Speaker 1: Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Forward Thinking. Hey there, and welcome to Forward Thinking, the
Speaker 1: podcast that looks at the future and says, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: Mr Post, ma'am. I'm Jonathan Strickland and I'm Joe McCormick.
Speaker 1: Hi there, Lauren, Hi, Joe, Hi, Jonathan, Hi, Joe, Hi, Lauren, Hi, Jonathan, Hi, Noel.
Speaker 1: All right, good, we got everybody. Now, Hi, how are
Speaker 1: you doing today? Really well, well, today, I'm very excited
Speaker 1: because we're gonna be talking about some listener requested topics.
Speaker 1: But we've really had a lot of listener requests piling
Speaker 1: up lately. Yeah, which is fantastic. Guy, We really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: So we love it. We're not complaining, but they're they're
Speaker 1: only piling because you're so fabulous. Yes, and we can
Speaker 1: only record and published two episodes a week. But so
Speaker 1: today we thought, you know what we should do, We
Speaker 1: should do a listener mail roundup episode. Now. Unfortunately, even
Speaker 1: in this episode, we're not going to be able to
Speaker 1: get to every one of the things you all have
Speaker 1: sent us that we want to talk about, but we
Speaker 1: wanted to pick some of the topics that could be
Speaker 1: addressed in a slightly shorter form and uh and take
Speaker 1: them on all at once, and some of these may
Speaker 1: eventually become part of an episode where we take a
Speaker 1: deeper dive into these, but a lot of the questions
Speaker 1: seem like they would have a fairly quick answer that
Speaker 1: wouldn't justify a full length episode, which is why we
Speaker 1: kind of grouped them together. They're they're not grouped by
Speaker 1: any sort of theme either, because you'll see as we
Speaker 1: go on, it's kind of all over the place, which
Speaker 1: is cool. Yeah. Yeah, So our first listener suggestion that
Speaker 1: we want to get to today actually came to us
Speaker 1: on our Facebook while it was our listener Ed who
Speaker 1: asked us about the future of media delivery, and Ed
Speaker 1: said podcast idea, I want my MP three or LP
Speaker 1: or v O D. I think that's and I want
Speaker 1: my MTV joke for the kids who don't remember dire
Speaker 1: Straits or just MTV. Right. Ed goes on, how will
Speaker 1: we be listening to or getting our music, watching movies,
Speaker 1: reading books and magazines and newspapers in the future. Well,
Speaker 1: I think this is a great question. It is it's
Speaker 1: a fantastic question, and it's one that I mean, if
Speaker 1: I were. If I were being snarky, I would just
Speaker 1: say streaming and move on, because I think that that's
Speaker 1: really the the answer to a lot of this, and
Speaker 1: it's an answer that's being pushed partly by consumer behavior
Speaker 1: and partly because it's a very attractive model for companies. Sure, well,
Speaker 1: we've got the resources in place, don't we. I mean
Speaker 1: now that now that high speed internet is becoming the norm,
Speaker 1: at least in some parts of the world, and more
Speaker 1: and more of the world long term, it's kind of
Speaker 1: hard to argue against the power of streaming. Well, you
Speaker 1: have so much access and it takes up so little space,
Speaker 1: right that. I mean, it wasn't that long ago that
Speaker 1: WiFi was really the speed you would need in order
Speaker 1: to get decent streaming experience, right otherwise it was going
Speaker 1: to be a very low quality stream or you're gonna buffer.
Speaker 1: So you know, I remember the days of trying to
Speaker 1: listen to something on streaming and get twenty seconds in
Speaker 1: and then suddenly the song stops, and you wait another
Speaker 1: fifteen seconds, then another twenty seconds of music plays. But
Speaker 1: now now we've gotten too speeds of WiFi, we've gotten
Speaker 1: better speeds of of cellular service, and we've gotten better
Speaker 1: compression uh models for streaming media to allow that to
Speaker 1: happen where we don't have as frequent an issue with
Speaker 1: buffering still happens once in a blue moon. It happens
Speaker 1: on my my connection at home, which is pretty fast.
Speaker 1: But well, I mean, you know, you've got to have
Speaker 1: that trifecta of a device that can handle it, right,
Speaker 1: connection that can handle it, and the actual service. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean if you don't have if one of those
Speaker 1: three things is deficient, you're gonna have a poor experience.
Speaker 1: But we're we've reached the point where the norm is
Speaker 1: that you can have this pretty seamlessly. Like my my phone.
Speaker 1: Now I can use my phone, uh pretty much anywhere
Speaker 1: in Atlanta, uh streaming a podcast, so I don't have
Speaker 1: to download an episode anymore. I can just stream it
Speaker 1: and it cash is enough of the podcast in local
Speaker 1: memory so that if I do pass through an area
Speaker 1: that has uh, you know, weak service, Like you know,
Speaker 1: I often take the train. In the train here in Atlanta,
Speaker 1: there's above ground sections and below ground, so sometimes when
Speaker 1: you go below ground, you lose that connection, but the
Speaker 1: CASH corrects for that, right, it has enough in the
Speaker 1: buffer so that I can keep listening without having that interruption.
Speaker 1: I think that because the technology has reached this point,
Speaker 1: streaming is really where a lot of this is going.
Speaker 1: It also means that we can listen or watch stuff
Speaker 1: when we feel like it. You know, we we we can.
Speaker 1: And a lot of those UH services also allow us
Speaker 1: to stop at one point and pick up at that
Speaker 1: same point even as we switch devices. So if we
Speaker 1: go from TV to phone or tablet or whatever. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree that digital playback is going to pretty much dominate.
Speaker 1: It's going to be king. I can't really see that
Speaker 1: changing for any good reason except for the sort of
Speaker 1: small scale collector aspect. I personally, I listen to records
Speaker 1: at my house sometimes, and I don't know why. I
Speaker 1: guess it's just fun. It can be fun to go
Speaker 1: record shopping, to put a record on the turntable. There's
Speaker 1: something aesthetically pleasing about it. It's a fun activity. But
Speaker 1: I'd say most of my listening I do digitally, whether
Speaker 1: that's podcasts or I mean obviously for podcasts, but h
Speaker 1: or music. Most of the movies I see now, I
Speaker 1: think come to me in a digital form. And I
Speaker 1: don't know do you'll think there's any reason that we'd
Speaker 1: see a major comeback of physical media for say music playback. Nope,
Speaker 1: m hm m m. I mean yeah, yeah, there's that
Speaker 1: that nest Alga factor and and that esthetic pleasure that
Speaker 1: you get from I mean, cassette tapes are a thing again?
