Slashdot Mirror


Living Earth Simulator Aims To Simulate Everything

H3xx writes "An international group of scientists is aiming to create a simulator — nicknamed The Living Earth Simulator — that will collect data from billions of sources and use it to replicate everything happening on Earth, from global weather patterns and the spread of diseases to international financial transactions or congestion on highways. The project aims to advance the scientific understanding of what is taking place on the planet, encapsulating the human actions that shape societies and the environmental forces that define the physical world. Perhaps this is Asimov's concept of Psychohistory come to fruition."

241 comments

  1. Break out your towel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will the lab mice still study us?

    1. Re:Break out your towel by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 0

      AC FAIL!

      The LAB mice were NOT studying *anything*.

      Planet Earth was a calculator, Dent Arthur Dent was the final output, his Brain therefore contained The Result (cue trumpet fanfare).

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    2. Re:Break out your towel by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Where's my +1 Pedantic, but still Awesome Mod?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Break out your towel by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Hang on, I thought they *were* studying us!

    4. Re:Break out your towel by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      I think they were studying us in the sense of Closely Studying us (and the Earth at Large), waiting for Ten Million Year Program to finally spit out the Question.

    5. Re:Break out your towel by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      I would hate to be pedantic about pedantry, but I'm reasonably certain that DentArthurDent was not the Final Output per se, but the closest thing that the Mice had after the earth was bulldozed for a hyperspace bypass.

  2. more by chibiace · · Score: 0

    not enough data!!

    --
    he who controls the spice controls the universe
    1. Re:more by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      data from billions of sources and use it to replicate everything happening on Earth, from global weather patterns and the spread of diseases to international financial transactions or congestion on highways.

      "Aim small, miss small", -- The Patriot

      Simulating "everything" is pretty much impossible. Who do they think they're kidding, anyway?

    2. Re:more by jewens · · Score: 1

      Simulating everything is not the problem, doing it in anything approaching real time is. And no Moore's Law will not help.

      Of course it would probably still be easier/faster just to pick up the paper and see how things turned out.

      --
      That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
    3. Re:more by cHALiTO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But, it'll simulate everything, then it will also simulate itself, running the simulation, and so on. Looks like a recursive simulation :)

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    4. Re:more by fractoid · · Score: 1

      not enough data!!

      "...for meaningful answer."

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    5. Re:more by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Simulation Argument. :)

      Contrary to the parent, sadly, and in line with the GPP, simulating "everything" (for any values of "everything" more detailed than "a game of pool") really IS impossible. There's a reason that despite the thousand-million-fold increase in computational power over the last 70-odd years (between ENIAC and Tianhe-IA... wait a minute, a computer named 'ia' is bad right? If it ever says "fhtagn" it's too late to pull the plug...) anyway, we still can't tell with any surety what the weather will be like 6 days in advance.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:more by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      So it's like a dream within a dream? Fuck, it's like I'm really watching Inception.

    7. Re:more by Daravon · · Score: 1

      http://qntm.org/responsibility

      Your comment reminded me of this short story that was posted to Slashdot a while back.

      --
      I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
    8. Re:more by supertrinko · · Score: 1

      It's obvious that they don't plan to simulate "everything", just everything that we have data about.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    9. Re:more by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      I think we should look for the guy who designed it and see if he glows in the dark.. maybe take him to the zoo and see if any big cats feel like licking his hands =P

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    10. Re:more by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, that was a great read!
      Kind of reminded me of Laplace's demon at the beginning :)

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
  3. Let me guess.... by balaband · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It is controlled by a bunch of mice?

    1. Re:Let me guess.... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      If you see the Dolphins leaving Earth, try to keep up.

    2. Re:Let me guess.... by Carnivorous+Vulgaris · · Score: 1

      When will this recession end, and we can get back to building custom-made luxury planets.

    3. Re:Let me guess.... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 0

      Nobody saw the dolphins leave.

      Just like: Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!

      Though some of us have this delightful memorial fishbowl.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    4. Re:Let me guess.... by ultranova · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When will this recession end, and we can get back to building custom-made luxury planets.

      Recession is too profitable to be ever allowed to end. You can keep on asking and receiving public financial support, then turn around and loan the public's money back to them at interest, setting them up for a lifetime of debt slavery.

      Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. Isn't global economy fun ?-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Let me guess.... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Whoosh?

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    6. Re:Let me guess.... by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      only +3? tho i do have to disagree with the reason

      sense when do corps. look ahead? they are always looking for profits within a few months not years, such as when isp`s try to hold out as long as they can to upgrade their network, or riaa fights new tech or sues people to till thier grandchildrens life in debt.

      it could be in our dog eat dog world we have alot of bleeding out dogs who are to weak to eat the others and are slowly dieing rather then it going towards one really fat dog, but im not to sure :/

      --
      warning pointless sig
  4. Wasn't this in a movie? by warp_kez · · Score: 0

    IIRC wasn't the name of the computer WOPR?

    1. Re:Wasn't this in a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I think it might have been made by Encom

    2. Re:Wasn't this in a movie? by PatPending · · Score: 1

      IIRC wasn't the name of the computer WOPR?

      How about The General? Just ask it, "Why?"

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  5. Will they simulate themself by S3D · · Score: 0

    simulating everything?

    1. Re:Will they simulate themself by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      simulating everything?

      Yes. You only think you posted that. You are really part of the simulation.

    2. Re:Will they simulate themself by JamesP · · Score: 0

      Yes, they will even simulate the simulator itself, which will be running a simulation of everything, etc and so on...

      Humm... maybe this is why the Matrix was simulating the past

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    3. Re:Will they simulate themself by stms · · Score: 0

      Yes the machine will simulate itself and the simulated machine will simulate the earth again with another machine on it which will simulate earth again this will go on infinitely. Shame the scientist missed this infinite loop it seemed like such a promising project.

    4. Re:Will they simulate themself by c0lo · · Score: 1

      simulating everything?

      Will simulate even the discovery of "the theory of everything"... have to tell you, that would be about time... I'm already sick of the super-string theories.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Will they simulate themself by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Will simulate even the discovery of "the theory of everything"... have to tell you, that would be about time... I'm already sick of the super-string theories.

      String theorist tells wife he can explain everything.

    6. Re:Will they simulate themself by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      That is the oracle paradox : there are many cases where you can't make a correct prediction that accounts for your prediction's effects.
      That is exactly why in Asimov series there is the second foundation.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    7. Re:Will they simulate themself by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      simulating everything?

      That thought crossed my mind too and reminded me of this town containing a scale model of itself.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    8. Re:Will they simulate themself by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      That is the oracle paradox : there are many cases where you can't make a correct prediction that accounts for your prediction's effects. That is exactly why in Asimov series there is the second foundation.

      Sorta, but not really. Seldon is careful to spoon-feed out small bits of information at times, usually after the events have occurred, so the prediction isn't known until it's already happened. In those very few cases where he does reveal info about the future before it happens, it's only after he's already calculated what the results of the disclosure will be. The real reason for the Second Foundation is not the oracle paradox, it's the general fact that psycho-history isn't perfect, it's about probabilities, and as things do actually occur, people need to adjust things to account for the differences that would otherwise accumulate. But when it comes to making correct predictions of the effects of your predictions, Seldon not only does this, but uses this ability to further his aims.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:Will they simulate themself by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      He also state a form of oracle paradox to explain why the only science that the first foundation has no data about is psychohistory

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    10. Re:Will they simulate themself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh, people reading this topic fail to understand or comment interestingly on what it's actually about. They aren't simulating everything, they are simulating together a large variety of ecological, physical, and social processes. Very useful for spotting unexpected correlations between different spots of the system.

  6. Everything? by ferongr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Somehow I doubt that all the computing machines in the word combined have the necessary processing power to computationally simulate *everything* that happens on the planet, even when if we try to limit the variables. So I'll just go ahead and assume the science team will compromise on a flawed model which produces equally flawed results.

    1. Re:Everything? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt that all the computing machines in the word combined have the necessary processing power to computationally simulate *everything* that happens on the planet, even when if we try to limit the variables. So I'll just go ahead and assume the science team will compromise on a flawed model which produces equally flawed results.

      The interesting bit comes when the simulation reaches the point that the computer simulation started. The computers then have to simulate themselves running the simulation.

    2. Re:Everything? by kaiidth · · Score: 1

      It's a safe assumption.

      Actually, it's probably a safe assumption that this is just a way to extract $1.3 billion of funding out of the EU in order to pay for a bunch of supercomputers and interdisciplinary research. It's apparently part of something called FuturICT, a submission to the EU's Flagships initiative, which is to say that it is meant to be ambitious - here a codeword for 'infinitely improbable'. FET Flagships are long term initiatives on a budget of around 100 M€ Euros per year.

      You can get a copy of the proposal from here. It's a bunch of hand-wavy maybes. Most of the proposal is taken up with the interesting observation that knowing stuff about stuff is a prerequisite to revolutionising education, understanding and fixing the world economy, identifying financial crises before they happen, identifying innovations before they catch on, solving transport problems, creating a whole new scientific paradigm ('science 2.0'), fixing energy consumption and making us all safer. However, they have letters of support from George Soros and various other luminaries, so presumably the EU will assume (or already assumed) that they know what they are talking about.

