Every time a new technology come along some people freak out and the end of life as we know it is threatened. Sometimes the naysayers have a point even, but for the most part life is better. Buggy whip and wagon makers are not the viable career they once were, but look at how many people have jobs manufacturing cars. Not to mention how society has advanced due to motorized vehicles.
Computers supplanted type writers, and all kinds of other stuff. When I was younger copy machines were a similar threat. And color copiers were used to counterfeit currency. I think it wasn't until inkjet printers got really good that the US government started adding elaborate anti-counterfeit features to paper money.
3-D printers are no different. As technology advances, what was once considered valuable becomes out dated and losses it's value as something different replaces it. Aluminum was once more valuable than gold as refining it was very difficult. This is no longer the case. Aluminum has become commonplace, and we're all benefiting because of it. Times change, as does what is considered valuable.
Even without the side effects that caused the Reavers, you simply can't remove aggression all together. It's something that we need to survive. But how do you control the amount of aggression to remove. I was thinking more along the lines of Bliss on New Earth.
This will be no different. The government is simply not going to allow
such things to happen without taking countermeasures.
This could be quite different. This will make law enforcement's interest in The Silk Road look like they were supporting it. The last time I checked, there was no death penalty for buying/selling drugs. Treason can still be tried as a capital crime. There will be more three letter agencies watching this than I can probably name.
I still have my lawn dart/Jarts. But I'm pretty sure my parents bought me a shotgun before I owned Jarts. I certainly had a BB gun first. Now you can get things like a no chemical chemistry set . Different times.
Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tag. Apparently that was not obvious to you. But let's look at the points listed in TFA:
Nuclear war: We've been in danger of it since the 1950's. We even came close on a few occasions. So what's the solution? No one in their right mind has a workable solution. No country that has these weapons is going to give them up. And many countries want this capability. Some are dedicating considerably more resources toward it than others. Do I wish someone could wave a magic wand and make all of the nukes, knowledge of, and desire to build them go away? Hell yes. But it's not possible.
Global Pandemic: Other than isolating the population, what can realistically be done? We can't even stop the yearly flu outbreaks. How are we going to stop something (that may or may not ever happen) "uncontrollable", as the TFA states? By definition, you can't.
Ecological catastrophe: It's rather apparent that as individuals we are interested in this, but as a population no one seems to give a damn. Or at the very least don't feel it's a major concern. Just look at Deepwater Horizon. Or manufacturing in China or India. If the population of the US was truly worried, we'd stop off shoring manufacturing to countries that pollute as badly as we did 50 to 75 years ago. I try to be conscientious of what I purchase. Often looking for the most sustainable option. But it's becoming increasingly more difficult as such products are disappearing from the market.
Global system catastrophe: The global financial systems are so complex, I'm not sure what could even be done at this point. Just trying to stabilize it could bring about the opposite effect. Even so, after the last decade or so, you'd think that, that's what we'd be trying to do. But again, this is something we care about as individuals, but apparently are oblivious to as a population.
Synthetic biology: What can be done that is not already happening? Create a world policing system and execute anyone caught working on an armageddon germ? I'm sure that there are several countries working on this already. If not to devise a defense against it, but under the guise of doing so. Biological warfare is already banned and most of the planet has agreed to it
Nanotechnology: This is a rather vague one. Of course it has enormous potential for misuse. But the potential for good uses is phenomenal. It's like fire. Sure you can burn your neighbors house down with it, but does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to cook with it? or use it for heat? Of course not.
Artificial intelligence: See nanotechnology above. This is no different, other than James Cameron made some movies with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I've often wondered if we will ever hit a level of computing power and connectivity through the internet that AI could somehow spontaneously come into existence. If it did, would it even notice us at all? Would we notice it?
Future bad global governance: This could be happening right now. If you turn on the news, you'd probably be convinced that it is. Unfortunately, only history will know for sure. All we can do as people is to vote for what we believe will be the best people to do what is best (if you're in a country where that's an option) Or you can join or organize a revolt.
Unknown consequences: Yes, fear of the unknown. Fuck! We better start working on re-animation so we can bring back Steve Jobs to eliminate this threat with his reality distortion field. Or maybe we should work on a way to channel the power of all of the other threats into a single combined force in order to defeat this "unknown consequence". Or perhaps doing so will cause it to begin with.
So Oxford throws a bunch of scary scenarios out and what's the resolution at the end of TFA:
One resolution to the Fermi paradox - the apparent absence of alien life in the galaxy - is that intelligent life destroys itself before beginning to expand into the galaxy." It's all very cheery.
If you look at this list, the majority of these problems are man-made. Other than a super volcano and an asteroid impact, the solution seems pretty simple. We must abandon all technology and kill all but a small percentage of the population. And those that are left must live in isolated groups. That way there will not be a world wide disease outbreak.