Speaker 1: Are they really a thing again? Are they? I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean I know that I know that there was
Speaker 1: the the marketing gimmick of the Guardians of the Galaxy
Speaker 1: soundtrack coming back out on cassette? Are cassettes really coming back? Bands, like,
Speaker 1: like smaller local bands are releasing some of their albums
Speaker 1: on cassette tape? You have to there's still there's still
Speaker 1: still electronics companies selling cassette tape players. You've got some
Speaker 1: blood running down your force. Well, I mean, I'm just like,
Speaker 1: I'm like, I'm like, look, guys, we're better than that now.
Speaker 1: I've left those days behind. Cassettes are not great media formats, yeah,
Speaker 1: but they're fun. Come on stick and a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of older cars do still have cassette decks.
Speaker 1: I guess, so yeah, I can understand. I do agree
Speaker 1: that it's a lot easier to form kind of that
Speaker 1: emotional attached meant to uh to something when there's a
Speaker 1: physical representation of that thing, Right, Like I have a
Speaker 1: vinyl record collection, and there is a particular feeling I
Speaker 1: get when I pull an album out of that collection,
Speaker 1: put it on a turntable and listen to it. The
Speaker 1: ritual of it is kind of lovely, exactly. Yeah, there
Speaker 1: is a ritual that's associated with it that's very comforting,
Speaker 1: and it's all part of the experience which you can't
Speaker 1: you know, you can't really place a quantitative value on,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly. Yeah, I never get that warm fuzzy
Speaker 1: when I like open iTunes, yeah, exactly. Yeah, when I
Speaker 1: when I open up my my Google radio playlist that's
Speaker 1: based off the album that I really love. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not the same thing. So I don't want to
Speaker 1: I don't want to dismiss the the value of physical media,
Speaker 1: but I think that because there is the incentive on
Speaker 1: the part of the media company, these two maximize profits,
Speaker 1: which you certainly can do if you don't have to
Speaker 1: have a physical presence anywhere. You know, you don't have
Speaker 1: to create inventory, you don't have to have a place
Speaker 1: to move that inventory, you don't have to worry about
Speaker 1: inventory loss. If someone steals your physical stuff and you
Speaker 1: can no longer sell it. I can see a lot
Speaker 1: of reasons why companies would shy away from it, and
Speaker 1: this could become something that we see more on a
Speaker 1: special case by case basis, as UH entities, whether it's
Speaker 1: an author or a band or whatever, are catering to
Speaker 1: their audience. One way I do see this changing though,
Speaker 1: is that I think laser discs are going to come
Speaker 1: back in a big way. I think capacity and electronic
Speaker 1: discs are going to come back in a big way
Speaker 1: in the future. When you want to watch Terminator two,
Speaker 1: you're gonna get out that laser disc and you're gonna
Speaker 1: flip it halfway through the movie. Yeah, I agree with
Speaker 1: ancestors exactly. No. Actually, one thing I do want to
Speaker 1: say that I feel pretty strongly about out the future
Speaker 1: of audio playback is actually about the devices we use themselves.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to continue to see a decoupling
Speaker 1: of the audio reading device from the actual device that
Speaker 1: produces the sound. So, for example, this this exists today.
Speaker 1: You can get pretty good Bluetooth speakers or Bluetooth headphones,
Speaker 1: so you stream audio from the Internet on your phone
Speaker 1: or your laptop or your TV, and then you listen
Speaker 1: to that audio through whichever speaker system phone connects to
Speaker 1: a speaker system, and yeah, you seek to your player,
Speaker 1: the headphones, the whole speaker system, and you know, that's
Speaker 1: bye bye to the earbuds with the chords. I think
Speaker 1: that's going to become pretty universal. Sure. I mean, I
Speaker 1: have a I have a pair of I have a
Speaker 1: Bluetooth headset that's meant for music and podcasts, that sort
Speaker 1: of thing that uses bone conduction as well, so it's
Speaker 1: not even over the ear, but it also doesn't have
Speaker 1: to doesn't have a chord or anything. I definitely see
Speaker 1: that trend continuing. Oh sure, sure. Uh you know, I
Speaker 1: think as the technology improves, probably your big clunky headset
Speaker 1: or small, sexy, slim headset will be the device that
Speaker 1: is streaming the media directly. Uh yeah, And I just
Speaker 1: see generally more ease of interconnectivity. So like as we
Speaker 1: have the Internet of Things entering our homes, more devices
Speaker 1: will be the sort of the digital basis of playback,
Speaker 1: and then you can sink them to whatever kind of
Speaker 1: thing it is that's making the actual noise. Well yeah, again,
Speaker 1: this this kind of comes back to the idea of
Speaker 1: Let's let's use Netflix as an example, where if I'm
Speaker 1: watching I'm logged into my Netflix account, and I'm watching
Speaker 1: Netflix on my phone, and then I go into my
Speaker 1: house and I want to turn on that same movie
Speaker 1: using a set top boxes connected there that's logged into
Speaker 1: my account as well. So when I started, it picks
Speaker 1: up where I left off on my phone. This uninterrupted
Speaker 1: experience is also something I see continuing in to the future. Uh.
Speaker 1: The interesting thing to me is that if you had
Speaker 1: asked me, maybe I don't know, five or six years ago,
Speaker 1: I would have thought that the standalone MP three player
Speaker 1: would still remain king because back back then streaming was
Speaker 1: not really the method you would download, and so you
Speaker 1: would keep everything on the memory of the device itself
Speaker 1: instead of it being cloud based. And I would have said,
Speaker 1: this is how it's going to continue for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 1: And in fact, for the longest time I carried an
Speaker 1: MP three player and a phone because I didn't want
Speaker 1: to clog up my phone's memory with media. I still
Speaker 1: do have an MP three player in a phone. I've graduated.