    3. Re:Everything? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      The interesting bit comes when the simulation reaches the point that the computer simulation started. The computers then have to simulate themselves running the simulation.

      And this isn't just an academic point. If their predictions are of any value, they will be incorporated into major decisions made, and thus will be critical for the simulator to predict.

    4. Re:Everything? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      But if the system converges to a fixpoint, the infinite recursion can be avoided, right?

      Not that it seems likely to actually convege to a fixpoint. I'm just thinking aloud.

    5. Re:Everything? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Cue Heat-Death of the planet in

      Five
      Four
      Three
      Two
      .

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    6. Re:Everything? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And this isn't just an academic point. If their predictions are of any value, they will be incorporated into major decisions made, and thus will be critical for the simulator to predict.

      Fortunately, the solution is (relatively) simple: when using simulations in decision making, they run what-if -scenarios. The Earth Simulator can simply save the current state in a checkpoint, then run these what-if -scenarios.

      The real problem is predicting the likely parameters used in these simulations. That, and all other parts of the simulator modeling human behaviour, pretty much require either the simulator to be able to simulate human mind(s), or to be interactive.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Everything? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Don't worry; self-simulation doesn't really cause blindness.

    8. Re:Everything? by JoeThoughtful · · Score: 1

      The simulation may find it difficult to simulate all the world's computers processing data at full capacity and even if it manages to do that it will still have to simulate itself simulating everything including again itself and so on forever.

    9. Re:Everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can create a mathematical relationship between *anything* and create models - useless models. Useless because the objective is understanding social interaction and there are not constant relationships between human beings and their environment. Human beings aren't brainless matter where statistical analysis and the inductive methods of the physical sciences can be applied meaningfully. An analysis of this problem has been laid out in detail by many, Mises and Hayek for example.

    10. Re:Everything? by tibit · · Score: 1

      You know what? Simulating stuff is just another way of saying that we're running a mathematical model. Such models are typically mixes of discrete and continuous equations. The latter require discretization and solving with some sort of a differential equation solver. So while their proposal may use vague terms, in the end you "just" end solving lots and lots of differential equations. To see what is the state of the art here, just go to, say, the tool page of the Modelica Association. Modelica is a language in which you define your model, and then you need a compiler that can actually execute the model, thus run the simulation. The best tools out there (say Dymola) can tackle between 10^5 and 10^6 equations. As far as I can tell, significant theoretical and practical breakthroughs need to be made before we can even approach the performance of special-purpose endlessly tweaked and optimized simulators (like weather models) with a general purpose simulator that would allow modeling "just about anything" -- say, weather, geology, hydro, information, power grid, etc., all coupled together as necessary for FuturICT.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    11. Re:Everything? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It entirely depends on what level of detail you want as to whether the model is valid or not. Consider the attached image of myself as an example - it's highly accurate for that level of detail :)

    12. Re:Everything? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      And this isn't just an academic point. If their predictions are of any value, they will be incorporated into major decisions made, and thus will be critical for the simulator to predict.

      Fortunately, the solution is (relatively) simple: when using simulations in decision making, they run what-if -scenarios. The Earth Simulator can simply save the current state in a checkpoint, then run these what-if -scenarios.

      Good luck with that. So far attempts to model the effect of computerised trading on the stock market (much simpler than everything) have failed miserably. Also you have the chaos problem, where small changes can cause divergent and difficult to predict behaviour. What would have happened if we had a clear unambiguous warning of the sub-prime crisis a year before it happened? Would it have happened much earlier, been avoided, or just mitigated to an extent? What if the model included a prediction of what effect the warning would have - and so on.

    13. Re:Everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is not possible to simulate *everything*. That would of course include simulating the simulation itself. And the simulation of the simulation, and so on. Not to mention simulating everyone who takes everything they read *way* to literal instead of discussing the interesting sides of the project. ;-)

    14. Re:Everything? by kaiidth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know. Although before they start solving differential equations, they need to work out the model, which in itself is a potentially intractable problem on this scale. IMO, the proposal should've been junked by reviewers at the first stage on the basis that, whilst noone expects this sort of funding to actually achieve anything concrete other than paying IBM for another round of supercomputer hardware, it's good practice to politely pretend that they're not entirely, overtly kicking the arse out of the system. Taking data they know nothing about from point A and collecting it in point B does not necessarily mean that they have a clue about what they're storing, let alone what it signifies or how it may be processed or modelled.

      As Douglas Adams put it:

      'I think,' said Dirk, 'you will be impressed. Consider this. An intractable problem. In trying to find the solution to it I was going round and round in little circles in my mind, over and over the same maddening things. Clearly I wasn't going to be able to think of anything else until I had the answer, but equally clearly I would have to think of something else if I was ever going to get the answer. How to break this circle? Ask me how.'
      'How?' said Miss Pearce obediently, but without enthusiasm.
      'By writing down what the answer is!' exclaimed Dirk. 'And here it is! With the result that I am now able to turn my mind to fresh and intriguing problems, like, for instance...'
      He took the piece of paper, covered with its aimless squiggles and doodlings, and held it up to her.
      'What language,' he said in a low, dark voice, 'is this written in?'
      Miss Pearce continued to look at it dumbly.
      Dirk flung the piece of paper down, put his feet up on the table, and threw his head back with his hands behind it.
      'You see what I have done?' he asked the ceiling, which seemed to flinch slightly at being yanked so suddenly into the conversation. 'I have transformed the problem from an intractably difficult and possibly quite insoluble conundrum into a mere linguistic puzzle. Albeit,' he muttered, after a long moment of silent pondering, 'an intractably difficult and possibly insoluble one.'

    15. Re:Everything? by T+Murphy · · Score: 2

      A "model of everything" is a very interesting problem. Although I agree their results will be flawed, I disagree with you implication that it's useless research. These guys have no choice but to develop a flawed simulation, but if these guys do good work someone else might come along later and realize they have the means to reduce or eliminate some of those flaws. Making a useful (although still flawed) simulation probably can't be done all at once, so if these guys make the first stepping stone it could prove invaluable for future researchers.

    16. Re:Everything? by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      ...And this just in! First runs of the Total Earth Simulator predict a massive increase in funding for the project! (The mice will be pissed about having to cough some more cash...)

    17. Re:Everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I saw The Thirteenth Floor too.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/

    18. Re:Everything? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      What would have happened if we had a clear unambiguous warning of the sub-prime crisis a year before it happened?

      Maybe something like Y2K, where the efforts that avoided major problems are written off as unnecessary, and thus the warning is seen as having been false?

    19. Re:Everything? by WetCat · · Score: 1

      At least
      - it'll be a lot of fun to just stare and browse this thing, zooming to your own areas. This can make a lot of money on advertisiments!
      - Some portions of this can be used to improve forecasts, weather forecasts.

    20. Re:Everything? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Incomplete, sure. There's no way to include everything. It's simply not possible, computing power aside. Data sources for "everything" just don't exist for the model to leverage.

      That said, "incomplete" doesn't necessarily translates into unusably flawed. That depends entirely on what you're looking at and what conclusions you draw.

    21. Re:Everything? by tirefire · · Score: 1

      So I'll just go ahead and assume the science team will compromise on a flawed model which produces equally flawed results.

      Bingo. Whoever designed this is either nuts or just out for research money. The idea of accurately modeling and predicting even the NYSE is madness. An accurate computer model would not only have to completely understand a very complex system, it would have to exist in a world where true inspiration and free will do not exist in the minds of men.

      And modeling climate? Please, that's even messier than the stock exchange (an entirely numeric human construct which comes neatly packaged into computer databases already). Earth's climate is affected by countless known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

    22. Re:Everything? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What would have happened if we had a clear unambiguous warning of the sub-prime crisis a year before it happened?

      We did. Read old messages on this very site. Everyone knew it was coming. And how could they not? It's not like it takes an Einstein to predict what'll happen when the price of something skyrockets and everyone tries to ride it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Everything? by geowash01 · · Score: 1

      The best one-to-one simulation already exists. (See the third planet from a small G-type star, Sol, etc.) "Everything?" I suspect they eventually learn how to spell 'hubris.' Seriously, didn't they learn anything from Lorenz about the inherent rounding errors? Get ready for the new threat of Environment Change! It'll only take money to fix it, I bet.

    24. Re:Everything? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'd say the press are hyping things up as usual or it's being hyped up to attract funding (just like the MIT bulletproof superhero costume stupidity).
      As for similation and modelling, the first lecture on finite element analysis I went to as a postgrad student summed it up well and went along the lines of:
      "Consider a smooth, massless spherical elephant. Real elephants are hairy, heavy and an inconvenient shape that moves about but for the purposes of this calculation we do not need those extra details."

  7. some kind of constant by pspahn · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing they end up simply computing Pi.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    1. Re:some kind of constant by magic_fyodor · · Score: 1

      Or 42.

