday 12/23/1995

Profile Information

  • Name
    Ice Kubes
  • School
    Monticello High School
  • Biography
    4 Years of High School Debate Changes A Man

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So thats where my ship went, thanks for helping me out
  2. Um, don't think there are generic politics impacts. Usually the impacts to politics are specific to the bill and/or action being presented by the disad. Lets say that the debate is about SKFTA you won't read cards saying that healthcare key to solve disease then read Yu or something. You would read SKFTA based impacts.
  3. If you want to gain offense to a racism type argument, attack the link or make turns on the argument saying something along the lines of speaking about racism perpetuates racism or that even attempting to solve for racism will result in a major backlash that will only result in more racism. Saying racism is good is never a good idea... never
  4. I mean I thought you could try switching to a Cuba aff but if its your choice in the end man. I was just suggesting something because of the cards that I found while looking through some of the camp evidence and it somewhat related to this topic.
  5. On the anthro K, you have a link to Baltimore Community College and Bronx Law. How would this link work with their specific advocacy
  6. Actually here is something cool I found in the GDI Sci Coop neg file, its in terms of Cuba but I think this would be better, of course you're going to want to include reasons why nanotechnology is good. I'm sure there are tons of reasons for why it is. Cuba is in the process of developing nanotech but lack of infrastructure, international cooperation and experts slow the process – the plan results in accelerated nanotech by 2020Peláez 12 [Orfilio, Digital Granma Internacional, October 18, 2012, “Nanotechnology in Cuba,†http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/18-octubre-nanotechtology.html] WD NANOTECHNOLOGY, the driving force behind what many researchers see as the most important industrial development of the last 200 years, was initially developed by different branches of the military industry within a small group of highly industrialized countries, led by the United States, which had the resources to invest and the desire to maintain its position of global power. This effort, which is little discussed and currently subsumed within strategic national initiatives, had as its main objectives the miniaturization of nuclear weapons; improved armor; new camouflage techniques and more effective, lighter bullet-proof vests to protect soldiers; and medications to control bleeding and treat injuries, in order to maintain the full fighting capacity of troops in the most difficult situations. The term nanotechnology was coined in 1974 by Japanese scientist Norio Tamiguchi, using a new measurement system in which 1nm represents one millionth of a millimeter. Starting with the idea of creating new materials or changing the properties of existing ones by manipulating molecular structures at the nanometric level, the field progressively expanded into the aerospace, automobile, materials, electronics, communications, energy, health, food, environmental and cosmetics industries. Over the last few years, Cuba has entered this promising, diminutive scientific world. To learn more about its impact and prospects internationally and within the country, Granma spoke with Dr. Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart, scientific advisor to the Council of State. "Nanotechnology has eliminated barriers in a way which just a few years ago would have been considered science fiction and is today making concrete progress in the design of more efficient technology to treat water, miniaturize integrated circuits used in computers and information processing and in the development of optimal strategies to conserve energy," he said. "There are also promising results in the development of advanced diagnostic tools and new pharmaceuticals, capable of acting selectively at a specific site, making treatment more effective, with fewer side effects. Despite the results mentioned, the technology remains in the research and development stage, dominated by large U.S., European and Japanese companies." What factors have led Cuba to enter the field, despite the country’s complex economic situation and the high costs involved? The rate at which new knowledge and scientific innovations are emerging is so rapid that, if we do not now create the infrastructure needed to pursue selected goals and train experts to work in such a promising discipline, we run the risk of being irreversibly excluded from tomorrow’s world. To be competitive and achieve sustainable future development, based on our intellectual production, nanotechnology cannot be ignored, since all basic sciences converge in the field, combining increasingly advanced technologies, bio-information, bio-engineering and other branches of knowledge, which will transform industry and the provision of services in the coming decades. At the same time, Cuba has the advantage of having a broad base of scientists, engineers and highly qualified technicians in universities and research institutions, and in a network of world class institutions devoted to biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry, all located in the West Havana Scientific Complex and operating on the basis of a closed cycle concept including research, production and sales. More than 70 new products have been developed within these institutions, including monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, medical