Speaker 1: I only go phone now because I use this streaming method,
Speaker 1: so I'm not filling up my memory, the cash fills
Speaker 1: up so that if I do lose that connectivity, I
Speaker 1: can continue enjoying whatever it is I'm I'm listening to her,
Speaker 1: watching or reading. But it's not it's not that I
Speaker 1: need to have a phone with practically end less amounts
Speaker 1: of storage because that storage isn't needed anymore. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I do think that in general across media or going
Speaker 1: to continue to see like you know, mid sized portable devices,
Speaker 1: whether that's a tablet or a mini tablet or um tablet. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what. I have very large buttons on your coat
Speaker 1: that that can play movies back to you. I don't know,
Speaker 1: um that that are right, that that are capable of
Speaker 1: handling both music and video and and books and etcetera,
Speaker 1: and and you know, doing the streaming thing. I don't know. Like,
Speaker 1: like I wonder, I wonder whether at a certain point
Speaker 1: when if like memory will become cheap enough that people
Speaker 1: will return to I mean, it depends if the if
Speaker 1: the service ends up being so seamless that it's not necessary.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to be a thing, but
Speaker 1: they're always going to be times at least that I
Speaker 1: can see where you are going to want to have
Speaker 1: things stored directly on the advice itself. For example, if
Speaker 1: you take a flight somewhere and you don't want to
Speaker 1: spring for WiFi on the flight. Plus, WiFi on flights
Speaker 1: is never at the speed that here, and I think
Speaker 1: that that's a that that's a point like like right now, um,
Speaker 1: cellular service isn't available everywhere, WiFi can be spotty, you
Speaker 1: have to pay for them in in many contexts, and
Speaker 1: so therefore streaming isn't quite ready. It's not to go
Speaker 1: not supers totally seamless. It all depends on where you look.
Speaker 1: Like if you're in a city like Atlanta or San
Speaker 1: Francisco or New York, it's probably pretty good, but that's
Speaker 1: not universal. Yeah. I would also add to that access
Speaker 1: anxiety if you're interested in something that is perhaps obscure,
Speaker 1: something you're not sure is going to continue to be
Speaker 1: provided by Netflix or whatever. You know, that's a good point,
Speaker 1: you think, well, you know, I don't know if this
Speaker 1: movie is still going to be on Netflix in a
Speaker 1: year when I want to watch it again, I'd rather
Speaker 1: just own the Blu Ray, right. I mean, if Tammy
Speaker 1: and the t Rex goes away, I don't know what
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do me there, and uh, what about what
Speaker 1: about books? Right? Right? So, I think that more reading
Speaker 1: is going to be done digitally as prices on reading
Speaker 1: devices electronic reading devices drop, and I I suspect that
Speaker 1: in parallel, print prices are going to rise as printing
Speaker 1: runs get smaller as a result. I see, so you're
Speaker 1: you're thinking of because the the market is moving more digital,
Speaker 1: the the potential market for actual physical books is getting smaller.
Speaker 1: That drives the prices up because you can no longer
Speaker 1: print in the volumes that you would before and expect
Speaker 1: a decent return on that investment. Right. The other way
Speaker 1: of looking at that is that they just keep the
Speaker 1: prices the same by cutting costs, and there will be
Speaker 1: more typos in your print books now editor free. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: we only hired a copy editor for the digital version
Speaker 1: of Lauren. I liked your book, but the main character's
Speaker 1: name changed like six times. That was part of the point. John, Uh,
Speaker 1: these modern novels. I'm actually I'm in thinking about this.
Speaker 1: I got the sudden moment of of worry that, um,
Speaker 1: some people might start to get priced out of easy
Speaker 1: access to print media due to the fact that, um,
Speaker 1: you know, from an entry standpoint, a paperback is a
Speaker 1: lot cheaper than a kindle and probably will continue to be.
Speaker 1: Um even though you know, obviously getting a kindle at
Speaker 1: having basically unlimited access to a lot of books for
Speaker 1: very cheap or even free in the case of classics. UM. Well,
Speaker 1: and I love I love the move to electronic media
Speaker 1: for another reason. It also gives us access to books
Speaker 1: that otherwise have passed out of print. They're not in
Speaker 1: the public domain. You still have to buy them. But
Speaker 1: I'm the son of an author. My dad has a
Speaker 1: horror novel that came out in the eighties and it's
Speaker 1: my favorite book that my dad ever wrote. I love it.
Speaker 1: But it's not available in physical format anymore. But you
Speaker 1: can get it electronically, and that's something that I love.
Speaker 1: It means that people can have access to works that
Speaker 1: there's no reason from the publishers standpoint to produce more. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's not enough, there's not a large enough market to justify.
Speaker 1: But electronically you can have anything out there. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: and that that is truly wonderful. Um And I wonder,
Speaker 1: I wonder whether for like the generation being born right now,
Speaker 1: literally right now, I salute you, um when when you're
Speaker 1: all about to listen to this, you'll appreciate that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what weather for them? Paper books and like paper printed
Speaker 1: magazines and newspapers are going to become a nostalgic, uh nostalgic.
Speaker 1: I don't want to say fetish, but but but but
Speaker 1: like a nostalgic uh like like like like an anachronism
Speaker 1: some sort of like tape or a vinyl record. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if reading something on paper is going to be like, oh,
Speaker 1: I just love the ritual of opening a book. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe this is I'm just far too technophobic, I guess
Speaker 1: to be talking about technology all the time. I do
Speaker 1: admit I have a perhaps old and preference for paper books.
Speaker 1: I don't have a tablet, but I don't think I
Speaker 1: would really like to read a book length literary work
Speaker 1: on one. I can. I'll read articles on the internet
Speaker 1: and stuff I I I gotta. I got one of
Speaker 1: the touchscreen kindles at some point, and I actually really
Speaker 1: like it. I but but I also did get the
Speaker 1: kind of case for it. It's like made of wood
Speaker 1: and leather, and so you open it and you kind
Speaker 1: of feel like you're opening a book. Um, well, maybe
Speaker 1: I just need to get with the times. I will
Speaker 1: say that the move to digital formats for books also
Speaker 1: means that we'll have fewer head scratching lee odd moments
Speaker 1: in movies like have you guys heard about the scene
Speaker 1: in the j LO film Boy next Door where the
Speaker 1: boy next Door hands her a quote first edition of
Speaker 1: the Iliad end quote? Well, hey, there have been lots
Speaker 1: of first editions of the Iliad. That's the problem is
Speaker 1: that just like they're joking that it's this it's this
Speaker 1: valuable thing, or it should have been a blind poet,
Speaker 1: it should have been exactly just starts reciting in Greek.