    2. Re:some kind of constant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      --- /dev/null Wed Dec 29 11:26:08 2010
      +++ /tmp/pi.c Wed Dec 29 11:25:50 2010
      @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@
      +int main(int argc, char** argv)
      + return 3;

      Apply patch, await bug reports.

    3. Re:some kind of constant by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Jokes in base (pi-2)/4 are funny!

    4. Re:some kind of constant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I found the sub for simulating politicians:
      If (Public == Distracted)
        Gosub StealMoney()
      Else
        Gosub DistractPublic()

    5. Re:some kind of constant by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I’d be thrilled if they could just accurately predict next week’s weather.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
  8. Optimistic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The term 'yeah, right' comes to mind.

    Starting from a few semi-structured sources of data, they expect to come up with a simulation of how everything affects everything else? Starting from a belief that Google Maps, data.gov.uk and Wikipedia are 'real-time data sources' they will:

    1. Collect all sorts of data real-time, including sensitive personal data like medical healthcare records
    2. 'create a framework to turn that morass of data in to models that accurately replicate what is taken place on Earth today'
    3. ???
    4. Profit

    Either they have excessively high expectations of the Semantic Web ('While the LES will need to be able to assimilate vast oceans of data it will simultaneously have to understand what that data means. Semantic web technology will encode a description of data alongside the data itself, enabling computers to understand the data in context.') or the designers of this thing have been egregiously misquoted by the news media.

    The Semantic Web (to the extent that anybody has made it work at all) does not generalise very well - 'understanding' the data, no matter how it is encoded, requires a lot of background knowledge about the domain. Within specific usage domains that is often achievable. Across domains it is very problematic.

    1. Re:Optimistic... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      The Semantic Web (to the extent that anybody has made it work at all) does not generalise very well

      If the Semantic Web is even partially written by the sort of people who post comments on youtube - we are royally fucked.

  9. Not Asimov, but rather Daniel Francis Galouye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the Science Fiction novel Simulacron-3, published in 1964, Daniel Francis Galyoue describes a huge analog electronic computer designed to simulate the world for modelling social, psychological, commercial, and political processes.

    The BBC article mentions gathering googlean amounts of data and vast computing resources, but not really what to do with them.

    1. Re:Not Asimov, but rather Daniel Francis Galouye by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      "googlean" ??

      Is that even a WORD?

      (Hint: it is NOW)

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    2. Re:Not Asimov, but rather Daniel Francis Galouye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good reference. That's also how our brains create consciousness and what we call "selves" (which are actually self-models) if Metzinger is right. This could be a primitive start toward Earth itself becoming a conscious entity.

    3. Re:Not Asimov, but rather Daniel Francis Galouye by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Even if recently coined (like this morning), it would obviously come from googol, which is 10^100. The term was coined in 1938[1] by 9-year-old Milton Sirotta (1929–1981), nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner. Kasner popularized the concept in his book Mathematics and the Imagination (1940).

      I would imagine "googlean" to be a perfectly valid adjective, even if it's new (and I don't know if it is or not, I suspect not).

  10. Name it Second Life by lul_wat · · Score: 2

    or would it be Third Life? Maybe it'll name itself.

    --
    Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    1. Re:Name it Second Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civilization Live!

    2. Re:Name it Second Life by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

      Q: Is There A God?

      A: There is NOW!

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    3. Re:Name it Second Life by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Dwight: It's called 'Second Life', it's a game without losers.

      Jim: Oh, there's losers.

    4. Re:Name it Second Life by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      It is the will of Landru...

      You are not of the body!

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    5. Re:Name it Second Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Camera man: *Zooming in and out to emphasize awkward moment*

  11. Is it just me or... by Atmanman · · Score: 1

    Is it not getting increasingly obvious that we ourselves are living in a simulation and that it is actually the year 1 million and a half? That blatant clue's have been cast in the sky; the most obvious being the same apparent magnitude of our primary satalite and that which we satalite? That once in the know the keyboard is plainly all around us merely plastered with posters of sensible looking people saying 'Do not press the buttons!' and wild eye'd colourful strange men who smile, 'Hack away!'? Madness surely; but keep turning reality inside out Mankind and I assure you this is will become the dominant suspicion that will unsettle us to the end of time. Like the bearded dragon shall we tap our nose against the glass until perhaps our owner takes us out of our tank to play in the garden before returning us once we realise the eternal truth that it is infact... cold outside.

    1. Re:Is it just me or... by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      wait.

      What?

    2. Re:Is it just me or... by PotatoFiend · · Score: 1

      Someone get the thorazine.

      --
      "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." -- James Madison
    3. Re:Is it just me or... by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      Now this is art...very tasty. May I have some more pudding sir?

       

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    4. Re:Is it just me or... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Philip K. Dick sent a message through a spirit medium. He wants his novel plots back.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  12. Too late by beef623 · · Score: 2

    They could save themselves a lot of work and just get Dwarf Fortress...

    1. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they want something with more reasonable system requirements.

  13. what about good enough socio-economic model? by azgard · · Score: 1

    I am not sure if having everything in a single model is a good approach. Certainly seems too computationally expensive.

    I would much prefer if people start looking into socio-economic modeling. We now have pretty good climatic models, and this started in the 50s, when there computers had almost no power. Now we have such power, and we could feasibly simulate social (i and economic behavior of whole country on a home PC.

    We could start like this: Each person in simulation would have possible actions (these would be predefined), and decide on which action to use based on habit, previous experience and copying from friends of its social network. Actions could range from economic (produce something of value) through social (meet someone) to political (enter contract with someone).

    1. Re:what about good enough socio-economic model? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      It's just another model at another scale.

      Sometimes you need alrge scale models, and sometimes you need small scale models.

      This would be nothing more than a very large scale model, just not in a spatial sense, as the sub-models in use there are already on a globale scale.

      Yes, it's computationally expensive, but if you have the hardware to throw at it - just do it.

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. Re:what about good enough socio-economic model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's computationally expensive, but if you have the hardware to throw at it - just do it.

      Half of the point is that they don't have the hardware to throw at it.

      The European Commission has a lot of funded research going on and the red line is pretty much "If you aim for the stars you may reach the sky" oslt.
      All of those projects have a "visionary" goal that is very close to things you read in sience fiction and pretty much no-one involved beleives that you will reach that goal.
      The idea is that when you reach for that vision you will create new technology and find new methods that will benefit humanity in other ways.
      Take for example a look at CERN. While the LHC is created to look for the Higgs boson the building of it required a lot of research in data management and superconductors.

      Even if they never get as far as getting the simulation running they will probably improve a lot on current models on the way.

    3. Re:what about good enough socio-economic model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words it's an excuse to give a very large amount of money to some affluent universities with no particular expectation of any return.

      Well... why not?

  14. Job security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only will this project not end well, it won't ever end, period. Prerequisite: read the prologue to Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. In summary: We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

  15. Fools. by santax · · Score: 1

    Just buy a copy of sims 3 and be done with it.

  16. I hope... by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope they've put some deep thought into this....

    1. Re:I hope... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The psychiatrists are not going to be happy.

    2. Re:I hope... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Since when have psychiatrists ever been happy?

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    3. Re:I hope... by HyperDrive · · Score: 1

      Not really, we already know what the answer would be...

    4. Re:I hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the philosophers

    5. Re:I hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The director of the project, Dr. Zarniwoop, could not be reached for comment as he was on an intergalactic cruise in his office.

  17. Simulation or recording? by LordNacho · · Score: 1

    Suppose you start the simulator, and it veers off. You'll want some kind of corrector mechanism, no? So you get some feedback from the real world. The trouble is, if you don't have a plausible model of how "eveything" works, you end up having to correct an awful lot.

    Also, isn't the only way to calculate something so complex as "everything on Earth" to uhm, have an Earth to run? And isn't the point of modelling to look at a small part of the whole, to abstract the bits you're interested in? I wonder if this project is going to be tell us anything other than "there's a lot of complexity of there, dude".

    1. Re:Simulation or recording? by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And isn't the point of modelling to look at a small part of the whole, to abstract the bits you're interested in?

      No. The point of a model is to create a simplified version of something that is to compilcated to understand.

      Modelling and concentrating on only a small part is a valid approach to that, but using simplifications (even the ones known as inaccurrate) is another one. (i.e. Atoms as pool balls, earth as an exact sphere, even internet as tubes.) You only need to know which simplifications you made, so you know on which scale your results out of that model are valid.

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. Re:Simulation or recording? by LordNacho · · Score: 2

      I suppose I worded it badly, but in essence, what is the meaning of "a simplified version" of "everything"? There isn't a specific aspect of "everything" that seems natural to simplify, given the scope of the project. "Atoms as pool balls" makes sense for certain contexts. There doesn't seem to be a context for this simulator.

    3. Re:Simulation or recording? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I may have interpreted to much into the summary, but i was expecting the context of this "model" to be to find out about the relations between other, seemingly unrelated (sub)systems.

      --
      bickerdyke
    4. Re:Simulation or recording? by khallow · · Score: 1

      And isn't the point of modelling to look at a small part of the whole, to abstract the bits you're interested in?