equipment, diagnostic tools and medications, some of which are unique, such as Heberprot-P and Nimotuzumab, protected as industrial property, and have had a significant impact on the improvement of public health. Thus we have much of the way forward already in place, the prior knowledge needed and many scientific accomplishments attained. It is understandable that nano-biotechnology and nano-medicine be the focal points of national efforts in this arena, given their social and economic impact, and the excellent public health system Cuba has developed. This does not mean we are turning our backs on the issues of energy, environmental studies and the related search for new materials. There are already centers such as the Molecular Immunology Center and the Immunoassay Center, which use this technology in their search for new drugs to treat cancer and to expand the number of illnesses which can be diagnosed with a blood sample using SUMA technology, respectively. How is the Cuban Center for Advanced Studies (CEAC) progressing? What training does the staff there receive? Have the opinions of entities in the Ministries of Higher Education and of Science, Technology and Environment, with experience in the use of nanotechnology, been considered? When CEAC was being conceptualized, opinions and recommendations were gathered from a group of leaders of institutions in the Scientific Complex, the University of Havana, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, to mention a few examples. It has been a collective project as a result of the participation of related actors, without any improvisation, preconceived notions or exclusions whatsoever. International experience was also taken into consideration in the design of buildings, laboratories, the equipment to install and materials to use in the different areas, through collaboration and the support offered by foreign companies with prestige, experience and know-how in the field. By 2013, the first stage of the investment process should be complete, based on the concept that it will be a multidisciplinary entity, devoted to the development of essential nano-technological applications in health care and, in an initial fashion, in the areas of environment and energy. CEAC’s staff is composed primarily of young professionals who come from different universities, ranging from 25 to 30 years of age, many of whom are currently completing their studies with their own projects, which reflect the principle lines of investigation proposed as priorities for the center by diverse institutions. Dr. Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart reported that the fusion of the Scientific Complex and the pharmaceutical industry is underway, based on the Policy Development Guidelines approved at the 6th Party Congress and the updating of Cuba’s economic model. To be created is a Central Enterprise Management Group, based on hi-tech companies with greater productivity, lower costs and better qualified personnel, capable of producing quality medications, equipment and services for the health care system and export. Given the country’s previous work and the strategic vision of a plan to develop nanotechnology in Cuba, by 2020, the country should be positioned among the nations making a contribution to nanotechnology, principally in the area of nano-biotechnology, the eminent scientist concluded. Here are some turns to that scenario though: Fast expansion of nanotech destroys the environment and mitigates its potentialMarantz 7 [Robin Marantz Henig, 9-22-2007, OnEarth, “Our silver-coated future: nanotechnology, fast becoming a three-trillion-dollar industry, is about to revolutionize our world. Unfortunately, hardly anyone is stopping to ask whether it's safe,†Lexis] WD BUT BEFORE we hurtle off toward a nano-utopia, we need to step back and ask ourselves whether this is a direction in which we really want to go. When an industry grows this quickly, there may be neither the time nor the inclination to ask some tough questions about possible risks. First of all, there are the health and environmental hazards. Would nanotechnology bring unacceptable risks to workers making these materials or consumers who use the final products? Would it affect air orwater quality near where the nanomaterials are dispersed? Very little is known about nanotoxicology, which might be very different from the toxicology of the same materials at normal scale (see "Smaller Is Weirder," page 28). Then there are the social, even existential, consequences. If the hype about nanotechnology contains even a smattering of truth, the technique could shake up our most basic assumptions about our place in the universe, turning us from its residents to the architects of its most fundamental elements. Might that act of hubris somehow subvert us as a species? As nanotechnology explodes, and as federal agencies wrangle over whose responsibility it is to deal with an essentially unregulated industry, it's all the more crucial to take stock of the emerging field as soon as possible. "This is not a technology we want to say no to out of hand," says Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "I think this is a technology that is potentially transformative, but we want to use it in a way to take advantage of that while reducing the risk." Maynard sees this moment as a crossroads for nanotechnology. "What concerns me," he says, "is that if we're not smart about this we'll get something wrong, which would cause unnecessary damage to the environment or to people and would undermine the potential of all