Personally the idea of humans in space always brings to mind fish's using motor driven aquariums to try and live on land.
Humans have done similar things for ages. It more reminds me of the modern equivalent to Igloos. Let's face it, we have left the savannah, so why stop now?
The machines we build to explore space will be our true descendents.
Why should the machines we build want to explore space? I think the only way we could really get space exploration moving, is to go there ourselves first. If people have firsthand experience of going to space, I believe they will feel somewhat different about what's important in the budget.
These examples show that the problems don't lie in the software - it's in the wetware.
I'd say it's in the software as well. All humans make errors now and then. Thus, it would be reasonable to desire software that make human errors (such as overlooking a config option) less likely. Stupid defaults in server software do the opposite.
First of all, if someone makes a purchase with your credit card, but you haven't actually lost the card, then you are liable for nothing. You have nothing to use!
Still, you have to notice the theft, and complain--not always trouble-free. And how quickly can you have your money back?
Credit card theft and fraud occur without the internet. Your wallet/purse can get stolen. In that case, you are liable for up to 50 dollars. A waiter or clerk can copy down your numbers.
A clerk could copy your number, while a cracker could copy thousands with the same effort. To make a profit out of it, the clerk would have to withdraw a noticeable amount, while the cracker could simply withdraw, say $5 from each acount, and get away with it...
Before all this talk about "cloning" in the media, "clones" used to mean identical copies. The monkeys in the CNN article will indeed have identical DNA, so they will de facto be clones of each other. Sure, we could also call this identical twins but why this rant?
People reading scientific papers are, just like everyone else impressed by buzzwords (like cloning). Like it or not. But they obviously do it to get attention. I see no reson to rant when someone actually uses a buzzword in with the original meaning. Sort of like replacing "going to the movies" with "having a multimedia experience":-)
You can not grant patents for SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
In principle I think that one should not be able to patent scientific discoveries, but the line between a scientific discovery, and an invention is often quite thin. It is actually quite common that scientists do patent their discoveries (if they realize their commercial potential, that is). M. F. Barnsley, and his patent of the fractal image coding process is one example.
... I don't see a problem with people patenting DNA that they come up with themselves...
Hmm, I do. What if this combination occurs by natural selection after the patent was issued. Should the resultant organism be required to pay royalties if the patent holder so requires?!
Ridiculous... as is software patents IMHO. By the way, if we see it from a philosophical point of view, whats the difference between a program and a gene anyway? =)
I like my paragraphs to start and end where I lay them!
But of course you can decide where paragraphs start and end in HTML (I've done so now). And its dead simple, just use a P, and a/P tag to bound your paragraphs. With HTML you can also emphasize things using italics, and boldface, which is actually a lot neater than _bold_ and/italics/... but this you probably knew already:)
Actually a lot of people do use HTML to cite others, and to insert clickable links.
There is indeed a trend today towards bigger and bigger corporations. There is also a tendency of shift in power from governments to corporations. This might not be such a good thing (for mankind as a whole) at all, and there is not much to be done about it. (For instance, the United Nations could never perform anti-trust trials, or split companies.)
Imagine the horror scenario where "The Company" governs most of your life from the cradle to the grave. We see trends in this direction already today. The Corporation, upon hiring you, offers you a house in "Company-ville", arranges the education of your children, and pays your health care. To switch companies might become awkward if you are too entangled. In effect the companies might replace the role of the government. The only difference being that companies are not (necessarily) democratic from the employers point of view. I bet someone has already written a SF novel (or short-story) on the topic...
Isn't the world a wonderful place as we close the books on the 20th century?:-)
Chances are things will improve. Putin might be just what Russia needs. Lets hope he decides to deal with the Mafia, and that laws are changed such that foreign investors dare to invest in Russia again. There are just too many cases where the Mafia has robbed foreign firms, or even performed violent takeovers.
IMHO the Mafia, and the lack of foreign investors are the most important problems Russia, and Putin are facing right now.
Thank you Mr. Yeltsin. You had every opportunity to become a dictator.
Hmm, actually Jeltsin was pretty much a dictator, and now Putin also is. 1. Using presidential decrees the Russian president can enforce pretty much anything he/she wants. 2. Jeltsin has had a long history of forcing his officials to resign once they became too popular (Lebed for instance). IMHO a typical dictatorial trait.