Speaker 1: The first edition is the first time it's fixed intangible medium. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, if we go back into the brain waves
Speaker 1: thing anyway, that's that's neither here nor there. But I
Speaker 1: think I think it was great question. It was It
Speaker 1: was interesting. Um. I do think that streaming, for at
Speaker 1: least the foreseeable feature is going to be the way
Speaker 1: to go. Maybe we'll eventually get to a point where
Speaker 1: things will get beamed directly into our brains and we
Speaker 1: will experience them instantaneously in their entirety. I hope. So
Speaker 1: that would be such a time, It would really I
Speaker 1: could get through all of those books that are on
Speaker 1: my list in like no time flat. Yeah. Well, thanks
Speaker 1: for your question, ed. I think now we're going to
Speaker 1: move on to an email we got from our listener
Speaker 1: Jude about geothermal energy and space coordinates. So Jude says, hi, there, hey, Jude, Hey,
Speaker 1: oh no, I see what you did there. Go ahead,
Speaker 1: Jude says, hi there, I've been listening to your audio podcast.
Speaker 1: You guys are doing a great job. Thanks to that
Speaker 1: warms my my cold heart. Yes, uh, part is very
Speaker 1: warm Jack. Well, okay, sorry, back to the email. Can
Speaker 1: you please cover the following topics. We all know Earth's
Speaker 1: core is molten rock and must be a source of
Speaker 1: massive untapped energy. Has anyone attempted to harness Earth's geo
Speaker 1: thermal energy? And how do astronomers navigating the cosmos or
Speaker 1: refer to a star object in space? Is their GPS
Speaker 1: equivalent in space? Thanks a lot from Jude in Bangalore.
Speaker 1: So we're going to take these in turn. We'll start
Speaker 1: with geo thermal So, first of all, geo thermal energy
Speaker 1: is a thing, obviously something that we we harness. It
Speaker 1: doesn't involve tapping into the Earth's core directly, although as
Speaker 1: you'll see, there's kind of an indirect long tail version
Speaker 1: of tapping into the Earth's core. Geothermal heat means thermal
Speaker 1: energy or heat from the Earth. So that heat is
Speaker 1: generated primarily from two sore says. One is that is
Speaker 1: the radioactive decay of materials that are in the Earth's crust.
Speaker 1: That accounts for about actually of geothermal energy. Really I
Speaker 1: did not at all. The other comes from the geothermal gradient,
Speaker 1: which is the difference between the cores temperature and the
Speaker 1: planet's surface temperature. So you probably know heat conducts from
Speaker 1: high concentration to low concentration, right, and that means that
Speaker 1: heat is moving from the core out into the crust.
Speaker 1: Uh So if you dig down far enough, the temperature
Speaker 1: starts to go up. You know, I knew that, but
Speaker 1: I had no idea how to do with this radioactive decay.
Speaker 1: I assumed that it was because of the pressure of
Speaker 1: the rock above it. Well, radioactive decay is again just
Speaker 1: that that's part of what's generating heat, because as we've
Speaker 1: talked about before, radioactive decay that is one of the byproducts.
Speaker 1: But the actual heat from the core that has nothing
Speaker 1: to do the radio activity. That's that's just basic physics
Speaker 1: of conduct auction. So as you drill down, that temperature
Speaker 1: goes up, and the average is twenty five to thirty
Speaker 1: degrees celsius per kilometer or fifteen degrees fahrenheit per thousand feet.
Speaker 1: That's the average, because there are some areas where that
Speaker 1: gradient is much different. For example, if you're drilling near volcano,
Speaker 1: you might notice that temperature goes way up way faster.
Speaker 1: Macma will do that to you. Uh So it's thought
Speaker 1: that this gradient actually decreases dramatically as you get through
Speaker 1: the crust and into the upper mantle. And the basis
Speaker 1: for that hypothesis is that if it were steady, if
Speaker 1: in fact you continue to see that that rise in
Speaker 1: temperature every kilometer, then you would eventually within the lithosphere.
Speaker 1: That's the area of the upper cross, not the upper acrust,
Speaker 1: the crust, the upper mantle uppercrust is a great band
Speaker 1: um that if if that remains steady, it would eventually
Speaker 1: hit the temperature where rock would melt before you got
Speaker 1: to a point where it's no longer solid. Like we
Speaker 1: know that the crust and upper mantle are solid and brittle,
Speaker 1: and that's below that when you start hitting liquid and
Speaker 1: then you get to the solid core, when you get
Speaker 1: to the very center of the earth. Uh. And because
Speaker 1: we know that, we know that this gradient has to
Speaker 1: level off at some point. It can't continue at that pace,
Speaker 1: or else the temperature would be too high for there
Speaker 1: to be a solid surface there or solid material there.
Speaker 1: It have to be liquid. So this is still just
Speaker 1: a hypothesis. However, we don't really know what the actual
Speaker 1: conditions under the surface of the Earth are because we
Speaker 1: haven't had direct observation of it. Yes, spoiler alert, Jules
Speaker 1: Verne wrote fiction. Yes, did not really go to the
Speaker 1: center of the Earth. The deepest hole that humans have
Speaker 1: ever drilled is the Cola Super Deep Bore Hole in Russia.
Speaker 1: It's one of my favorite things. It is. That's a
Speaker 1: great name for a thing. Anyway, go ahead. There's a
Speaker 1: great video that shows exactly where it Isn't It just
Speaker 1: looks like a little metal plate pipe sticking out of
Speaker 1: the ground. It's it's now, it's a metal plate on
Speaker 1: top of that pipe that is welded and bolted onto it.
Speaker 1: So you know, but it looks like you could otherwise
Speaker 1: just throw pennies down there. No, yeah, you can't. Like wait,
Speaker 1: let's see let's listen for the drop. So this thing
Speaker 1: is super deep, as the name implies, well if thou
Speaker 1: actually doesn't imply it as the name states, it is
Speaker 1: twelve thousand, two hundred sixty two or two hundred thirty
Speaker 1: ft deep. I remember I wrote a video about this.
Speaker 1: I did the video, and I did I did some
Speaker 1: math and found out I can't oh, man, now that
Speaker 1: i'm now that I'm sitting here, I don't remember the number.
Speaker 1: But I calculated how long it would take you to
Speaker 1: hit the bottom. If you could fall down this tiny
Speaker 1: narrow shaft, it would take you a long time, right,
Speaker 1: And uh, you know that is very deep, obviously, but
Speaker 1: it's not deep enough to even come close to breaching
Speaker 1: the crust and going into the upper mantle. It's the
Speaker 1: crust is, on average underneath the continents anyway, two kilometers
Speaker 1: thick or twenty five miles. This thing went twelve point
Speaker 1: two kilometers down, so not even halfway. Now, if we
Speaker 1: were to dig a similar hole in the ocean floor,
Speaker 1: we might actually break through to the mantel, because the
Speaker 1: crust along the ocean floor is around eight kilometers thick
Speaker 1: on average. But then you'd have to get down to
Speaker 1: the ocean floor. Yeah, so you'd have to deal with that.