nanotechnology." Accelerated nanotech causes extinction and all-out war – mature versions will be unstable and defense shields will take more time to buildBostrom 2 [Nick, PhD Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University, March 2002, Journal of Evolution and Technology, Volume 9, “Existential Risks,†http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html] WD In a mature form, molecular nanotechnology will enable the construction of bacterium-scale self-replicating mechanical robots that can feed on dirt or other organic matter [22-25]. Such replicators could eat up the biosphere or destroy it by other means such as by poisoning it, burning it, or blocking out sunlight. A person of malicious intent in possession of this technology might cause the extinction of intelligent life on Earth by releasing such nanobots into the environment.[9] The technology to produce a destructive nanobot seems considerably easier to develop than the technology to create an effective defense against such an attack (a global nanotech immune system, an “active shield†[23]). It is therefore likely that there will be a period of vulnerability during which this technology must be prevented from coming into the wrong hands. Yet the technology could prove hard to regulate, since it doesn’t require rare radioactive isotopes or large, easily identifiable manufacturing plants, as does production of nuclear weapons [23]. Even if effective defenses against a limited nanotech attack are developed before dangerous replicators are designed and acquired by suicidal regimes or terrorists, there will still be the danger of an arms race between states possessing nanotechnology. It has been argued [26] that molecular manufacturing would lead to both arms race instability and crisis instability, to a higher degree than was the case with nuclear weapons. Arms race instability means that there would be dominant incentives for each competitor to escalate its armaments, leading to a runaway arms race. Crisis instability means that there would be dominant incentives for striking first. Two roughly balanced rivals acquiring nanotechnology would, on this view, begin a massive buildup of armaments and weapons development programs that would continue until a crisis occurs and war breaks out, potentially causing global terminal destruction. That the arms race could have been predicted is no guarantee that an international security system will be created ahead of time to prevent this disaster from happening. The nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR was predicted but occurred nevertheless. Immature and accelerated nanotech will cause global nanowars – this outweighs and turns all offense – only gradual development of nanotech can access its immense benefitsTreder and Phoenix 6 [Mike, co-founder of CRN, is now serving as Managing Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Chris, co-founder and Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, has studied nanotechnology for more than 20 years. He obtained his BS in Symbolic Systems and MS in Computer Science from Stanford University in 1991. From 1991 to 1997, he worked as an embedded software engineer at Electronics for Imaging. In 1997, he left the software field to concentrate on dyslexia correction and research. Since 2000 he has focused on studying and writing about molecular manufacturing. Chris is a published author in nanotechnology and nanomedical research, and maintains close contacts with many leading researchers in the field, “Nanotechnology and Future WMD,†Dec., http://www.crnano.org/Paper-FutureWMD.htm] WD A New Weapons Race A nanofactory that could build high-performance products directly from blueprints in a few hours would have many applications. One obvious product family is weapons, including weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Higher strength, power density, and functional density would improve a number of existing weapon designs. It would also enable new classes of weapons. For example, UAV’s in a wide range of sizes could perform surveillance, sabotage, or antipersonnel missions far beyond what is currently contemplated. It appears that “briefcase to orbit†systems will be possible. A small automated airplane (Helios) has been flown up to 96,000 feet. Even a small rocket should be able to attain orbit from that altitude, and a small aircraft should be able to lift it. Initial calculations suggest that the advantages of diamondoid construction would enable a human-portable system, built by a home-appliance scale nanofactory, to put a kilogram of payload into orbit. The advantages of inexpensive rapid prototyping of complete products should not be underestimated. The development cycle of field-programmable computer chips can be up to two orders of magnitude faster than that of factory-programmed computer chips; product development cycles might speed up similarly. For a number of reasons, a nanofactory-enabled arms race appears less stable than was the US-Soviet nuclear arms race. Rapid development of new types of weapons may outstrip the capacity of strategists to plan for stability. Temporary asymmetries caused by rapid development may tempt first strikes. The wide range of military and paramilitary options may create many pathways for gradual escalation to conflagration. Destruction caused by nanotech-based weapons could be more targeted and contained than nuclear explosions. Likewise, there may be less stigma attached to nano-built weapons. Nanofactory availability is likely to be far more rapid and widespread than nuclear proliferation. Uncertainty