Slashdot Mirror

http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/tng/tng7/the_pegas us.htm/

Why don't they build a greenhouse up there?

Actually, a biosphere seems like the next logical step for the space station.

Make the greenhouse a disk:

• Spin it and make centifugal "gravity"
• Keep it to the moon's 1/6 G
• Put a convex mirror at the hub, reflecting some filtered sunlight to augment the artificial light.
• Play some Yanni. Plants love Yanni :^}

You'd have to be careful about mixing in animals, though. It'd be tragic if the animal population got out of hand.

A greenhouse would serve to keep the astronauts from getting too loopy, too. "Gardening", even hydroponically, would probably be a welcome change from the other crap they have to do all day.

Speaking of crap, a garden might be a good way to recycle other human byproducts.

(We also discover that, at least according to Soong, Data is NOT "less perfect" than Lore.)

http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/tng/tng4/brothers. htm

At the expense of shops who were using no computer at all. Or abacuses.

I would laugh if the situation weren't so serious for my company. We are on the verge of a disaster.

Chisembop manual sales have been flat for 5 years.

Adding machine sales are down 38%.

Calculator sales are down 52%, including the newest hand held models.

Slide rule sales are down 79%.

Analytical engine sales are down 93%.

Tabulator sales are down 98%.

Our abacus miniaturization project is running into problems with prior art by a "major" competitor.

To top it off, our hope for a Multitronic breakthrough appears to have dangerous side effects after four models that were outright failures.

Unless we can pump up our mentat outsourcing service, or complete development of our Make me a Rainman! kit, we're doomed! Doomed I tell you! :(

Remember that time in Star Trek when there were a race of aliens that hid behind an exo suit from human eyes, the episode called "Is There in Truth No Beauty?"?

The ones where the aliens were excellent navigators and/or pilots, but were said to be so ugly that the human mind couldn't cope with seeing their true form?
Remeber how we'd be shown only glipses of the light coming out of their opaque enclosure as it was opened by someone?

I sure did whenever I watched a B5 ep where they discussed the Vorlon's hiding their true self, expecially when we got a glimpse of their true form's light shining out as someone was opening their opaque encounter suit.

I'm also reminded of that anytime someone mentions that B5 "unlike ST" had the occasionnal cameo from a non-humanoid alien. Despite their many, many humanoid alien races.

by myowntrueself (607117) Alter Relationship on Saturday February 26, @04:33PM (#11789285)
Remind me, in which episodes do we get to see tholians?


But I'm guessing from that lil' reply of yours that you meant to imply that B5 is better than ST because they had better looking non-humanoid cameos? When that has nothing to do with being B5 or ST, and everything to do with the current state of SFX technology and the budget of the show.

Then again, I'm sure you can find any number of 15 year olds to get on the board "old shows with bad SFX were bad because they're OLD" boat.

Remember that time in Star Trek when there were a race of aliens that hid behind an exo suit from human eyes, the episode called "Is There in Truth No Beauty?"?

The ones where the aliens were excellent navigators and/or pilots, but were said to be so ugly that the human mind couldn't cope with seeing their true form?
Remeber how we'd be shown only glipses of the light coming out of their opaque enclosure as it was opened by someone?

I sure did whenever I watched a B5 ep where they discussed the Vorlon's hiding their true self, expecially when we got a glimpse of their true form's light shining out as someone was opening their opaque encounter suit.

I'm also reminded of that anytime someone mentions that B5 "unlike ST" had the occasionnal cameo from a non-humanoid alien. Despite their many, many humanoid alien races.

by myowntrueself (607117) Alter Relationship on Saturday February 26, @04:33PM (#11789285)
Remind me, in which episodes do we get to see tholians?


But I'm guessing from that lil' reply of yours that you meant to imply that B5 is better than ST because they had better looking non-humanoid cameos? When that has nothing to do with being B5 or ST, and everything to do with the current state of SFX technology and the budget of the show.

Then again, I'm sure you can find any number of 15 year olds to get on the board "old shows with bad SFX were bad because they're OLD" boat.