Speaker 1: But at any rate, we haven't even breached the crust
Speaker 1: to get to the mantle, so we haven't gotten close
Speaker 1: to the core. Uh, to get back to the to
Speaker 1: Jude's question, we haven't gotten close enough so that we
Speaker 1: could tap into the core's energy directly. Okay, so the
Speaker 1: core is pretty much a no go, and I would
Speaker 1: guess even in the future, we're not going to get
Speaker 1: direct access to the core just because of like the
Speaker 1: the heat and pressure involved once you get even a
Speaker 1: tiny fraction of the way down there would kind of
Speaker 1: make access ridiculous. Well, yeah, exactly. You know they I've
Speaker 1: heard that when the the Super Deep hole was being uh,
Speaker 1: when the borehole was being drilled, that by the time
Speaker 1: they ended the project, they described the the rocks as
Speaker 1: behaving more like plastic than rock. That it was. It
Speaker 1: was it was deforming with the drill bit, which was
Speaker 1: making it harder to actually drill. So uh. And also
Speaker 1: you got to the mantle that's two thousand nine kilometers thick.
Speaker 1: That's before you hit the core. So we're talking peanuts here,
Speaker 1: Like we are nowhere close to the core yet. But
Speaker 1: One cool thing I think about this is that if
Speaker 1: if in fact we haven't drilled down and we haven't
Speaker 1: had any direct observation, how do we know that the
Speaker 1: mantle is the way it is or that the core
Speaker 1: is the way it is? And the answer is we
Speaker 1: look from other sources, for example, and indirect sources, so
Speaker 1: meteorites for example. By looking at the composition of the
Speaker 1: material and meteorites, we start to draw conclusions about what
Speaker 1: our own planet is like. So, for example, we have
Speaker 1: seen a lot of meteorites that have rock in them
Speaker 1: and fewer that have iron in them, which starts to
Speaker 1: have us draw the conclusion that iron, at least in
Speaker 1: certain forms, is probably going to be at the core
Speaker 1: of a plant. It's going to make up a smaller
Speaker 1: portion it's going to be at the center, and that
Speaker 1: rock is going to make up a lot much larger
Speaker 1: proportion of that. Right, we can also guess at the
Speaker 1: iron content of the Earth's core due to the way
Speaker 1: that the magneto sphere is set up. That's also true,
Speaker 1: and we can we can observe volcanic eruptions and see
Speaker 1: the material that is spewed out because the volcanic volcanoes
Speaker 1: extend down the the the magma can extend down all
Speaker 1: the way down into the mantle, so that gives us
Speaker 1: when it starts spewing forth, a closer picture of what's
Speaker 1: inside underneath. There also studying seismic waves earthquakes by looking
Speaker 1: at how they propagate. So let's say a seismic wave
Speaker 1: occurs in uh San Francisco, and you look on the
Speaker 1: other side of the world, and you detect how those
Speaker 1: those vibrations go through when they eventually passed through there.
Speaker 1: Because we're talking about super sensitive equipment looking at this,
Speaker 1: by measuring the amount of time and the direction that
Speaker 1: it came from and the frequency of the waves, we
Speaker 1: can learn more about the medium or media that its. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's pretty awesome. That's I keep thinking like, this is
Speaker 1: amazing that we've learned so much through indirect observation. So
Speaker 1: cool question. Yeah, definitely. The one more thing about this
Speaker 1: question is that despite the fact that we're not getting
Speaker 1: it from the core of the Earth, geothermal energy is
Speaker 1: totally real. That's a power source. It's a renewable, clean
Speaker 1: power source. I've heard that. I think some people do
Speaker 1: have certain concerns about it because you the main version
Speaker 1: I know about is steam powered basically, like you're injecting
Speaker 1: water into hot places and then using the rising steam
Speaker 1: to power a turbine. There might be other ways of
Speaker 1: doing it, but I know they're I've read and some
Speaker 1: people being concerned like, oh, is this safe to do?
Speaker 1: Is it going to cause earthquakes or something? But as
Speaker 1: far as we know, it seems like it's a pretty
Speaker 1: good power source. That's definitely the main way that we
Speaker 1: generate electricity, right, I mean, like, we've talked about a
Speaker 1: lot of different methods to generate electricity, and they almost
Speaker 1: always come down to I almost and boiled down to
Speaker 1: you come down to steam turning a turbine. That that
Speaker 1: pretty much is the way that we we generate electricity
Speaker 1: for the most part. And now Jude's second question was
Speaker 1: about celestial coordinates really, or typically it was about how
Speaker 1: to ask for not to navigate their space. How do
Speaker 1: astronomers say where a star is located? And here's the thing, guys.
Speaker 1: The main way that astronomers describe the location of stars
Speaker 1: is based largely off a similar way that we describe
Speaker 1: where something is on the surface of the Earth. It's
Speaker 1: like looking at the sky as if it were an
Speaker 1: enormous sphere that completely encircled our globe. So it's like
Speaker 1: our hebe is inside an even bigger globe which has
Speaker 1: little pinpoints in it, and what people literally thought a
Speaker 1: few thousand years. Yeah, and what's interesting is that that
Speaker 1: that that remains the basis the main way that astronomers
Speaker 1: end up giving coordinates two stars. Now, there are a
Speaker 1: couple of others that we could talk about besides the
Speaker 1: one I'm going to focus on, Like there's the galactic
Speaker 1: method of coordinates and super galactic method, which is looking
Speaker 1: at stars from the perspective of say our Sun or
Speaker 1: the center of the Milky Way. But for the most part,
Speaker 1: in astronomical circles, both in the amateur and professional world,
Speaker 1: we're looking at celestial coordinates, which are much more Earth based.