But for those of us who are short on time, watching The Hunt for Red October, Crimson Tide, U-571 and K19: The Widowmaker twice takes less time than watching Das Boot once.;-) But I do agree with you.
While taxes are certainly part of it, I would guess that campaign contributions also play a very large part too. Granted, contributions may not have as much sway now, but historically they certainly did.
I strongly question that idea. His business plan is to essentiality only allow people to earn a living if they keep giving him a cut of their income. That is morally at the same level as a protection racket, as in they won't cause you harm and allow you to earn a living, if you keep giving them money.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about him squatting on domain names. One one hand he had the foresight to invest his money in something that may not have amounted to anything. It's really no different than a person buying a commodity when it's cheap and plentiful, then selling it when the price goes up. But I also see the other side of the argument too. The internet has become ubiquitous.
However you are being a drama queen. You don't need a specific web address in order to be in business. It is nothing like a protection racket. He doesn't come and burn you business down or kill your family and friends if you don't pay him. It's closer to someone trying to open a business and using a name or advertising slogan that has already been trademarked. You can be sued or decide to settle by paying a license fee. But they don't send a bunch of goons to rough you up, other than the lawyers.
I'm sure they could, but I'd pass on it. Do you have any idea how much that would add to the cost of the windshield? I have a car with a HUD. To avoid ghosting, the part of the windshield that it is projected onto is thinner than the rest. This makes the cost of the windshield itself $1200. Imagine what the cost would be to imbed this.
Slashdot Mirror
This headline is based on a comparison of a recreational dose versus a lethal dose
So LSD should be one of the safest drugs by that measure. I'm not sure there has ever been an LSD death from toxicity.
The Spanish flu was a better pesticide. If I recall correctly, it accounted for almost 1/3 of all military deaths during WWI.
Every time a new technology come along some people freak out and the end of life as we know it is threatened. Sometimes the naysayers have a point even, but for the most part life is better. Buggy whip and wagon makers are not the viable career they once were, but look at how many people have jobs manufacturing cars. Not to mention how society has advanced due to motorized vehicles.
Computers supplanted type writers, and all kinds of other stuff. When I was younger copy machines were a similar threat. And color copiers were used to counterfeit currency. I think it wasn't until inkjet printers got really good that the US government started adding elaborate anti-counterfeit features to paper money.
3-D printers are no different. As technology advances, what was once considered valuable becomes out dated and losses it's value as something different replaces it. Aluminum was once more valuable than gold as refining it was very difficult. This is no longer the case. Aluminum has become commonplace, and we're all benefiting because of it. Times change, as does what is considered valuable.
Even without the side effects that caused the Reavers, you simply can't remove aggression all together. It's something that we need to survive. But how do you control the amount of aggression to remove. I was thinking more along the lines of Bliss on New Earth.
This will be no different. The government is simply not going to allow such things to happen without taking countermeasures.
This could be quite different. This will make law enforcement's interest in The Silk Road look like they were supporting it. The last time I checked, there was no death penalty for buying/selling drugs. Treason can still be tried as a capital crime. There will be more three letter agencies watching this than I can probably name.
Melon Carnage
That would be Gallagher with his sledge-o-matic.
I don't know the laws of all states and cities, but I've been told by a few people that they could not own them.
Here's a story about someone in Canada who was charged with possession.
You might want to check your state laws. Using them could get you in trouble, depending on where you live.
Sony Walkman I'm actually considering it now that Apple has discontinued the iPod Classic line.
Because, yeah, nothing is sexier than wearing something on your head with wires coming off it.
I know, right? When I first saw the girl in this photo I thought, I'd totally hook up with her. Then I saw that wire coming off of her headphones...
Well, that and my wife and that I'm probably older than her father. But that wire was definitely the deciding factor for me.
Obama Says He's 'A Strong Believer In Strong Encryption'...
As long as he has a way to defeat it
I still have my lawn dart/Jarts. But I'm pretty sure my parents bought me a shotgun before I owned Jarts. I certainly had a BB gun first. Now you can get things like a no chemical chemistry set . Different times.
Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tag. Apparently that was not obvious to you. But let's look at the points listed in TFA:
Nuclear war: We've been in danger of it since the 1950's. We even came close on a few occasions. So what's the solution? No one in their right mind has a workable solution. No country that has these weapons is going to give them up. And many countries want this capability. Some are dedicating considerably more resources toward it than others. Do I wish someone could wave a magic wand and make all of the nukes, knowledge of, and desire to build them go away? Hell yes. But it's not possible.
Global Pandemic: Other than isolating the population, what can realistically be done? We can't even stop the yearly flu outbreaks. How are we going to stop something (that may or may not ever happen) "uncontrollable", as the TFA states? By definition, you can't.