And besides, the way Jeltsin has allowed all members of the Duma to stand above the common law is horrible. No wonder the Russian Mafia is so interested in politics when a seat in the Duma will make them immune to prosecution!
Sure Jeltsin did some good things, for one thing he stood up against the military and supported Gorbatjov when he was mayor of Moscow, but Russia needs someone better, and first and foremost they need a more democratic system.
Just think of living in that solar system, there would be killer eclipses : )
Just had a second thought on this: Wouldn't the planet allow some light to shine through it's body since it is a gas giant? This would give an effect like the one when you put your finger on a lit light bulb--glowing edges of the planet! And the effect can be further enhanced if the planet has a large dense atmosphere. Wow!!
Just think of living in that solar system, there would be killer eclipses : )
Longer eclipses perhaps, but our eclipses are special in that the moon happens to cover the solar disk almost exactly. This allows us to view the corona (the solar atmosphere) which I think is the most fascinating aspect of an eclipse. Just a partial eclipse, or total blackness are not as visually astounding.
In fact the greatest leaps in history have been made by people who dared combat the stagnant dogmas of society.
Your statement above is most likely correct, but it has nothing to do with the authors of the text on the starchild web-site, or Erich von Däniken either for that matter--Yes I read several of his books in my teens, along with books by Zecharia Sitchin etc. Used to really like reading the stuff, and think wouldn't it be wonderful if it was true... IMHO this pinpoints the whole phenomenon quite neatly. What we are are dealing with here is not people combatting stagnant dogmas, but wishful thinkers, and dreamers that fit evidence to their theories. These guys would serve mankind much better by using their creativity to write SF.
For those interested, here are some notes on von Däniken.
By the way, your notion on evolution is quite correct, but science does not work according to evolution. OK, social theories, might to some extent work according to the Hegelian thesis+antithesis->synthesis paradigm (which relates somewhat to crossover in genetics), but physics, chemistry, biology etc, work to a much larger degree by testing theories against the real world by conducting experiments, and studying evidence (such as this skull). New ideas are always nice, but they bear little relevance if they neglect large bodies of evidence, or rely on heresay, falsified "evidence" etc as is often the case for "radical thinkers" such as von Däniken. Such new ideas are better classified as fantasies (or science fiction), and should be labelled as such.
Your description of being open minded annoys me as well, open minded for me means to be open to new ideas. This is not the same as respecting everything you are told. If I tell you the sun is blue, you can still be open minded if you don't respect my claim. The majority of complaints about the alien head theory that I've read here were rejecting the claims on sound basis.
Just think, how much of older science was blatantly wrong, or "creative". How do we look at older science today. How do you think future humans will look at OUR science?
Yeah, who knows. But many old theories are actually used today, even though they are partly erroneous. For instance classical mechanics are taught to much more people than the more correct quantum mechanics. Other theories, such as the epicycle theory in astronomy, are used to show us how predjudice (such as the notion that the Earth is the centre of the universe) might lead us wrong. I hope, and assume that this is how our science will be used, and looked upon in the future.
What you are referring to is nothing more than "risk managment" developing as a skill...
Yes, partly. But what is a skill for the individual hampers the society as a whole. Consider a person who has worked many years using a certain method, and is presented with a new methodology. Clearly he will be biased towards the one he knows, since he has worked out ways of dealing with many of its flaws etc, while he knows nothing about the new method, and makes lots of errors when trying it out. Next consider a person who knows nothing about either of the methods. This person is much more likely to make an unbiased decision.
There is reason to believe that there exists a bias towards known models built into our learning machinery, since such a bias would be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective. There is a cost involved in learning something new: it takes time. Thus, if you are to act upon your instincts it is better to use the old model, than learn the new one and then make a choice.
I look back at some artists...
I'd say that artists are far from average people, they make a living out of being creative! As with all models of human behaviour there has to be exceptions, and this is one. Note the tend to in my earlier post...
Regarding the rest of your post: How trends in fashion and art come and go have very little to do with a more substantial part of the development of human society: our understanding of the world, ourselves, and other living beings. In other words: Science. The industrial revolution, invention of gunpowder etc all had much more profound, and long-lasting impact on human culture than the transition from baroque to renaissance art.