Actually it was 2286. 2367 was the fourth season of ST:TNG.

You mean thisMiles O'Brien?

How does technology influence ideas like "freedom of speech", "freedom from unlawful search and seizure," and other supposedly inalienable rights? An example: If a government writes a virus that infects a computer, looks for illegal material, sends a warning back if it finds anything, and then deletes itself after infecting a few more computers, have you been illegally searched? Remember that (ideally) only those who actually possessed said material would get any notice from the authorities.

has written some great books on these matters (my example was actually ripped off from "Code and other Laws of Cyberspace").

The question is often asked, "Can a robot have a soul?" Being an atheist, I would rephrase it to ask whether a robot could have those qualities which we value in ourselves and other human beings. Creativity, flashes of inspiration, hopes, fears, emotions, and dreams. Further reading: anything by Daniel C. Dennett.

A lot of questions you could formulate simply take a classical ethical dilemma and uses technology to highlight some aspect of the problem. For example, say that we created an artificial intelligence. Now, say that the intelligence took a staff of fifty people and half the electricity from a hydroelectric dam, but was only about as intelligent as a normal human being. Assume further that it has passed the Turing test.

Question 1) Is this machine as valuable as a human life? Why or why not?

Question 2) Given the vast resources that the machine consumes, are its creators obligated to keep it running once its scientific value has been exhausted?

The second question is basically a reformulation of the well-explored question, "When do the needs of the many justify the taking of a life?"

"What do other people have a right to know about you? What information do you have a right to keep private, and from whom? Technology gives the people around you unprecedented abilities to keep track of your history, your likes, your dislikes, your behavior patterns, and your associations. If a government develops a technology that can take this information and use it to determine which people are likely to commit serious offenses, where does the government's obligations lie? In protecting the potential victims, or in respecting the rights of the suspects (who haven't actually done anything). How well do current laws fit both the current and future problem space?

Doomsday tech: With every advance in science, things get easier. Advances in chip manufacturing happen, and suddenly you have game consoles that cannot be shipped to hostile nations. Advances in materials technologies suddenly make it possible to build 400-story skyscrapers. So what happens when a technology suddenly pops up that makes it very easy to do serious, unspeakable damage to those around you?

For example, a new chemical process suddenly makes it possible for someone to enrich uranium in his basement? Or, in a worst-case scenario, imagine that someone figures out how to create a device that would destroy the world, and knows that it could be built without leaving your local Radio Shack?

The ethical thing would be to not build the device. That's simple enough. But what if such powers were a natural result of a discovery in physics? Would it be appropriate to outlaw entire branches of scientific inquiry to avoid the things we could inflict upon ourselves if we had the knowledge?

There's a lot of science fiction that could be used to illustrate ethical dilemmas. For example, The Measure of a Man is probably my favorite Star Trek episode of all time. I also remember an excellent story by Isaac Asimov, where an archaeologist builds an illegal device that can be used to see into the past. He simply wanted to do some research on the worshippers of Moloch, and ends up distributing plans for the ultimate privacy intrusion device known to man. Does anyone remember the name of the story?

I'm afraid the truth is actually much worse. The black void pictured is identical to the one previously encountered, as can plainly be seen here.

It's the result of an 11,000 mile long space amoeba, which, if allowed to multiply, will threaten every living thing in this galaxy, starting with Spock.

Don't say I didn't warn you. Details and more details.

Right now, nobody can make money except the US government because it's very difficult.

But if it was electronic, then there would be times when security was breached, and massive amounts could be created. This would depreciate the value of money and throw our economy into a depression.

Even if no one breaks in, it would be a lot easier for the government itself to create money, which could easily create the same problem. Sure, they might not all do much, but if thousands of government agencies are all doing it a little...it'll add up.

Having electronic money is a bit like have electronic war. I think I'd rather have them know what I'm doing.

...or does this guy remind you of Zephram Cochran.

He seems to have the attitude towards his project...maybe he saw First Contact last night, too.