Ecological catastrophe: It's rather apparent that as individuals we are interested in this, but as a population no one seems to give a damn. Or at the very least don't feel it's a major concern. Just look at Deepwater Horizon. Or manufacturing in China or India. If the population of the US was truly worried, we'd stop off shoring manufacturing to countries that pollute as badly as we did 50 to 75 years ago. I try to be conscientious of what I purchase. Often looking for the most sustainable option. But it's becoming increasingly more difficult as such products are disappearing from the market.
Global system catastrophe: The global financial systems are so complex, I'm not sure what could even be done at this point. Just trying to stabilize it could bring about the opposite effect. Even so, after the last decade or so, you'd think that, that's what we'd be trying to do. But again, this is something we care about as individuals, but apparently are oblivious to as a population.
Synthetic biology: What can be done that is not already happening? Create a world policing system and execute anyone caught working on an armageddon germ? I'm sure that there are several countries working on this already. If not to devise a defense against it, but under the guise of doing so. Biological warfare is already banned and most of the planet has agreed to it
Nanotechnology: This is a rather vague one. Of course it has enormous potential for misuse. But the potential for good uses is phenomenal. It's like fire. Sure you can burn your neighbors house down with it, but does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to cook with it? or use it for heat? Of course not.
Artificial intelligence: See nanotechnology above. This is no different, other than James Cameron made some movies with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I've often wondered if we will ever hit a level of computing power and connectivity through the internet that AI could somehow spontaneously come into existence. If it did, would it even notice us at all? Would we notice it?
Future bad global governance: This could be happening right now. If you turn on the news, you'd probably be convinced that it is. Unfortunately, only history will know for sure. All we can do as people is to vote for what we believe will be the best people to do what is best (if you're in a country where that's an option) Or you can join or organize a revolt.
Unknown consequences: Yes, fear of the unknown. Fuck! We better start working on re-animation so we can bring back Steve Jobs to eliminate this threat with his reality distortion field. Or maybe we should work on a way to channel the power of all of the other threats into a single combined force in order to defeat this "unknown consequence". Or perhaps doing so will cause it to begin with.
So Oxford throws a bunch of scary scenarios out and what's the resolution at the end of TFA:
One resolution to the Fermi paradox - the apparent absence of alien life in the galaxy - is that intelligent life destroys itself before beginning to expand into the galaxy." It's all very cheery.
*rolls eyes*
If you look at this list, the majority of these problems are man-made. Other than a super volcano and an asteroid impact, the solution seems pretty simple. We must abandon all technology and kill all but a small percentage of the population. And those that are left must live in isolated groups. That way there will not be a world wide disease outbreak.
Not even the US can maintain air superiority over the entire ocean.
Depth charges dropped from a plane seem a hell of a lot cheaper than missiles that there are defences for on an Aegis destroyer.
But for those of us who are short on time, watching The Hunt for Red October, Crimson Tide, U-571 and K19: The Widowmaker twice takes less time than watching Das Boot once. ;-) But I do agree with you.
While taxes are certainly part of it, I would guess that campaign contributions also play a very large part too. Granted, contributions may not have as much sway now, but historically they certainly did.
But it was mostly republicans email addresses. So it's OK. ;-)
I strongly question that idea. His business plan is to essentiality only allow people to earn a living if they keep giving him a cut of their income. That is morally at the same level as a protection racket, as in they won't cause you harm and allow you to earn a living, if you keep giving them money.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about him squatting on domain names. One one hand he had the foresight to invest his money in something that may not have amounted to anything. It's really no different than a person buying a commodity when it's cheap and plentiful, then selling it when the price goes up. But I also see the other side of the argument too. The internet has become ubiquitous.
However you are being a drama queen. You don't need a specific web address in order to be in business. It is nothing like a protection racket. He doesn't come and burn you business down or kill your family and friends if you don't pay him. It's closer to someone trying to open a business and using a name or advertising slogan that has already been trademarked. You can be sued or decide to settle by paying a license fee. But they don't send a bunch of goons to rough you up, other than the lawyers.
someone in Texas or North Carolina or wherever makes 10k MORE than someone on the coast
North Carolina is on the East Coast.
Very true.
Mumbles something about stupid spell check on phone...
I'm sure they could, but I'd pass on it. Do you have any idea how much that would add to the cost of the windshield? I have a car with a HUD. To avoid ghosting, the part of the windshield that it is projected onto is thinner than the rest. This makes the cost of the windshield itself $1200. Imagine what the cost would be to imbed this.
Travel the path to enlightenment and you shall come to recognize that you *are* none of them. Not even the one you think you are.
No, but it doesn't have to. I simply needs to hold enough gas in the room. Do you think the walls and other plastic bits contain the explosion?