And it is in science the changes make a difference for mankind. Science moves towards the goal of a better understanding of the world, in art there need not be a definitive goal, since style is partly subjective (As a side note, it might partly be guided by how our perceptive machinery is devised though, thus making it partly objective. Still the impact of culture cannot be neglected here.)
One of the major reasons people become more conservative as they grow older is that they no longer have the feeling of 'immortality' of when they were young, when it seemed nothing could hurt them...
Hmm... this was mentioned (in a way) in the first post I replied to too, and I still disagree. I think it all comes down to the fact that old people have more experience than the young. For instance, why not ask someone you perceive to be old and conservative why they act the way they do? I don't think a loss of the feeling of immortality is an answer many people will give. This sounds like a very negative view on the eldery, old people don't loose the spark of life that easily!
Old people that we perceive as conservative do not see themselves that way. Instead they state that they act out of experience, and in a way both sides are correct.
Old people tend to become more conservative because they act out of experience. Thus more experience will inevitably lead to less willingness to adopt new ideas. I doubt that longer lives will be able to change this, since its basic human nature. On the other hand, maybe some other kind of genetical engineering might do the trick!:-)
As nice as it might sound to have a longer lifespan, I doubt that it will be a benefit to mankind. Sure it will be nice for the individual (at least we tend to think so) but I suspect that it will inevitably lead to a more stagnant society where reforms and new ideas will have a hard time to get through.
As people grow older they tend to become increasingly conservative. Why would I want to change something that has worked fine all my life? For instance, which people adopted capitalism most easily in the east after the fall of the wall? The old and wise? Don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... what happens when the paint shop no longer understands the contract?! ;)
Personally the idea of humans in space always brings to mind fish's using motor driven aquariums to try and live on land.
Humans have done similar things for ages. It more reminds me of the modern equivalent to Igloos. Let's face it, we have left the savannah, so why stop now?
The machines we build to explore space will be our true descendents.
Why should the machines we build want to explore space? I think the only way we could really get space exploration moving, is to go there ourselves first. If people have firsthand experience of going to space, I believe they will feel somewhat different about what's important in the budget.
These examples show that the problems don't lie in the software - it's in the wetware.
I'd say it's in the software as well. All humans make errors now and then. Thus, it would be reasonable to desire software that make human errors (such as overlooking a config option) less likely. Stupid defaults in server software do the opposite.
Using a credit card PERIOD is a potential for theft.
If you say so, but that is also the case for the mere use of money :-)
What actually matters IMHO is whether the advantages outweigh the risks...
First of all, if someone makes a purchase with your credit card, but you haven't actually lost the card, then you are liable for nothing. You have nothing to use!
Still, you have to notice the theft, and complain--not always trouble-free. And how quickly can you have your money back?
Credit card theft and fraud occur without the internet. Your wallet/purse can get stolen. In that case, you are liable for up to 50 dollars. A waiter or clerk can copy down your numbers.
A clerk could copy your number, while a cracker could copy thousands with the same effort. To make a profit out of it, the clerk would have to withdraw a noticeable amount, while the cracker could simply withdraw, say $5 from each acount, and get away with it...
He he...
There actually was a facial expression there-- a smiley ;)
Before all this talk about "cloning" in the media, "clones" used to mean identical copies. The monkeys in the CNN article will indeed have identical DNA, so they will de facto be clones of each other. Sure, we could also call this identical twins but why this rant?
People reading scientific papers are, just like everyone else impressed by buzzwords (like cloning). Like it or not. But they obviously do it to get attention. I see no reson to rant when someone actually uses a buzzword in with the original meaning. Sort of like replacing "going to the movies" with "having a multimedia experience" :-)
You can not grant patents for SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
In principle I think that one should not be able to patent scientific discoveries, but the line between a scientific discovery, and an invention is often quite thin. It is actually quite common that scientists do patent their discoveries (if they realize their commercial potential, that is). M. F. Barnsley, and his patent of the fractal image coding process is one example.
Hmm, I do. What if this combination occurs by natural selection after the patent was issued. Should the resultant organism be required to pay royalties if the patent holder so requires?!
Ridiculous... as is software patents IMHO. By the way, if we see it from a philosophical point of view, whats the difference between a program and a gene anyway? =)
I find it interesting that Slackware used to have year versioning. For instance, my first Linux CD was a Slackware96.