Speaker 1: And that makes sense because that's where we're looking at
Speaker 1: them from. Yeah, well, I can see how this would
Speaker 1: actually matter in the future, like if we encounter an
Speaker 1: alien species and we're trying to communicate with them about
Speaker 1: where something is. All right, So if you're standing in
Speaker 1: times Square, it's totally it's like right there. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: doesn't doesn't help. So on Earth we have the human
Speaker 1: defined imaginary lines of longitude and latitude. UH. That's part
Speaker 1: of our geographic coordinate system. So the vertical lines are longitude,
Speaker 1: the meridians, and then the horizontal lines the ones that
Speaker 1: are in parallel with the equator, that's latitude. And your
Speaker 1: coordinates are determined by where you are in relation to
Speaker 1: those lines, and the values are represented in units of degrees, minutes,
Speaker 1: and seconds or and this is becoming more and more
Speaker 1: common with GPS devices UH decimal degrees. So the equator
Speaker 1: is at zero degrees latitude, and if you travel north
Speaker 1: or south UH, you increase that latitude the north latitude
Speaker 1: or south latitude from zero to ninety degrees, so north
Speaker 1: poles ninety degrees north, south poles ninety degrees south. UH.
Speaker 1: The Greenwich meridian represents zero degrees longitude, and longitude extends
Speaker 1: a hundred degrees to the east and hundred hundred eighty
Speaker 1: degrees sorry hundred eighty degrees to the east and hundred
Speaker 1: eighty degrees to the west, So one eight east and
Speaker 1: one a U west are the same. It's the same
Speaker 1: line that's on the opposite side of the world from
Speaker 1: the Greenwich meridian. Do you happen to know what that
Speaker 1: line is somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. You're correct on that.
Speaker 1: Do you know what specifically? It is? The International date line.
Speaker 1: That's why if you go to Australia from here you
Speaker 1: lose a day. It's like a day never existed, which
Speaker 1: one of our co workers just got to experience. Uh,
Speaker 1: he's in Australian Now, Hi, Josh, how you doing anyway?
Speaker 1: So why do we describe it in minutes and seconds
Speaker 1: with degrees? What's the deal with that? So along the equator,
Speaker 1: one hour of the rotation of the Earth is equivalent
Speaker 1: to fifteen degrees of rotation. Now, if you look at
Speaker 1: a circle and you divide up the circle into fifteen,
Speaker 1: you know, increments of fifteen degrees, you get twenty four
Speaker 1: twenty four hours in a day, thus the fifteen degrees
Speaker 1: of rotation. So if you look at lines of longitude,
Speaker 1: you'll see that their fifteen degree increments normally between these
Speaker 1: um So one second of time is equal more or
Speaker 1: less to about a quarter of a mile of rotation
Speaker 1: at the equator. Uh. And the degrees can be subdivided
Speaker 1: into minutes and seconds this way, sixty minutes to a
Speaker 1: degree three thousand six hundred seconds to a degree. And
Speaker 1: now we take that same system, the latitude and longitude,
Speaker 1: and we blow up that globe. So it's this celestial
Speaker 1: sphere that encompasses our planet, and we just create a
Speaker 1: celestial equator. We take, we take where our equator is
Speaker 1: on our Earth, extend that outward as if it just continues.
Speaker 1: This imaginary line continues out into space, and now we
Speaker 1: have a larger imaginary line that's uh, that's linked to
Speaker 1: our equator. That's the celestial equator. But at that point
Speaker 1: we don't call it a latitude and longitude anymore. No,
Speaker 1: we do not, because I mean, you know, we need
Speaker 1: to make things confusing, right, So instead of lady, we
Speaker 1: have lines of declinetion. Uh, in lines of longity become
Speaker 1: right ascension. So uh, the zero for for longitude or
Speaker 1: right ascension really is the first point of aries. So
Speaker 1: right ascension is described in hours, minutes, and seconds instead
Speaker 1: of degrees. Because the passing of stars was a means
Speaker 1: of measuring time back in the olden days, and it's stuck.
Speaker 1: So uh, if you use this equatorial coordinate system, you
Speaker 1: would refer to a star's position relative to the celestial equator.
Speaker 1: That's the lines of declination and where it is relative
Speaker 1: to zero right ascension, which is the point on the
Speaker 1: celestial equator where the sun would cross the celestial equator
Speaker 1: during the vernal equinox. Is it simple enough for you yet? Alright,
Speaker 1: so Polaris would be at two hours thirty one minutes
Speaker 1: right ascension eighty nine degrees fifteen arcamnuts declination, which is
Speaker 1: you know, easiest pie. But what happens now, No, this
Speaker 1: is a fixed system because it's based up on this
Speaker 1: imaginary equator. Right, that's that's going to be the same
Speaker 1: for anyone anywhere on Earth. I have to stress on Earth. Obviously,
Speaker 1: if you were on some other planet, then this system
Speaker 1: would totally not make any sense to you. But what
Speaker 1: if you, Joe, wanted to tell somebody where to find
Speaker 1: a particular celestial body, and you know, referring to the
Speaker 1: celestial equator is not really convenient because it's not like
Speaker 1: we have a bright line across the sky that says, hey,
Speaker 1: here's the celestial equator. You would describe the altitude of
Speaker 1: the star, which is how many degrees above the horizon
Speaker 1: it is. By the way, a degree is essentially if
Speaker 1: you hold out your thumb the thickness. The width of
Speaker 1: your thumb is essentially one degree, and if you hold
Speaker 1: out your hand, I think that's like more like fifteen.
Speaker 1: It's kind of interesting. Yeah, so your degrees may vary,
Speaker 1: but but your arm is longer. So so the perspective
Speaker 1: makes it all work out. But if you have short
Speaker 1: arms and thick thumb, you're in a pickle. You're you're
Speaker 1: a bad, bad astronomer. You have no business looking at
Speaker 1: the sky looked to your feet at any rate. How
Speaker 1: many degrees above the horizon is the altitude, and then
Speaker 1: you have to describe the asimuth of the star asimuth
Speaker 1: that's how many degrees along the horizon with respect to
Speaker 1: them to a compass direction. So you start from north
Speaker 1: north is zero degrees, and then you go clockwise, so
Speaker 1: east would be ninety degrees because that's a right angle.
Speaker 1: From north south is one degrees, West is two d
Speaker 1: seventy degrees. And this method of describing as stars position
Speaker 1: is completely dependent upon the point of reference of the observer. Right,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be able to say, oh, hey, my friend
Speaker 1: in Alaska, right, look at this star. It's right there,
Speaker 1: per five hands exactly. That wouldn't work. Now if you
Speaker 1: were to use the other method I mentioned before with
Speaker 1: the celestial equator. First of all, you both have access
Speaker 1: to math and abilities that I don't know about because
Speaker 1: I can't figure this stuff out on my own. But
Speaker 1: that would work because that's a fixed system. But the
Speaker 1: the one that requires the the point of view of
Speaker 1: the observer obviously that would not work in that instance.
