I mean, are they even using earth's gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s2???? Of course they are. That's the easy part. The hard part is getting the dynamics of the body correct. Modeling gravity is easy, but modeling all the tendons, ligaments, and muscles of humans (or almost any species for that matter) is extremely complicated. Biomechanics is a huge area of research exactly because it's so complicated and we're only just reaching a point where we can think about simulating the human body on computers, be it for entertainment or scientific/medical research.
I can't believe none of the "Quest" games created by Sierra in the late 80s and early 90s were on the list, classics like King's Quest, Space Quest, and (my personal favorite) Hero's Quest. Didn't these games essentially invent a genre? Man, to think of all the hours I spent throwing rocks at trees trying to build up my statistics and trying to see how many times I could swear at the other characters before I realized they were never going to say anything interesting back, and now the game doesn't even make the top 100....
He overlooked the primary reason interstellar travel is not going to happen: we will wipe ourselves out first. Actually, I should be more clear: an extremely small minority will wipe us out. I'm sure I'm not the first to posit this, but I don't see how we can avoid this problem and why it hasn't been mentioned. If you look at the history of all technology, it always proliferates down from being in the hands of an elite few to the common person. This, unfortunately, includes weapons.
Back in "the day", all people had were swords and spears and rocks. If some whackjob went off the deep end, maybe he could kill a person or two with his sword before he was taken out. Then came primitives guns. Same deal: after you fired and killed maybe one person you had to reload your flintlock, and by the time that happened you would be jumped. Then came automatic weapons, and now you can kill dozens before you get jumped. Technology increases the carnage one person can create. Just witness our monthly school/office shootings.
Now take chemical explosives. Any single person can easily destroy entire buildings and kill hundreds of people by unleashing the explosive power of chemical explosives that was unimaginable 500 years ago. Just witness Timothy McVeigh or the Middle East (especially Iraq) and all the suicide bombings. (I'm actually amazed there aren't bombings all over the West by now... though I'm sure that's coming soon.) But with chemical weapons, at least you can't wipe out humankind with them. You can do a lot of damage and turn people crazy with fear, but you can't wipe out civilization.
Now take nuclear weapons. 50 years ago, only a handful of governments could unleash their destructive power. Now, there are a dozen or so. And every decade that goes by, there will only be more and more countries that have nuclear weapons. And now we're worried about non-state entities (who are more likely to behave irrationally) getting a hold of them. It is inevitable that they are going to get used at some point, be it 50 years, 100 years, or 500 years. Eventually, a loony will get control of one.
And it is impossible to eliminate all loonies. I mean, maybe we'll have outstanding social and educational systems in place worldwide some day in the future that teach everybody to be tolerant and peaceful and which catch the maladjusted and psychotic and get them treatment before they go off the deep end. So we can keep reducing the number of crazies in our civilization, but we'll never reduce them to zero. So as nuclear weapon technology proliferates, eventually somebody who shouldn't will get their hands on one. Again, it may take 500 years, but it will happen. It is an inevitable fact of technology that it proliferates down to the lowest common denominator. You can't change that. Every weapon that's ever been created has found it's way into the hand of a nutbar. That will happen with a nuke.
But okay you say, this is not a new realization. And though it would suck, it's not going to wipe out civilization. And you're right: of course it won't. But the thing is, there will be some more advanced technology after nuclear weapons. I don't know, say something like the Death Star in Star Wars that can wipe out a planet at the flip of a switch. Sure, it may take us thousands of years to develop that kind of technology, but if we can develop technology to travel outside of the solar system, I'm sure we can develop the technology to destroy a planet at the flip of a switch. And so again, eventually this technology will proliferate down to a whackjob. It may take many more centuries after the technology is first created, but it will happen eventually. And it is at this point, when we have weapon technology that can destroy planets, that we will wipe ourselves out. Again, I really shouldn't say "we" since all it will take is one maladjusted individual, but we can never make those odds zero.
The way I see it, the rate at which humankind reproduces currently out-paces the carnage the looni
I'm going to be honest: I can't stand this argument for the 2nd Amendment. It is so illogical. Back in they early days of this country, everyone having a rifle could in fact stop an opressive and tyrannical government. That was a good idea then. But like so many great ideas, their "greatness" wears off over time as society and technology evolves.
In this case, everyone owning a rifle (even an automatic one) wouldn't do a damned thing against our government if it were to get all oppressive. They would just bust out the tanks, fighter-bombers, helicopter gunships, HUMVEE-mounted machines guns and missiles, etc and wipe the civilians running around with shotguns, pistols, and the occasional automatic weapon right off the face of the planet in a giant fireball. For this argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment to be valid today, it would have to be updated to say that everyone is allowed one fighter jet, tank, etc. *Then*, maybe we could stop our government if it got out of hand.