I guess they preferred to conform to the other Linux distributions, rather than to Wxx.
I like my paragraphs to start and end where I lay them!
But of course you can decide where paragraphs start and end in HTML (I've done so now). And its dead simple, just use a P, and a /P tag to bound your paragraphs. With HTML you can also emphasize things using italics, and boldface, which is actually a lot neater than _bold_ and /italics/... but this you probably knew already :)
Actually a lot of people do use HTML to cite others, and to insert clickable links.
So it seems! Thanks!
:(
A pity that the opinions on imdb wasn't very encouraging.
I agree, sort of. At least I agree that Wells was not the first SF author.
But, how about Mary Shelly's Frankenstein (1818)?
That's sort of SF to me, and way ahead of Poe...
There is indeed a trend today towards bigger and bigger corporations. There is also a tendency of shift in power from governments to corporations. This might not be such a good thing (for mankind as a whole) at all, and there is not much to be done about it. (For instance, the United Nations could never perform anti-trust trials, or split companies.)
c }
;-)
Imagine the horror scenario where "The Company" governs most of your life from the cradle to the grave. We see trends in this direction already today. The Corporation, upon hiring you, offers you a house in "Company-ville", arranges the education of your children, and pays your health care. To switch companies might become awkward if you are too entangled. In effect the companies might replace the role of the government. The only difference being that companies are not (necessarily) democratic from the employers point of view. I bet someone has already written a SF novel (or short-story) on the topic...
\begin{music}[jaws-theme,to-crescendo]
\end{musi
BTW, don't take this as a political statement, it was just a what if thought in pure SF manner
Nice resumé!
:-)
Isn't the world a wonderful place as we close the books on the 20th century?
Chances are things will improve. Putin might be just what Russia needs. Lets hope he decides to deal with the Mafia, and that laws are changed such that foreign investors dare to invest in Russia again. There are just too many cases where the Mafia has robbed foreign firms, or even performed violent takeovers.
IMHO the Mafia, and the lack of foreign investors are the most important problems Russia, and Putin are facing right now.
Erm, this was a joke I hope...
:)
The information is not even sited by Yahoo, the link just points at a list of links to other sites. If you don't like Yahoo, simply surf on
Thank you Mr. Yeltsin. You had every opportunity to become a dictator.
Hmm, actually Jeltsin was pretty much a dictator, and now Putin also is.
1. Using presidential decrees the Russian president can enforce pretty much anything he/she wants.
2. Jeltsin has had a long history of forcing his officials to resign once they became too popular (Lebed for instance). IMHO a typical dictatorial trait.
And besides, the way Jeltsin has allowed all members of the Duma to stand above the common law is horrible. No wonder the Russian Mafia is so interested in politics when a seat in the Duma will make them immune to prosecution!
Sure Jeltsin did some good things, for one thing he stood up against the military and supported Gorbatjov when he was mayor of Moscow, but Russia needs someone better, and first and foremost they need a more democratic system.
I certainly did not mean looking at an eclipse in that solar system from Earth. This is what the astronomers just did!
The posting I replied to talked about living in that solar system and watching an eclipse. A totally different siduation.
Just think of living in that solar system, there would be killer eclipses : )
Just had a second thought on this:
Wouldn't the planet allow some light to shine through it's body since it is a gas giant? This would give an effect like the one when you put your finger on a lit light bulb--glowing edges of the planet! And the effect can be further enhanced if the planet has a large dense atmosphere. Wow!!
Just think of living in that solar system, there would be killer eclipses : )
Longer eclipses perhaps, but our eclipses are special in that the moon happens to cover the solar disk almost exactly. This allows us to view the corona (the solar atmosphere) which I think is the most fascinating aspect of an eclipse. Just a partial eclipse, or total blackness are not as visually astounding.
I thought they both did... ;)
In fact the greatest leaps in history have been made by people who dared combat the stagnant dogmas of society.
Your statement above is most likely correct, but it has nothing to do with the authors of the text on the starchild web-site, or Erich von Däniken either for that matter--Yes I read several of his books in my teens, along with books by Zecharia Sitchin etc. Used to really like reading the stuff, and think wouldn't it be wonderful if it was true... IMHO this pinpoints the whole phenomenon quite neatly. What we are are dealing with here is not people combatting stagnant dogmas, but wishful thinkers, and dreamers that fit evidence to their theories. These guys would serve mankind much better by using their creativity to write SF.