Speaker 1: You're exactly right. So um. Also, this means that this
Speaker 1: system is not terribly useful once you get significantly far
Speaker 1: enough away from Earth. Now, most of our manned missions
Speaker 1: have been really close to Earth, I mean low Earth orbit.
Speaker 1: Even going out to the Moon is not that far
Speaker 1: in celestial terms. Yeah. Yeah, you're still in orbit of
Speaker 1: the Earth. Yeah, so uh we. The big problem is
Speaker 1: that if you're talking about interstellar travel, this system is
Speaker 1: not useful. For one thing, it has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the distance of stars. This is just their relative
Speaker 1: position within the view of the night sky from Earth.
Speaker 1: So two stars that look close together because they seem
Speaker 1: to be close together, and that that imaginary sphere could
Speaker 1: be incredibly far apart in distance. One could be deeper
Speaker 1: than another, right, so it would be much further away.
Speaker 1: It's so the constellations are very um, very deceptive in
Speaker 1: that sense. You know, the stars that appear to be
Speaker 1: close together might be very far away from one another. Um. Now,
Speaker 1: keeping that in mind, how do we help spacecraft that
Speaker 1: go beyond this? Because we have had unmanned spacecraft that
Speaker 1: went beyond Earth orbit. And one of the tools we
Speaker 1: use is called the Deep Space Network or DSN. It's
Speaker 1: network of three powerful radio antenna their a position around
Speaker 1: the world in such a way that together they have
Speaker 1: total coverage of the sky. So those three points mean
Speaker 1: that we can send and receive messages from any angle
Speaker 1: off the Earth. Sun never sets on the Deep Space Network,
Speaker 1: that's correct, Yes, and up during I believe the late
Speaker 1: nineteen Yeah, the sexually ended up becoming uh came into
Speaker 1: effect just before the Apollo missions, and in fact, it
Speaker 1: ended up making another navigation system that was originally going
Speaker 1: to be the primary navigation system aboard the Apollo, the
Speaker 1: secondary or backup system, because now they could do all
Speaker 1: the calculations from Earth. Yeah. So obviously, if you're making
Speaker 1: calculations from Earth, it doesn't matter if it's an Earth
Speaker 1: centric thing, as long as it still applies to whatever
Speaker 1: body happens to be out there in space. And in fact,
Speaker 1: these radio antenna what they do is they send out
Speaker 1: a signal and then they wait to get a return
Speaker 1: signal from the spacecraft. And based on the time it
Speaker 1: takes from the moment of transmission to the moment of
Speaker 1: receiving that that return signal, as well as the shift
Speaker 1: in frequencies, the the the eggheads who crunch the numbers
Speaker 1: can figure out how quickly that spacecraft is moving where
Speaker 1: it is, like to an incredible degree of precisions. So,
Speaker 1: like judask, it kind of is like GPS in space
Speaker 1: kind of, but only for spacecraft, right, It's only for
Speaker 1: something that can radio back to us that. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: like GPS for your car. Yeah, it doesn't apply to stars,
Speaker 1: but it applies to spacecraft. So it's something like the accuracy.
Speaker 1: We can figure out the velocity two point zero five
Speaker 1: meters per second, and we can figure out the location
Speaker 1: within three ms, so it's even more accurate than some
Speaker 1: GPS devices. Are just pretty phenomenal when you think of
Speaker 1: a tiny, relatively tiny item in space that is passing
Speaker 1: possibly outside of the Solar System, because this is how
Speaker 1: we contact things like the voyager probes um so it's
Speaker 1: pretty cool. Uh. Now, if we ever reach a time
Speaker 1: when interstellar travel is common, we'll have to create something
Speaker 1: called star maps or star charts that are accurate representations
Speaker 1: of the relationships of various stars, how far away they
Speaker 1: are in in in three dimensions, not just in two. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I can imagine it being very difficult because when you
Speaker 1: think about maps of the Earth's surface that we're used to,
Speaker 1: these are basically two dimensional. I mean, they might have
Speaker 1: topographical information on them, but they're they're two dimensional planes.
Speaker 1: We've never had to think about space in three dimensions before.
Speaker 1: It's all been like Star Trek where all the ships
Speaker 1: to Yeah, yeah, exactly. And even in say like video
Speaker 1: games where you're supposed to navigate a galaxy I'm thinking
Speaker 1: of like, uh, in the mass effect games or something
Speaker 1: like that, you typically get like a top down view
Speaker 1: of the galaxy that's still a two dimensional map. You know,
Speaker 1: you're looking down on it and everything's arranged on the
Speaker 1: same two dimensional x y axis plane. But if you
Speaker 1: were actually navigating, you'd have to be you'd be moving
Speaker 1: to like too and past and through your points of
Speaker 1: reference for where you were well, and not only that,
Speaker 1: but the place you're leaving from and the place you're
Speaker 1: going to are also in motion, right, They're not, They're
Speaker 1: not standing still. So you wouldn't just be planning where
Speaker 1: you're headed. You have to plan where is your destination
Speaker 1: going to be by the time you get to where
Speaker 1: you need to go. So this is this is a
Speaker 1: grand scale of the kind of calculations astronauts have to
Speaker 1: make and ground control has to make when launching something
Speaker 1: to say Mars, where you know, we talked about how
Speaker 1: to get to Mars, it takes between like six and
Speaker 1: eight months to get there because you're not launching to
Speaker 1: where Mars is. You have to launch to where Mars
Speaker 1: is going to be. Same sort of thing here, but
Speaker 1: now on an interstellar level, which makes it even more complicated,
Speaker 1: really really complex. And in fact, the references I was
Speaker 1: looking at said, you know, we just don't have the
Speaker 1: information yet to create something that would be good for
Speaker 1: navigational purposes. A lot of this would be stuff that
Speaker 1: would have to be done in exploratory missions, where it
Speaker 1: would be kind of like the early explorers who had
Speaker 1: set off in ships across the ocean, not knowing where
Speaker 1: they were going or when they would get there, and
Speaker 1: then having to map every thing out similar in that respect,
Speaker 1: but on an even grander scale obviously, so pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: And there's also something cool I wanted to mention, Lauren,
Speaker 1: you discovered this actually, I remember Joe was telling me
Speaker 1: about astronauts using sextance on board spacecraft. Yeah. Sextance, of
Speaker 1: course being the if you're unaware of them, the old
Speaker 1: nautical tool where you it looks a little bit like
Speaker 1: a pro tractor, except you site along it and yeah,
Speaker 1: you have to take you take the horizon as a
Speaker 1: reference and another body like the sun as a reference,
Speaker 1: and you do some calculations to determine where in relation
Speaker 1: to the rest of the planet you happen to be.