But everyone having a rifle doesn't do anything towards achieving the intended goal of the 2nd Amendment. So whether or not your in favor of guns, don't use the argument that it's got anything to do with protecting us from our government. Think about it for once.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe none of the "Quest" games created by Sierra in the late 80s and early 90s were on the list, classics like King's Quest, Space Quest, and (my personal favorite) Hero's Quest. Didn't these games essentially invent a genre? Man, to think of all the hours I spent throwing rocks at trees trying to build up my statistics and trying to see how many times I could swear at the other characters before I realized they were never going to say anything interesting back, and now the game doesn't even make the top 100 ....
He overlooked the primary reason interstellar travel is not going to happen: we will wipe ourselves out first. Actually, I should be more clear: an extremely small minority will wipe us out. I'm sure I'm not the first to posit this, but I don't see how we can avoid this problem and why it hasn't been mentioned. If you look at the history of all technology, it always proliferates down from being in the hands of an elite few to the common person. This, unfortunately, includes weapons.
Back in "the day", all people had were swords and spears and rocks. If some whackjob went off the deep end, maybe he could kill a person or two with his sword before he was taken out. Then came primitives guns. Same deal: after you fired and killed maybe one person you had to reload your flintlock, and by the time that happened you would be jumped. Then came automatic weapons, and now you can kill dozens before you get jumped. Technology increases the carnage one person can create. Just witness our monthly school/office shootings.
Now take chemical explosives. Any single person can easily destroy entire buildings and kill hundreds of people by unleashing the explosive power of chemical explosives that was unimaginable 500 years ago. Just witness Timothy McVeigh or the Middle East (especially Iraq) and all the suicide bombings. (I'm actually amazed there aren't bombings all over the West by now ... though I'm sure that's coming soon.) But with chemical weapons, at least you can't wipe out humankind with them. You can do a lot of damage and turn people crazy with fear, but you can't wipe out civilization.
Now take nuclear weapons. 50 years ago, only a handful of governments could unleash their destructive power. Now, there are a dozen or so. And every decade that goes by, there will only be more and more countries that have nuclear weapons. And now we're worried about non-state entities (who are more likely to behave irrationally) getting a hold of them. It is inevitable that they are going to get used at some point, be it 50 years, 100 years, or 500 years. Eventually, a loony will get control of one.
And it is impossible to eliminate all loonies. I mean, maybe we'll have outstanding social and educational systems in place worldwide some day in the future that teach everybody to be tolerant and peaceful and which catch the maladjusted and psychotic and get them treatment before they go off the deep end. So we can keep reducing the number of crazies in our civilization, but we'll never reduce them to zero. So as nuclear weapon technology proliferates, eventually somebody who shouldn't will get their hands on one. Again, it may take 500 years, but it will happen. It is an inevitable fact of technology that it proliferates down to the lowest common denominator. You can't change that. Every weapon that's ever been created has found it's way into the hand of a nutbar. That will happen with a nuke.
But okay you say, this is not a new realization. And though it would suck, it's not going to wipe out civilization. And you're right: of course it won't. But the thing is, there will be some more advanced technology after nuclear weapons. I don't know, say something like the Death Star in Star Wars that can wipe out a planet at the flip of a switch. Sure, it may take us thousands of years to develop that kind of technology, but if we can develop technology to travel outside of the solar system, I'm sure we can develop the technology to destroy a planet at the flip of a switch. And so again, eventually this technology will proliferate down to a whackjob. It may take many more centuries after the technology is first created, but it will happen eventually. And it is at this point, when we have weapon technology that can destroy planets, that we will wipe ourselves out. Again, I really shouldn't say "we" since all it will take is one maladjusted individual, but we can never make those odds zero.
The way I see it, the rate at which humankind reproduces currently out-paces the carnage the looni
I'm going to be honest: I can't stand this argument for the 2nd Amendment. It is so illogical. Back in they early days of this country, everyone having a rifle could in fact stop an opressive and tyrannical government. That was a good idea then. But like so many great ideas, their "greatness" wears off over time as society and technology evolves.
In this case, everyone owning a rifle (even an automatic one) wouldn't do a damned thing against our government if it were to get all oppressive. They would just bust out the tanks, fighter-bombers, helicopter gunships, HUMVEE-mounted machines guns and missiles, etc and wipe the civilians running around with shotguns, pistols, and the occasional automatic weapon right off the face of the planet in a giant fireball. For this argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment to be valid today, it would have to be updated to say that everyone is allowed one fighter jet, tank, etc. *Then*, maybe we could stop our government if it got out of hand.
But everyone having a rifle doesn't do anything towards achieving the intended goal of the 2nd Amendment. So whether or not your in favor of guns, don't use the argument that it's got anything to do with protecting us from our government. Think about it for once.