      No. The point of a model is to create a simplified version of something that is to compilcated to understand.

      And that's abstraction, folks. There's no disagreement here.

    5. Re:Simulation or recording? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Suppose you start the simulator, and it veers off. You'll want some kind of corrector mechanism, no? So you get some feedback from the real world. The trouble is, if you don't have a plausible model of how "eveything" works, you end up having to correct an awful lot.

      Welcome to the world of computers. It is quite feasible to take a gusher of data and automate the building of models fitted to that data. If as a result, you find a model that takes little memory and explains some aspect of the data flood relatively well, then you may have discovered a useful model.

      These models can be useful even if they appear to breakdown. For example, if the model doesn't fit at a later point, then it either wasn't appropriate in the first place, or the real world transitioned into another phase where the model no longer works. The former is not so exciting, but detecting a phase change is one of the more important observations you can make about a complex model.

    6. Re:Simulation or recording? by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but unless the "phases" are real, ie they reflect something important in and of themselves, you end up just having a bunch of dummy variables that explain everything and nothing at the same time. Perhaps the phases need to be endogenous to the model? Otherwise, you're switching models when the old one fails, which isn't great for claiming predictive power.

    7. Re:Simulation or recording? by khallow · · Score: 1

      The thing is that we already know there are models for which phases aren't endogenous. Problems involving mixtures often have examples of exogenous phase changes. Where the phase change occurs can't be determined by looking at the behavior of one component in isolation. Suppose for example that we have two goods, A and B, and that a large portion of the buyers for these goods can use them interchangeably. Then if the price of A is greater than the price of B, these buyers would switch to buying good B. Similarly, if the price of A is less than B, then they'll switch to buying product A. The varying preference of these buyers for goods A or B is a phase change that can't be modeled by looking at the behavior of goods A or B in isolation.

      The test of a model that only applies during an alleged phase is that the model retains predictive power whenever the system is in a particular (unbounded in future time) region of parameter space.

    8. Re:Simulation or recording? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Exactly, how do diseases and weather patterns influence traffic and economic patterns? It's hard to say for sure, but these guys want to answer that question.

  18. Name it Matrix by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 2

    Name it Matrix.

  19. simulate what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe they can simulate the next major discoveries we will make too?

  20. Social engineers at work by ZDRuX · · Score: 0

    The only reason for simulating earth and all of its inhabitants and interactions, is to see what would happen if factor X + Y and introduced into the mix and factor Z removed. Or any combination of those.

    I bet they will have hundreds of top sociologists and anthropologists on hand to lend their "expertise" to figure what they can or cannot get away with by manipulating the outcomes of this simulation until they get what they want.

    What happens when all money is gone?
    What happens when all food is removed?
    What happens when there is world war 3?
    What happens when people revold?
    ...now what can we do so we're immune to all of this and any blowback?

    Sure, they'll release some research paper on how genocides spread, or how animals migrate from one place to another, etc... but having a "toy" like this would prove to be a loss if you really didn't use it to its full use.

    If you don't agree with what I say, just keep in mind this is already happening. You don't think governments and people in power have social engineers that crunch numbers and process data to determine all the possible outcomes of something like going to war in Iraq? You think they didn't have 500-page reports on the possible riots that would take place all around the world, the money lost, gained, lives saved, lost, etc.. etc..

    Now imagine all those resources pooled into this one tool, do you REALLY think it's going to be used to determine when the next eclipse is going to be or the gas price of hot dogs in 5 years? I think not.

    --
    The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  21. The last guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who tried that was killed by his friend's user...

  22. might be tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because they will have to simulate their own system that is simulating Earth, on which there's a system simulating Earth...

  23. Yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake me when they can accurately predict yesterday's situation with just the data from up to 3 days ago for more than 1 month in a row.

    1. Re:Yesterday by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Wake me when they can accurately predict yesterday's situation with just the data from up to 3 days ago for more than 1 month in a row.

      It's been done already. I can't remember the economists name - but he correctly predicted the last market crash.

      I checked him out at the time - turns out he correctly predicted thirteen of the last three economic downturns.

    2. Re:Yesterday by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      A stopped clock is right twice a day, and his clock is stopped on economic disaster. Wake me up when he can correctly predict upturns too, and then he might have something interesting going on.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    3. Re:Yesterday by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      A stopped clock is right twice a day, and his clock is stopped on economic disaster. Wake me up when he can correctly predict upturns too, and then he might have something interesting going on.

      Keep sleeping. If you can write, operate a browser, and are incapable of recognising satire, and, basic comprehension, then you need all the rest you can get.

      Hint: someone who predicts 13 events, and is only right 3 times, is a failure. For a visual representation of failure - look in the mirror (sigh).

    4. Re:Yesterday by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Jeez, you’re awfully rude. Okay, I missed that. What should I write on the chalkboard?

      I will not reply without carefully reading parent post.
      I will not reply without carefully reading parent post.
      I will not reply without carefully reading parent post.
      I will not reply without carefully reading parent post. ...

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    5. Re:Yesterday by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Jeez, you’re awfully rude.

      Well spotted Sherlock! ;-p

      Okay, I missed that. What should I write on the chalkboard?

      How about:-

      "I will not use multiple psuedonyms to mod up my own posts, to mod down posts I don't like, and to create friends I don't have"?

      Or maybe:-

      "I will not take Slashdot too seriously because my fraudulent ways mean that less and less honest people want to read Slashdot - or post there"?

      Given that you appear too shallow to acknowledge your own rudeness, how about:-

      "I am too stupid to recognise the consequences of shitting in the water hole - and now my tummy feels funny, and, where has everybody gone?"?

      Note: I am not the AC poster. Perhaps *you're* the poster that keeps getting caught by Slashdot trying to moderate my posts with multiple usernames?

  24. Think of it as a global version of The Sims by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

    I did horrible horrible things to the people in that game - swimming pools with no ladders to get out of, setting off fireworks inside so that they burned to death, shutting them in a 1x1 square of walls so that they had so sleep in their own urine as they starved to death... I can't imagine that this would be any different. If I had a global simulator, after I'd done any real work I'd start seeing how many different ways I could cause the world to burn.

    Does this make me a bad person? =P

    --
    Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    1. Re:Think of it as a global version of The Sims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not really, it does indicate severe psychopathic tendencies though. You'll become a good manager.

    2. Re:Think of it as a global version of The Sims by ZDRuX · · Score: 1

      ....at Guantanamo ;)

      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  25. Heed me by Atmanman · · Score: 1

    When we do build the matrix thorazine could be used as currency

  26. is it written in BASIC? by cstacy · · Score: 1

    Yes but is the simulator written in BASIC?

  27. Missing tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    matrix simulacron-3 weltamdraht thirteenthfloor

  28. Here's a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run the simulation in reverse and we should be able to take a look at the past, no?

    1. Re:Here's a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put a marble somewhere on the inside wall of a bowl, let it loose and wait until it has stopped moving. Now simulate this process in reverse to tell me where on the wall you set the marble loose.

  29. Why? by jobst · · Score: 1

    Things that came to mind:

    1. It will show us what a lot of us already know, we're fucking up the place.

    2. It would be more sufficient to actually do sth. about stopping stuffing up the place instead of thinking about stopping the stuffing up and collecting data about what we are actually stuffing up so we can stop stuffing up the place.

    3. make a cup of tea and have a minced pie, after all its xmas.

    --
    to code or not to code, that is the question.
  30. Chaos by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Weather is a chaotic system, and weather affects living things in very significant ways. I'm sure there are plenty of other chaotic non-linearities in what they're trying to simulate as well.

    Doesn't such instability doom any world simulator to crappy fidelity?

    1. Re:Chaos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's not going to be accurate enough to predict our future, presumably you could simulate a disease breakout in Southern Australia a million times and see if the effects commonly converge to a common outcome.
      The problem would be collection enough objective data on mob mentality to find patterns in it to program in I would think.

    2. Re:Chaos by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Weather simulations are very useful. Doesn't that doom this effort to producing a very useful result?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    3. Re:Chaos by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Weather simulations are very useful. Doesn't that doom this effort to producing a very useful result?

      Not necessarily. My basic concern is that weather is chaotic, and probably something dependent upon the weather has its own intrinisic chaotic properties even if the speicied weather were accurately forecast. So I'm thinking that the overall simulated system would have a composite degree of chaos much greater than that of just the global weather system.

  31. Psycho-Whut? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 0

    Psycho Killer
    Qu'est-ce que c'est
    fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa
    Run Run Run Run Run Run Run Run Away
    Oh Oh Oh
    Ay Ay Ay Ay Ay Wooooo

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  32. Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is this not tagged matrix?

  33. En Attendant Laplace! by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Clearly this is an attempt to invoke Laplace's Demon.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:En Attendant Laplace! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I have personal (philosophical) reservations about this concept, for it negates the concept of "free will". But assuming such a simulator can provide a reliable rough estimate of our universe in both past, present, and future. Well, get ready for Precog justice.