Speaker 1: The astronauts did the same thing. They had a tool
Speaker 1: that well, well, they didn't have a protractor looking thing.
Speaker 1: There was like a pair of telescopes that were connected
Speaker 1: to a very sophisticated at the time device. Uh there
Speaker 1: was in a exposition by the way, so they couldn't
Speaker 1: move it. You had to move the spacecraft to look
Speaker 1: at the star you wanted to look at um. And
Speaker 1: the reason they had it was to correct for drift, right.
Speaker 1: They would plan their trajectory and they would check to
Speaker 1: make sure that they were still on the trajectory that
Speaker 1: they had planned. So what they would do is they
Speaker 1: would cite two different celestial bodies, or they would use
Speaker 1: the Earth's horizon or the Moon's horizon as one of
Speaker 1: the reference points, and then a star, and then they
Speaker 1: would make sure that it lined up properly. And if
Speaker 1: it lined up properly, they knew that they were on
Speaker 1: the right trajectory. If it was out of alignment, they
Speaker 1: knew that they were drifting, and they had to do
Speaker 1: a course correction to get that fixed. And one of
Speaker 1: the descriptions I read of how the system ultimately worked
Speaker 1: was really cool. So they would pick a star. The'd
Speaker 1: say all right, we want star whatever, and they put
Speaker 1: that into the computer saying, this is the star we're
Speaker 1: going to use as our reference point. The spacecraft would
Speaker 1: orient itself to turn toward that star. Then they would
Speaker 1: look through the sextant and the sexton has a little
Speaker 1: crosshairs on it, and it's star is not in the
Speaker 1: center of the crosshairs. They knew that they had drifted.
Speaker 1: They used controls on the sextant to move the cross
Speaker 1: hairs over the star, push a button that sends a
Speaker 1: command to the navigation system to do a course correction
Speaker 1: so that the thrusters then do the necessary thrusting to
Speaker 1: put them back on the correct course and correct for drift.
Speaker 1: And I read this and I thought that's amazing. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: And and this was actually in use in several of
Speaker 1: the Apollo missions. I think, I think as late as
Speaker 1: Apollo eight they had a big mission. That's the one
Speaker 1: that went around the back side of the dark Dark Side,
Speaker 1: which is really really quite bright the far the far
Speaker 1: side of the movie. But yes, yeah, and and I
Speaker 1: think that the astronaut who specifically was using it was
Speaker 1: it was an ex naval officer. That's kind of appropriate.
Speaker 1: Probably had his little Bosn's whistle there too, and everything.
Speaker 1: But obviously you're if you're talking about spacecraft that goes
Speaker 1: outside the view of the Earth, then you want to
Speaker 1: have this backup system clearly, because you aren't certain yet.
Speaker 1: You can't be absolutely sure that the Earth based navigational
Speaker 1: systems will stay in constant contact because once you get
Speaker 1: behind the Moon, that's a pretty big obstacle to block
Speaker 1: your radio communication. So it is clear why they needed
Speaker 1: to have a secondary navigational tool aboard to make sure
Speaker 1: they could correct for things like drift. Okay, well, those
Speaker 1: are the only three questions we have time for in
Speaker 1: this episode, but rest assured we will be getting back
Speaker 1: to more of your questions and suggestions in a subsequent
Speaker 1: listener mail round up episode. Yeah, this has been so
Speaker 1: much fun. Yeah, but one last message I wanted to
Speaker 1: end with, just because it's very brief and we can
Speaker 1: squeeze it in. It was some wonderful feedback on our
Speaker 1: Back to the Future episodes, and this came from Stephen
Speaker 1: on email. He said, I think you missed one important
Speaker 1: detail in your two Back to the Future podcast, the
Speaker 1: reason why we don't have all the new technologies. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he was talking about the things we were all
Speaker 1: disappointed not to have yet, like hoverboards and telescoping baseball bats.
Speaker 1: He says, the reason we don't have those things is
Speaker 1: that lawyers were never outlawed. That is why Marty's kids
Speaker 1: were convicted so quickly. Than Yeah, thanks than Steve, I
Speaker 1: forgot that salient point Back to the Future book too.
Speaker 1: Lawyers have been outlawed, and therefore the the court systems
Speaker 1: moved much more quickly. But wait a minute, what does
Speaker 1: that have to do with the technologies. Well, I feel
Speaker 1: like I'm faintly grasping Steven's point, but I'm not quite saying.
Speaker 1: Is that because this one element of the future has
Speaker 1: not come true, the other elements can't come true. And
Speaker 1: also without lawyers everything would move more quickly. Yeah, first
Speaker 1: of all, you wouldn't sorry lawyers, it's just true. Oh well,
Speaker 1: you know, we did just talk about intellectual property and
Speaker 1: the chilling effect of patent law and stuff. That's so yeah,
Speaker 1: any you this was This was so much fun. Thank
Speaker 1: you guys so much. We're very much looking forward to
Speaker 1: doing this again. We do have other questions, some of
Speaker 1: which we have already started to research and talk about offline,
Speaker 1: So keep those coming in because we're having a great time.
Speaker 1: Some of these are going to be full episodes. Some
Speaker 1: are going to be like this one, where we collect
Speaker 1: some of the various questions that don't quite make up
Speaker 1: a full episode. And uh, it's it's fantastic and lets
Speaker 1: us know what you guys are interested in and we're
Speaker 1: so excited to cover that. In order to let us
Speaker 1: know what you would like us to talk about, you
Speaker 1: should send us an email that addresses f w thinking
Speaker 1: at how stuff works dot Com, or drop us a
Speaker 1: line on Twitter, Google Plus, or Facebook. At Twitter and
Speaker 1: Google Plus, we are f W thinking over on Facebook.
Speaker 1: Just search f W thinking will pop right up, Leave
Speaker 1: us a message, tell us what you think, and we'll
Speaker 1: talk to you again really soon. For more on this
Speaker 1: topic in the future of technology, visit Forward Thinking dot
Speaker 1: Com Problems, brought to you by Toyota Let's Go Places,