about the enemy’s capabilities, as well as increased ability to deploy surveillance, may be stabilizing factors, but on balance the outlook for stability seems poor. All-out war could be extremely destructive. With distributed, easily concealed nanofactories, it would not be easy to destroy an enemy’s ability to fight. It would be far easier to destroy things of sentimental value, such as civilian resources – and civilians themselves. Preliminary thought about the number of modes of attack, concealment, and space/time separation between launch and attack makes the task of defending civilians appear hopeless, even if the enemy is far weaker than oneself. A mentality that welcomed martyrdom would appear to be at a distinct advantage against a nation unwilling to commit genocide. Other Risks In addition to its perilous impacts on weapons and war, nanotechnology manufacturing also presents issues of concern about surveillance, terrorism, environmental problems, economic upheaval, and more. With supercomputers and sensors effectively free, worldwide surveillance networks could be created with semi-automated data processing. Unusual events could be flagged for human attention, and objects and people could be tracked through space and time. This may be very tempting to governments as they try to avoid ownership and use of advanced weapons by individuals or small groups. But it would also enable massive governmental oppression. Should nanofactory-level technology become available to non-government entities, crime and terrorism may become significantly enabled. This could weaken or even destabilize governments and societies. If nanofactories can build solar energy collectors and feedstock pre-processors, it is not obvious what scarcity factor will prevent waste on a massive, even global scale. For example, profligate consumption of energy could lead to large fractions of the planet being covered in solar panels. Even things that are rare today, such as sonic booms from small aircraft, may become common enough to pose environmental problems. If small products were made in large quantity, they could form quantities of “nano-litter†that could be difficult to collect. The economic consequences of nanofactory technology are diverse and sizeable. If nanofactory products are as efficient and high-performance as expected, they may rapidly out-compete other forms of manufacturing. Nanofactory manufacture near time and place of use would affect transportation and storage industries. Manufacturing industries, of course, could be wiped out. New industries and lifestyles could create indirect economic effects. Rapid economic change could weaken or disrupt societies. A concern that has been raised about molecular manufacturing technology is that small, self-contained, self-replicating systems (so-called ‘grey goo’) might multiply in the wild and consume large fractions of the biosphere. Originally, it was feared that a laboratory accident could be enough to release such a device. However, current proposals for manufacturing systems do not include anything remotely like such a device, even during development phases. It is not yet known how much of a problem could arise from deliberate release of free-range self-replicators. They would probably be quite difficult to design, especially in a small package. They would have essentially no practical use, even as a weapon. However, it did not take long for the first computer virus to be created and released; hobbyists may be a source of concern once the technology becomes accessible to them. More analysis is needed to determine the eventual dangers posed by free-range self-replicators, with special attention paid to water-borne designs. However, the dangers of unstable arms races leading to devastating war and/or unbreakable oppression appear more pressing. Dealing With the Dangers There will be no simple solution to dealing with molecular manufacturing. Even a policy of massive suppression of it and all possible enabling technologies would not be immune to the possibility of internal instability on the part of the administrative group. It is also not clear that suppression is desirable. First, the benefits of a mature molecular manufacturing technology could be immense. The ability, for example, to perform planet-scale engineering projects in a matter of months may be necessary to mitigate climate change. Rapid prototyping of nanometer-scale products could accelerate medical research in several ways, as well as providing new kinds of treatment. Huge improvements in sustainable agriculture and efficient distribution systems can be anticipated for countries in the developing world. Replacement of inefficient infrastructure, along with inexpensive solar collectors, could greatly reduce our future ecological footprint (at least until new uses are found for the newly abundant resources). Inexpensive access to space could provide numerous benefits. More directly, widespread access to molecular manufacturing would enable widespread development of defenses against malicious uses. Although in a military context, it appears that offense will likely beat defense, it may be that widely deployed personal-scale defenses can mitigate personal-scale attacks. This possibility needs further analysis. Preventing malicious or irresponsible people from doing intolerably bad things is only one of the problems. Another source of problems is vicious cycles in social or political systems that may result from the stimulus of near-unlimited manufacturing. Perhaps the direst peril is the unstable arms race described above. Another