      Imagine for a moment. You're life was already fucked the moment after the creation of the universe some 13.75 billion years later.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:En Attendant Laplace! by owlstead · · Score: 1

      "I have personal (philosophical) reservations about this concept, for it negates the concept of "free will".

      In other words, because I don't want it to be like that, it can't be like that.

      Personally, I've always thought that the idea of "free will" is in the ropes. Even if there is no such thing as predictability, how can we actually change the physical processes that happen in our brain, if we ourselves are a product of them?

      That does not actually mean that we should change because of that, since maybe the *idea* that there is free will may be enough. We have invented all these morals and laws around them, and our brain certainly takes that data into account.

    3. Re:En Attendant Laplace! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      In other words, because I don't want it to be like that, it can't be like that.

      In other words, you didn't get my meaning. What I meant was that I find the concept not proof, to be disturbing. Being that Laplace's Demon is a thought experiment without absolute proof doesn't reflect what you thought I said.

      So no, I'm not sticking my head in the sand here pal. I'm quite well aware of that fact.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:En Attendant Laplace! by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Great, but in that case I would choose my wording more carefully. Having "reservations about this concept" translates into "not trusting the workings of this concept". If you would have said that you dislike the implications of the concept, I would have understood you.

      "Being that Laplace's Demon is a thought experiment without absolute proof doesn't reflect what you thought I said."

      See what I mean, how the hell am I supposed to understand sentences like these?

      I'm not attacking you, I was just pointing out - what I thought was - an obvious fallacy in your reasoning.

  34. Apologies to both Arthur and Douglass by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

    Any sufficiently accurate simulation is indistinguishable from reality. Corollary: Any simulation distinguishable from reality is insufficiently accurate. Phil P

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:Apologies to both Arthur and Douglass by Burnhard · · Score: 1

      Indeed this is quite right. I'm reminded of something I read recently: "according to the laws of physics, a feather and a cannon ball should fall with the same velocity. In reality, my feather was blown into a tree",

      A certain section of scientists seem to lack the necessary insight into what they're actually doing when they develop a model on a computer. It's a conceptual representation, not a realistic simulation and it can only model those concepts that are well understood.

      If economic models fail (demonstrably) and weather forecasting models fail (again, demonstrably on the short, medium and long-term), then why do these people think that combining them isn't going to be a fail an order of magnitude greater? Joseph Wiezenbaum wrote a great book in the 1970's called Computer Power and Human Reason. I think the people behind this should read it.

    2. Re:Apologies to both Arthur and Douglass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A certain section of scientists seem to lack the necessary insight into what they're actually doing when they develop a model on a computer."

      Which scientists? Be specific, if you're going to make such a statement. Name them.

      Or is this a total strawman?

    3. Re:Apologies to both Arthur and Douglass by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      And to anyone not paying enough attention, any simulation is accurate enough to be indistinguishable from reality.

      Cue jokes about politicians who only see things through lobbyist colored glasses.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
  35. A simplified version of everything... by captainpanic · · Score: 2

    Somehow I doubt that all the computing machines in the word combined have the necessary processing power to computationally simulate *everything* that happens on the planet, even when if we try to limit the variables. So I'll just go ahead and assume the science team will compromise on a flawed model which produces equally flawed results.

    Every model is flawed according to that definition.

    They'll try to simplify the earth, and model it... and hopefully it can predict future events with a certain degree of certainty.

    I agree that the word "everything" is too strong... but it's just sad and silly that the entire Slashdot forum attacks these guys because they said this.

    There is some value in this exercise. Just like you can model an ant colony, you can probably model the world. We're all awfully predictable anyway.

    1. Re:A simplified version of everything... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt that all the computing machines in the word combined have the necessary processing power to computationally simulate *everything* that happens on the planet, even when if we try to limit the variables. So I'll just go ahead and assume the science team will compromise on a flawed model which produces equally flawed results.

      Every model is flawed according to that definition.

      They'll try to simplify the earth, and model it... and hopefully it can predict future events with a certain degree of certainty.

      I agree that the word "everything" is too strong... but it's just sad and silly that the entire Slashdot forum attacks these guys because they said this.

      There is some value in this exercise. Just like you can model an ant colony, you can probably model the world. We're all awfully predictable anyway.

      If nothing else - the failures will be useful. It's likely there'll be other demands for large-scale modeling in the future.

  36. Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the earth a simulation created by mice anyway.
    Or did I missunderstand Douglas Adams.

  37. The important question is by FauxPasIII · · Score: 0

    Will the simulation completely model the effects of the Living Earth computer itself on the Earth? That is to say, will it contain a complete Living Earth Simulator simulator ?

    --
    25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    1. Re:The important question is by kperson · · Score: 1

      And would the Simulator it contains contain another complete Living Earth Simulator. And so on...? The ultimate case of self-similarity.

    2. Re:The important question is by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 1

      Obviously; everybody knows there are simulators all the way down.

      --
      "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
    3. Re:The important question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll have to put it on the moon. Otherwise it will be earth simulators all the way down.

  38. Everything ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything ? Including myself ? Will I be able to meet myself then ?

    1. Re:Everything ? by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

      You could even add yourself as a friend on Facebook. On both of them, actually.

  39. Yeah, but can it simulate by Issarlk · · Score: 0

    ... Linux ?

  40. Start The Loop! by idlewire · · Score: 1

    Understanding -> New Predictions -> Changed Behavior -> Failed Predictions

    To take an easy example, they mention the economy and financial markets. If we achieve greater understanding and greater predictive power, we will alter our behavior in the markets, thus leading to a different outcome. This goes for any area in which it is our behavior creating the data that we are using to gain understanding, where that understanding will also impact our behavior.

  41. SGTA? GTAV? by lunchbox134 · · Score: 1

    Dude! It's like "Super Grand Theft Auto"!!!

  42. Not going to wear furs made from simulated seals by abies · · Score: 1

    I think that it is very important we will start the campaign against killing the baby seals in the simulated environment. If we all start boycotting LES products, maybe we can all make simulation a better place for cute, furry animals.

  43. Will it be able to predict that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that I am having sex right now? Oh yeah oh yeah

  44. Redundant by Idou · · Score: 1

    How do we know we are not already living in one of these things? If so, this seems a bit redundant . . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:Redundant by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      How do we know we are not already living in one of these things? If so, this seems a bit redundant . . .

      It would be, if we had access to the final output of the simulator we're running in. But as mere simulees, we don't, and therefore we have to spend billions of dollars developing our own system that will allow us to read the results in advance.

      Curse you, memory protection!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  45. So, is this the Coen brothers remake? by paiute · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  46. International? European! by andersh · · Score: 2

    The simulation is a European project, part of the FuturICT-programme, a part of the European Union research framework programme.

    It intends to unify hundreds of the best scientists in Europe in a 10 year 1 billion EUR program to explore social life on earth and everything it relates to. The FuturICT flagship will produce historic breakthroughs and provide powerful new ways to manage challenges that make the modern world so difficult to predict, including the financial crisis.

    The FuturICT Knowledge Accelerator is a previously unseen multidisciplinary international scientific endeavour with focus on techno-socio-economic-environmental systems. The three main achievements of the FuturICT flagship will be the establishment of
    - a Living Earth Simulator (global-scale simulation of techno-socio-economic systems),
    - Crisis Observatories (for financial instabilities, scarcity of resources, emerging risks and conflicts, epidemics, etc.), and
    - an Innovation Accelerator (identifying innovations early on, evaluating them across disciplines and supporting co-creation projects between different scientific disciplines, business, and governance).

    1. Re:International? European! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is Europe a single sovereign nation?

    2. Re:International? European! by arkane1234 · · Score: 0

      "International" in Europe is like "Cross platform" with Windows.

      Sure, it'll work across all platforms... of Windows...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:International? European! by khallow · · Score: 1

      The FuturICT flagship will produce historic breakthroughs and provide powerful new ways to manage challenges that make the modern world so difficult to predict, including the financial crisis.

      The only thing difficult about the financial crisis was predicting when it would occur. That it would occur was obvious from the levels of risk that the financial and real estate institutions were taking on.

    4. Re:International? European! by owlstead · · Score: 1

      "The only thing difficult about the financial crisis was predicting when it would occur. That it would occur was obvious from the levels of risk that the financial and real estate institutions were taking on."

      The main problem with the financial crisis is getting things to change while so many people have short term, highly personal reasons to let it exists. This is such a big problem that most people seem to address this issue by putting their hands on their ears and shout "LALALALALA" on top of their voice.

  47. Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just simulate every single atom etc? That should do it.

  48. Re: Psychiatrists Happy by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Citation:

    Feeling Good - David D. Burns, M.D.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  49. Would you... by warGod3 · · Score: 1

    ... Like to play a game?

    --
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
  50. Really? Everything? by Cocodude · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that the Living Earth Simulator will attempt to simulate itself? malloc(): error: recursive call

  51. Aren't they overreaching? by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Are our super computers even capable of doing the calculations for, well, everything on earth?

    I'm going to say, no.