possible vicious cycle is wealth concentration, caused by a large disparity between manufacturing cost and value to consumer, leading to increasing ability of businesses to purchase business-friendly policy. A third vicious cycle may arise from attempts to prevent ownership of desirable technology: a black market infrastructure may develop and grow. Unfortunately, almost no resources have been spent on studying these issues. If extensive research and analysis will be necessary to implement wise policy, there may not be time to complete them once the changes start. Large, especially international, administrative bodies also take time to create. If molecular manufacturing is physically possible, then it will happen soon, and technical and policy studies are urgently needed in advance of that date. Conclusion Although the possibility of high-performance molecular manufacturing has not been conclusively proved, analysis to date indicates that it will not only work, but will be far more powerful than other technologies, including other nanotechnologies. The actual development schedule is uncertain, but may be expected within the next few decades. Once a general-purpose set of digital molecular fabrication operations is developed, and exponential manufacturing is achieved, further progress toward nanofactories and advanced products may be rapid. Molecular manufacturing is likely to be far more powerful and dangerous than other forms of nanotechnology. Some of the dangers appear comparable in scope to nuclear war. Because some of the dangers arise from systemic vicious cycles and others may result from ill-conceived attempts at policy, studies aimed at developing wise approaches to the problems need to be initiated before the issues arise. Specifically outweighs nuclear warBailey 8 [Ronald, science editor for Reason magazine, July 22, 2008, “The End of Humanity,†http://www.reason.com/news/show/127676.html] WD While nuclear war and nuclear terrorism would be catastrophic, the presenters acknowledged that neither constituted existential risks; that is, a risk that they could cause the extinction of humanity. But the next two risks, self-improving artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, would.
  7. I thought performances didn't have to be topical... atleast not all of them. The first one that comes to mind is the idea of a poverty narrative at the top of the 1ac then it could be just a direct economic engagement aff with HR and Poverty scenarios. Don't know if that's clear but basically that could be an perf aff this year.
  8. Thanks for clearing that up man, sorry if I seemed dumb. I suffer from a rare condition known as being k-tarded
  9. Wait didn't Nietzsche develop his philosophy from Schopenhauer. Also aren't they both talking about an end to human suffering. Just a bit confused is all
  10. Here is a nanotech bad file from scribd you can use http://www.scribd.com/doc/53995690/Nanotech-Bad
  11. Very first debate I was ever in. Not too sure what was happening. It was the Poverty topic and we were running ELR (employer of last resort) neg- has your plan passed yet aff- it will if the judge signs the ballot neg- so it hasn't yet? aff- no neg- so your plan is illegal? aff- no Then they proceeded to talk about how our plan was illegal and how the judge should call the police, they also ran t substantial of which was the real reason we lost to
  12. Hey man, I've been in your situation before and this is what my team usually does. 1) Coin drop- try organizing a coin drop by your nearest grocery store, farmers market, wal-mart, where ever there is a large volume of people on a regular basis. We usually raise about 1-2 thousand dollars and in the summer we would raise about 3-3.5 thousand dollars. It doesn't really become the quantity of money each person gives but how many people walk by and donate that matters. After that we usually give them something small to show our gratitude such as a little business card saying Thank You or something like that. 2) Home tournaments- yeah this seems like an obvious way to raise money and you probably have one already but just putting that out there, have multiple if you want (a full varsity one and then maybe a small local tournament for novices and JV). This should make a decent amount of money (not too sure, never ran a tournament before) 3) Concerts- If anyone on your team is musical, have them put on a concert and advertise that all proceeds go to the your debate team. Of course you're going to have to have it at a venue that would let you do these activities such as a school auditorium or something. This could raise about $500-$1000 depending on the turnout 4) Sponsorships- Ask local businesses to sponsor your debate team or sell advertisements and then give out the whole ad booklet at your tournament, this is an easy way to raise at least $500 per person on your debate team. 5) Public Debates- This is an idea that I had where you have a public debate (any format CX LD PF Con) about a current issue, get the community involved, have a tip jar. This will raise awareness about the debate team and it will make you guys look great if you guys ever go out and ask for sponsorships or something of the kind 6) Car wash- Yeah, washing cars makes a bit of money, not sure how much but go for it 7) Bake Sales- Make cookies, cakes, brownies whatever you want. This will generate a decent amount of revenue and possibly profit since it doesn't cost much to run one
  13. Just thought I would put in my 2 cents if he was serious about using zombies as an actual impact
×
×
  • Create New...