    You'd have to do too many shortcuts to get accurate results, let alone we don't know how most the crap works in this world anyways. Sure, we know some, and learn more, but enough to simulate it?

    I'm going to put this up there with Duke Nuke'm coming out before 2010 is over.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Aren't they overreaching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are our super computers even capable of doing the calculations for, well, everything on earth?

      Not even close. Even if we could build a machine that simulates all molecular interactions it still wouldn't be right. Nuclear decay is random, and cannot be predicted at the molecular level. This has the effect of triggering cancer in certain individuals which cascades into significant macroscopic effects.

  52. Re:ho8o by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    contact to see if formed his own survival prospects the top. Or were, and some of the b7efore playing to

    What's the matter kiddo? 4chan been laughing at ya again, and your little sister done locked you in the boot?

  53. Re:Not going to wear furs made from simulated seal by kanto · · Score: 1

    So this seal walks into a club...

  54. Or self fulfilling prophecy ? by abies · · Score: 1

    Take your example with financial markets. L.E.S. predicts that Company XYZ is going to bankrupt/it's stock become worthless. Everybody listening L.E.S.stop to lend money to XYZ/call in debts/sell stocks as soon as possible. Stock price plummets, company has blocked cashflows because of creditors not trusting it, bankrupt.

    What you say would be true if prediction of the market would lead people to extend forces balancing the scale in opposite direction. For the many cases I know about, opposite is quite true - if you know about something, actions you take to make profit out of it help it becoming true. Same thing could be extended to other things - like military. If L.E.S.predicts increased tension at certain point of the border between North and South, guess, where they will deploy the extra troops?

    I think that traffic jams are better example. If people are trusting L.E.S., traffic jam won't form in the predicted place. And here, you need to pull out rule number two - there are enough people in the world who are thinking they are smarter than L.E.S.... You don't really need a predictive power in such machine. You need to convince important people it has predictive capabilities and for many aspects, job is done - as long as you output reasonably possible predictions, they will come true.

  55. Neo? by watermark · · Score: 1

    The rules can be bent, and some, broken...

  56. Simulate everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's already software like that. It's called Dwarf Fortress.

  57. Insurmountable Obstacles by Adustust · · Score: 1

    In order to achieve an accurate simulation, we'd have to know all of the different species of, well, everything on this planet. Like one of the posts above, not only do we not have the computational power to handle all of the random things that happen on earth, but I doubt we have enough scientists on the project who have the time to add the data required. Keep in mind that if they want to have a chance at a realistic simulation, they would undoubtedly need to add genetic code to the system. It would have to account for genetic variation for every new generation of EVERY species on the planet. We could literally predict the potential evolution of the planet by fast forwarding everything at that point. A great idea in theory, but so is peace on earth, or colonizing mars, or hell, even recycling. Suppose it's worth a shot. I guess these scientists were pretty upset with how badly SPORE ended up being.

  58. Re:ho8o by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    His sister's boot is on her foot...

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  59. Call it "Life On Line" or LOL for short by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Starting from such farcical first assumptions, its hard to believe this stupid idea is going to get funding, much less even conceivably work.

    Look: every "sim" rationalizes inputs, creates a facade of activity that looks like real life, so as to produce reasonably realistic outputs. The point of modeling is to EXCLUDE as many variables as you can, to make what you're studying as simple as possible, to try to draw it down to its essentials.

    To build a true sim, you have to start at the "lowest protocols" that input your system. Given that they want to sim the entire world, you're talking about starting with an engine that comprehensively models the physics and chemical processes that create the earth. (And that's assuming that you can safely take solar input as a given, and assume that your 'isolated' environment is the Earth, not entirely a safe assumption when you start considering the impact on solar variability to Earth weather, lunar gravity on tides, etc.) As I understand, we *don't* even have a good understanding of those very basic systems such as what actually is at the core of our planet, or the intricacies of plate tectonics, etc. (Note: once you can do this, I'm sure all those scientists already working their whole lives to model the 'simple' basics of planetary physics and volcanoes would love a copy of the sim to that point.) So we'd have to rationalize the up-feed in the sim from that lowest protocol - already, at the very basic levels, we're essentially guessing at inputs, not simming them. Whups.

    'Above' geophysical processes, there's the physical processes of water, weather, etc. that produce the topology of the surface of the world (or do you think that geography, climate, weather, etc. don't play a part in individual or collective choices?); only once you have that simmed properly can you then even START to model the biosphere. Once you model the biosphere comprehensively, you can start to model people in it, and then you're faced with the comprehensive issues of psychology, free will, collective behaviors, human perversity. Finally, once you have this robust giant model, then you can finally start simming the meta systems atop human society - economics, social welfare, etc.

    This is not Asimov, and this goofball is no Hari Seldon. He's talking about the 'critical importance' of simulating (and getting useful results from) the omega step in this project, when we can't even manage the alpha. That's farce. One might as well start a project analyzing the economics of interstellar trade, because the results are probably going to be useful long before this project produces anything of value. (But I'm pretty certain it'll be spending piles of $$ well before that, right?)

    "Regardless of the challenges the project faces, the greater danger is not attempting to use the computer tools we have now - and will have in future - to improve our understanding of global socio-economic trends, says Dr Helbing." ...Should read instead as "Regardless of the challenges the project faces, the greater danger is not attempting to use the computer tools we have now - and will have in future - to try to gather some funding for an open ended and unachievable research project," says Dr Helbing, "This nonsense could keep me in BMW's, first-class airline seats, and symposia in cool locations for the rest of my life."

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Call it "Life On Line" or LOL for short by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Clearly then we should just stop the similarly farcical expenditures on weather modelling.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Call it "Life On Line" or LOL for short by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension -1.
      Clearly modelling is a useful technique.
      Weather modelling - which clearly needs significant work - is a laudable goal.
      Tectonic modelling, a laudable goal.
      Economic, social, etc. modelling, all worthy efforts to analyse very difficult systems.

      To claim it's imperative that we immediately start to build systems that will draw conclusions from yet-to-be-invented systems built on top of these models that are decades from completion themselves? Histrionic grant-fishing.

      --
      -Styopa
  60. So does Civ V by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

    So does Civ V. So does my globe. Anything can be used to simulate anything else poorly. Nothing can be used to simulate everything else exactly. The quality of the output will be determined by the areas they focus, the choices made when they write the algorithms and the data they get to put into the system. 'We're simulating the whole world and how it interacts' provides little information about the quality or usefulness of the simulation.

  61. Re:ho8o by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    there's a toe-jam joke there somewhere...

  62. There is nothing wrong with your television set by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    Outer Limits Season 2 Episode 8 "Wolf 359" http://www.tvrage.com/The_Outer_Limits_1963/episodes/200967 You've been warned. ;)

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  63. Interesting failure by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine anyone is expecting this to accurately predict the future. To me, the interesting thing will be seeing how the simulation fails, despite the fact that we input the totality of our knowledge.

  64. Not Psychohistory by yotto · · Score: 1

    Not even close.
    Psychohistory had nothing to do with simulating things on a computer. It was a mathematical construct to predict human behavior in groups, in the same way that you can predict what a large enough group of atoms will do even if you can't know what any one atom will be doing at any given time.

    This is more like a Matrix 0.001 alpha. I imagine their Neo being a little piece of CoreWars code.

    1. Re:Not Psychohistory by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Then Lorenz and Mandelbrot appeared on the scene, and the whole premise of psychohistory went out the window.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:Not Psychohistory by mattcoz · · Score: 1

      Just reading the Foundation novels for the first time(through Foundation and Foundation & Empire so far) and I was definitely thinking about psychohistory even before reading that last sentence. While psychohistory was not about simulations, the point of these simulations is to better understand how all of these variables interact with eachother and the eventual outcomes. It's this understanding that could lead to the mathematical model of psychohistory. Not saying it will, obviously, but the similarity is there.

  65. I want a simcity like game with a custom road syst by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    I want a simcity like game with a custom road system Simcity 4 + plugs ins is nice but old and buggy.

    Citys xl lacked the custom road systems and the highway interchanges are to big and just have roundabouts.

  66. too much recursion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with that... trying simulate *everything*? So will they try to simulate the existance of a machine that is simulating everything in the system? Of course, then, they'll have to be simulating a machine that is simulating a machine. Repeat as necessary (that is, infinitely).

    But I'm sure they've already written algorithms to simulate the hype and press that will be generated by grandiose science schemes.

  67. Conversation we hope they never have by robot256 · · Score: 1
  68. Not yet by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Not even close. Possibly a matrix, but, there is no spoon.

  69. Turtles... by WorBlux · · Score: 1

    Will they take into account their own simulation, will they a simulate the simulation on the simulation and the the simulation simulated on the simulation on the simulation.... turtles all the way down style?

  70. Cough 'cough "matrix" 'cough by gearloos · · Score: 1

    Yes Mr. Smith, it started in 2010.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  71. Arrogance -- Pure Arrogance by RABarnes · · Score: 1

    The human arrogance of thinking we as a species are capable of knowing everything, machine assisted or otherwise, is the source of many of the most serious mistakes we have made. Everything from the introduction of insects from other countries to control our pests (and having the introduced species run wild) to plans to fertilize the oceans to address global warming -- arrogance, the root of much of the worlds bad deeds.

    1. Re:Arrogance -- Pure Arrogance by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      The human arrogance of thinking we as a species are capable of knowing everything, machine assisted or otherwise, is the source of many of the most serious mistakes we have made. Everything from the introduction of insects from other countries to control our pests (and having the introduced species run wild) to plans to fertilize the oceans to address global warming -- arrogance, the root of much of the worlds bad deeds.

      The drive to "know everything" is what has lengthened our lifespans and bettered our quality of living.

      Look at the big picture: The missteps you site will aide us in the decisions we make while colonizing & terraforming other lands and planets.

      What you would call "arrogance" I would call "making uninformed decisions without performing adequate testing first". Applying an untested hypothesis is indeed folly in any case except experimentation.

      A simulation test bed will be a great tool to help test the global impact of hypotheses that involve modifying our ecosystems.

      It seems to me you strongly believe, "What you don't know can't hurt you"; I assure you, that belief is seriously flawed.

  72. And that's why we are living in a simulation now? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1
    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  73. In related news by kimvette · · Score: 1

    In a related news story, a group of scientists have formed a company named Magrathea with long term plans of building a massive planet which will be capable of fostering the design and manufacture of custom luxury planets.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  74. USML revival by itsownreward · · Score: 1

    Perhaps a revival of the Universe Simulation Mailing List? Unfortunately, the archives were on Geocities, so even that bit may be long gone since archive.org is throwing an error when I try to pull it up.

  75. Uncertainty Reigns by thethibs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The big problem with this is that most of the world's and humanity's interesting systems are chaotic. You may get lucky and find an attractor or two.

    In any case, simulation can show you plausible futures, but they'll have no predictive value. The outputs will be little more than cybernetic speculative fiction.

    On the other hand, there's no explaining chaos to a politician, or to a scientist who believes that more data and higher resolution are all that's needed to clear up the confusion; the grant money will keep flowing.

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    1. Re:Uncertainty Reigns by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Chaotic systems are much more usefully simulated than non-chaotic systems. Non-chaotic systems can be usefully described with pen and paper, while chaotic ones require substantial computation in order to usefully simulate. A good example is weather modelling. Another is biological modelling. Another is lattice QCD. Another is fluid dynamics. All of these models of chaotic systems produce highly useful results which cannot be obtained without substantial numerical computation. It seems your argument achieves the opposite of your conclusion.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Uncertainty Reigns by thethibs · · Score: 1

      Thanks for making my point.

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
  76. How big is the simulator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not a physicist but wouldn't a *lossless* simulation of everything down to the subatomic level require a simulator that is equally as large if not larger than the thing it is simulating? I mean every bit of memory does take real world space to store whether it is a magnetic domain on a disk platter or an electron in a stick of ram. To store data on a computer about a particle you need to use other particles.

    I think this is one thing many people seem to forget. You can't store an entire worlds worth of information on a 3.5" disk without some loss of data, there are physical laws that need to be obeyed.

  77. Seeing as how ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... we are nothing more than a simulation created by some super alien CS student as a senior project this should be interesting. It also has implications as to whether our universe will die slowly due to entropy buildup (a memory leak in the simulation) or in some cataclysmic, world ending event (when the simulation is ported to VB.Net and crashes).

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  78. Does it contain itself? by houghi · · Score: 1

    Does the Living Earth Simulator contain the Living Earth Simulator? And then does that one as well, like a Russian Mandelbrot doll.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Does it contain itself? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

      Does the Living Earth Simulator contain the Living Earth Simulator?

      Yes, you get recursion, until a stack overflow occurs.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  79. The many uses of simulation... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    I agree with you in general about the limits of simulations and even intelligence itself.

    Still, simulations can be used to:
    * predict (you are right, they often fail for reasons of chaos theory and limited accuracy or missing aspects);
    * understand (where you play what ifs to see the consequences of your assumptions);
    * to gain insight (something other than understanding of details, where you gain a sense of the gestalt, a feeling, or some new summarizing key idea, like I say with my sig about the irony of the tools of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity -- maybe we need a simulation about creating simulations to have scientists gain the insight about simulations you suggest many lack? :-);
    * assess risk (to some extend, by Monte Carlo methods for well understood processes)
    * to consolidate knowledge in an organized explicit way (you can't hand wave as much when you have to implement ideas in code);
    * educate intellectually (as fun toys to play with and learn from);
    * educate practically (to learn skills by trial and error, basically failing faster and safer like in a flight simulator or nuclear power plant simulator or surgical simulator);
    * educate emotionally (to see consequences and possibilities and related narrative, often as games);
    * entertain (relates to the above, but is a different focus);
    * to serve as a focus for political policy debates about future scenarios (including as different simulators with different assumptions describe different implications of policy -- note weather forecasters use multiple weather models plus their intuition and experience to make forecasts);
    * as a form of self-justifying artwork;
    * as a way to create entirely new worlds to explore inspired by nature but (as you suggest) often very different;
    * probably many more -- in the sense of, what good is a blank sheet of paper?

    I learned some of this from thinking about what people like Steven C Bankes at RAND had to say in the 1980s and 1990s:
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/b/bankes_steven_c.html
    As well as people like Seymour Papert (of Microworlds educational software fame).
    http://www.papert.org/
    Or Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls and others with Smalltalk as a simulation environment. As well as what futurists (WFS) and risk modellers (RAMAS) have to say. And from making a simulation about gardening in the 1990s (with my wife, as a more than six person-year labor of love released with source under the GPL):
    http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/

    One concern I have about simulations of living creatures (especially intelligent or self-aware ones that can feel some kind of virtual pleasure or virtual pain, like in agent-based simulations) is, what are the ethics? As in, do not do unto others that which you do not want done unto yourself (unless they like that kind of stuff)...
    http://www.simulation-argument.com/
    http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/LegalRightsOfRobots.htm

    See also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:The many uses of simulation... by Burnhard · · Score: 1

      Simulations/models can be useful as an aid to understanding, but in reality what happens is model outputs are given the term "prediction" in press-releases. When economists do it, we all raise an eyebrow. When scientists do it, for some reason people think it's come from the Oracle at Delphi.

      In my view this story is a good example of the arrogance and stupidity embedded in our scientific establishment. Moreover, I have no doubt that the control climate models have given activist scientists over the political process, despite the fact they're unquestionable wrong, makes me wonder whether this project is being constructed for the same Machiavellian reasons. Once complete, expect to see shocking predictions that demand immediate real-world action to avert disaster.

      btw: your concern about simulations of living creatures are unfounded, given that qualities like pleasure or pain are more than likely non-computable. That is to say, to instantiate the given phenomenological property, it is not sufficient to instantiate the given functional property ("I have a variable called Pain, therefore my virtual creature feels pain"). Qualia require conscious experience, whereas a cognitive model describes only the functional correlates of consciousness, not the conscious experience itself.

    2. Re:The many uses of simulation... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      On Qualia, I can hope you are right. :-) But that all gets into metaphysics and untestable/religious areas pretty fast.

      On your thoughts about what the model might be used for, I'm very much hoping you are wrong (but, I can see that, indeed, pessimistically, it may go as you say, for the sorts of social reasons you outline). A tangential item by me:
      "Getting to 100 social-technical points (was Re: a Change)"
      http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/a7abadb8867dae79?hl=en
      "One can think of it this simplified way. Imagine abundance for all takes a society earning 100 "social-technical" points. :-) These points come from the multiplication of the "social" points times the "technical" points. So, 50 * 2 = 100. Or, 2 * 50 = 100. Or, 10 * 10 = 100."

      In the mid 1980s, my psychology undergraduate senior thesis paper was on, among other things, the limits to "intelligence" from an evolutionary psychology perspective. A related post:
      http://groups.google.com/group/openvirgle/msg/c80c16ac005f8a5b?hl=en
      "The Hydra's superior adaptedness to its environment is for many reasons. It is a good size to allow it to replicate quickly when food is available and then disperse by floating. It can function well over a variety of sizes; it can also shrink if no food is available. Hydra may well be immortal; they may not be programmed to die like humans or many other more complex organisms. Its neural network is complex enough to allow it to feed, yet doesn't require much energy to maintain (unlike a brain). It has what it needs to survive and replicate, with perhaps a little extra useful for evolving. In terms of efficiency, they might be considered far superior to humans. There is more to survival and adaptation than intelligence. For the hydra, a big brain and increased intelligence might even be a handicap by making it more difficult to reproduce."

      One may find the same things about computer models. There may be simple and useful ones, but as they get more complex, they may get harder to justify (even if sometimes more accurate in certain situations where all the assumptions hold).

      Around 1987, I made one of the world's first simulations (maybe the first) of self-replicating robots that duplicated themselves from a sea of spare parts on a 2D plane (on Symbolics in ZetaLisp+Flavors). John von Neumann had talked of this, but I don't think anyone had done it (maybe someone I was not aware of)? The very first thing a robot did when it had constructed child was cannibalize it. The algorithm just had the robot get available spare parts to follow a plan, and the closest spare parts were in the child. So, I accidentally invented robotic cannibals (and worse, robotic infanticide). I had to kludge in a sense of "smell" and marking all the parts with some identifier to prevent this. I'm glad those were only simple simulations. So, sometimes seeing the emergent consequences of our assumptions in a relatively safe way can be a good thing. :-)

      I wonder sometimes if Marshall Brain saw a presentation I made of it. But in any case, he's thought about the consequences quite a bit, like here:
      http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
      http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

      I've spent much of my life since sort of thinking on-and-off about the implications of all that sort of stuff. Needless to say, generally no one is interested in supporting anyone to do that, at least not in a quirky way like I do it. :-) The disciplined "mainstream" rebels get all the funding: :-)
      http://inetecon

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  80. it IS asimov! by chillax137 · · Score: 1

    The first foundation novel was published in 1951

    --
    chillax137
  81. When is it my time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll get excited about this when it's time to stimulate me.

  82. A Fool's Errand by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    This sounds more like an effort to bamboozle politicians into funding supercomputer centers. Anyone remotely familiar with numerical analysis and combinatorics would recognize that this is a fool's errand for two fundamental reasons. 1) the nature of much data lies at the boundary where systems become chaotic and consequently solutions to such datasets will be ill posed and have high condition numbers, where even minute differences in coefficients, that will likely result from just shear volume of computations on of finite computer architecture will render results meaningless. Secondly, there are a great many important problems, such as the elucidation of phylogenies necessary to explain biological diversity that are NP complete and hence computationally intractable no matter what the speed of the supercomputer. The number of potential answers to such problems increases faster than the ability of any processor to compute them. Even for small taxonomic groups the number of possible phylogenies that must be considered dwarfs the number of electrons in the known universe.

    Nonetheless, the overall idea could serve as a useful paradigm for organizing scientific infrastructures and its computational components and availability of adequate computational resources for science, so long as the project does not try to shoehorn all scientific investigation into the constraints of some poorly conceived form of universal budgeting. If not, the project could actually do far more harm than good. These guys need to go back to the drawing board and be more specific about exactly what it is they want to compute and why. Lets face it humanity has huge challenges and only finite resources with which to address them, both in material and human resource terms. Unless, there is some potentially successful strategy for dealing with them, we are all up ___creek without a paddle.

  83. clone52431 gets "shot down in flames"? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212

    Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming got you into a jam again?? Absolutely. Too easy.

    1. Re:clone52431 gets "shot down in flames"? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol obsessive

  84. clone52431 gets "shot down in flames"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212

    Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You burned yourself fool.

    1. Re:clone52431 gets "shot down in flames"? by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212

      Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You burned yourself fool.

      Now don't be so hard on clone52431 - even fucktards serve a purpose, if only to remind us of the inequity of nature, and as compelling arguments in favour of retroactive abortion.

      :-)

  85. Those crazy scientists... by ArmchairGeneral · · Score: 1

    They only have to go outside to see the real thing....sheesh

  86. Borges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reminds me of this Jorge Luis Borges story (here it is in its entirety):

    "On Exactitude in Science . . . In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

    Suarez Miranda,Viajes de varones prudentes, Libro IV,Cap. XLV, Lerida, 1658"

    From Jorge Luis Borges, Collected Fictions, Translated by Andrew Hurley Copyright Penguin 1999 .

  87. 10^100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually submitted a suggestion very similar to this to Google's 10^100 contest. I'm glad to hear that it's apparently being attempted, despite being shunned by Google.

  88. mmmm... just a thought by houbou · · Score: 1

    if we are already living in a simulation, I hope the one being built from this collective of intelligence, will correct the flaws :)

  89. what will things taste like? by m3ntos · · Score: 1

    ...taste like chicken.

  90. Is 'googlean' an actual word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know whom to ask. Your query will lead you to
    this page.

  91. The one by AlfaMike · · Score: 1

    I hope no person in this simulated world becomes The One, gets out of there and kick our asses.

  92. How Useful Is It? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Can it lead me to a major lottery win? If not, how useful is it to me?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  93. Re:ho8o by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I never could figure out why Brits call their car's trunk* a "boot". A car's trunk is decended from the buggy, with its hinged box (a trunk) sitting on the back.

    Why "boot"? It makes no sense.

    * link randomly chosen from Google

  94. Me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would like to see the simulation simulating me, right here, right now.

  95. 42 by LittleRedStar · · Score: 1, Funny

    We already know the outcome.

  96. ! 7|-|!|\|x !7 |20(x5 by LizzieLeet · · Score: 1

    7|-|47 !5 50 x3\/\/1 \/\/|-|3|\| ! 54\/\/ 7|-|47 !|\| |\|3\/\/ 5(!3|\|7!57 ! 707411J 1013|) !7 |3|_|7 7|-|3|\| ! 7|-|0|_|6|-|7 4|30|_|7 !7 ! 570|*|*3 101!|\|6 4|\||) 7|-|0|_|6|-|7 Jx 7|-|!5 (0|_|1|) |33 50 (001

  97. It's pointless, we already know the answer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's 42, of course!

  98. Don't bother!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer is 42 :)

  99. Turtles... by changa_lion · · Score: 0

    Very clever, but it's simulations all the way down!

  100. clone got embarassingly "shot down in flames"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212

    Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) too.

  101. Being God is a big responsibility by Frett2 · · Score: 1

    This reminded me of this story. http://qntm.org/responsibility

  102. Ok... time out. by clone52431 · · Score: 1

    What the HECK are you talking about? Seriously?

    I think you have me confused for someone else... I haven’t modded any of your posts recently (that I can remember), much less with multiple usernames... in fact I just checked your recent post history and I don’t see any that were moderated at all so I’m really not sure what you’re talking about here.

    Note: I am not the AC poster.

    Well that much I know: I know exactly who the AC poster is. He’s Alexander Peter Kowalski, goes by his initials (apk), is a rabid evangelist for hosts-file based malware-blocking, posts at the slightest provocation pages and pages of copypasta that he’s apparently generated, wrote some horrid-looking shareware some years ago, and has been trolling the interwebz for something like the past 15-20 years. Seriously, google his name, and you’ll pretty quickly see how credible he is.

    As far as his off-topic replies, he’s recently been stalking me because I contradicted him here (and I really wasn’t the AC guy posting shell scripts in that thread, though apk was thoroughly convinced I must be). If you knew apk, you’d probably be familiar with this tactic (he’s also been stalking metrix007, and a few more users I think, though I can’t remember them off the top of my head).

    Me, on the other hand, I generally try to get along with anyone who isn’t a complete loon or an idiot (i.e. apk), so maybe we got off on the wrong foot. And I can’t fathom what on earth in my post about a “stopped clock” was rude. It certainly wasn’t intended to be, although I did misunderstand your post before it.

    --
    Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
  103. clone gets embarassingly "shot down in flames"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212

    Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) as well.

  104. I did google his name clone52431 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It turns out he is a fairly well known developer. It just seems you are just posting here to try to troll him, and from your posting history it seems he got the best of you here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212 and you are just angry about it. It's not his fault you skimmed like a dolt and look stupid. I also see you use more than 1 registered account here clone (clone53421) also. Why is that?

    1. Re:I did google his name clone52431 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice fail posting anonymously, APK.

  105. Apology by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    I think you have me confused for someone else...

    You are correct, I am not. I apologise, unreservedly, though, fat lot of good that'll do.

    I confused you with someone who's attacking and stalking someone else (my wife), having just posted politely to them asking for a reason - I jumped to the conclusion that what was happening to her was happening to me. Nothing to do with your posts, or this thread.

    I just checked your recent post history and I don’t see any that were moderated at all so I’m really not sure what you’re talking about here.

    Effectively, no. The message (twice about same post in the same day) something to the effect of "your post x has been moderated down, the moderation has been removed , possibly due to a moderator post in the same thread". Not this thread.

    Note: I am not the AC poster.

    Well that much I know: I know exactly who the AC poster is. He’s Alexander Peter Kowalski,

    Now there's a coincidence. I didn't recognise him/it. But I sure do know of him - the 14MB host file, self-validating, hello from 1990 troll! Normally (if that word even applies in this instance) he puts "APK" in his posts/malodorous missives. I reported him for abuse in another thread yesterday - something I've never done before.

    Me, on the other hand, I generally try to get along with anyone who isn’t a complete loon or an idiot (i.e. apk), so maybe we got off on the wrong foot. And I can’t fathom what on earth in my post about a “stopped clock” was rude. It certainly wasn’t intended to be, although I did misunderstand your post before it.

    Nothing you wrote was taken as rude, the "No shit Sherlock" (colloquial jocularism) was the only comment aimed at you. The rest was me stupidly using and external editor to compose, not checking before posting, and, my stupidity.

    You mis-read my post, and I fucked up my response. The two things don't equate. Mea culpa, and kudos for your reasonable and polite response. Good luck with the unreasonable, intractable, abusive, and recalcitrant APK.