For those interested, here are some notes on von Däniken.
By the way, your notion on evolution is quite correct, but science does not work according to evolution. OK, social theories, might to some extent work according to the Hegelian thesis+antithesis->synthesis paradigm (which relates somewhat to crossover in genetics), but physics, chemistry, biology etc, work to a much larger degree by testing theories against the real world by conducting experiments, and studying evidence (such as this skull). New ideas are always nice, but they bear little relevance if they neglect large bodies of evidence, or rely on heresay, falsified "evidence" etc as is often the case for "radical thinkers" such as von Däniken. Such new ideas are better classified as fantasies (or science fiction), and should be labelled as such.
Your description of being open minded annoys me as well, open minded for me means to be open to new ideas. This is not the same as respecting everything you are told. If I tell you the sun is blue, you can still be open minded if you don't respect my claim. The majority of complaints about the alien head theory that I've read here were rejecting the claims on sound basis.
Just think, how much of older science was blatantly wrong, or "creative". How do we look at older science today. How do you think future humans will look at OUR science?
Yeah, who knows. But many old theories are actually used today, even though they are partly erroneous. For instance classical mechanics are taught to much more people than the more correct quantum mechanics. Other theories, such as the epicycle theory in astronomy, are used to show us how predjudice (such as the notion that the Earth is the centre of the universe) might lead us wrong. I hope, and assume that this is how our science will be used, and looked upon in the future.
What you are referring to is nothing more than "risk managment" developing as a skill...
Yes, partly. But what is a skill for the individual hampers the society as a whole. Consider a person who has worked many years using a certain method, and is presented with a new methodology. Clearly he will be biased towards the one he knows, since he has worked out ways of dealing with many of its flaws etc, while he knows nothing about the new method, and makes lots of errors when trying it out. Next consider a person who knows nothing about either of the methods. This person is much more likely to make an unbiased decision.
There is reason to believe that there exists a bias towards known models built into our learning machinery, since such a bias would be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective. There is a cost involved in learning something new: it takes time. Thus, if you are to act upon your instincts it is better to use the old model, than learn the new one and then make a choice.
I look back at some artists...
I'd say that artists are far from average people, they make a living out of being creative! As with all models of human behaviour there has to be exceptions, and this is one. Note the tend to in my earlier post...
Regarding the rest of your post: How trends in fashion and art come and go have very little to do with a more substantial part of the development of human society: our understanding of the world, ourselves, and other living beings. In other words: Science. The industrial revolution, invention of gunpowder etc all had much more profound, and long-lasting impact on human culture than the transition from baroque to renaissance art.
And it is in science the changes make a difference for mankind. Science moves towards the goal of a better understanding of the world, in art there need not be a definitive goal, since style is partly subjective (As a side note, it might partly be guided by how our perceptive machinery is devised though, thus making it partly objective. Still the impact of culture cannot be neglected here.)
One of the major reasons people become more conservative as they grow older is that they no longer have the feeling of 'immortality' of when they were young, when it seemed nothing could hurt them...
:-)
Hmm... this was mentioned (in a way) in the first post I replied to too, and I still disagree. I think it all comes down to the fact that old people have more experience than the young. For instance, why not ask someone you perceive to be old and conservative why they act the way they do? I don't think a loss of the feeling of immortality is an answer many people will give. This sounds like a very negative view on the eldery, old people don't loose the spark of life that easily!
Old people that we perceive as conservative do not see themselves that way. Instead they state that they act out of experience, and in a way both sides are correct.
Old people tend to become more conservative because they act out of experience. Thus more experience will inevitably lead to less willingness to adopt new ideas. I doubt that longer lives will be able to change this, since its basic human nature. On the other hand, maybe some other kind of genetical engineering might do the trick!
As nice as it might sound to have a longer lifespan, I doubt that it will be a benefit to mankind. Sure it will be nice for the individual (at least we tend to think so) but I suspect that it will inevitably lead to a more stagnant society where reforms and new ideas will have a hard time to get through.
As people grow older they tend to become increasingly conservative. Why would I want to change something that has worked fine all my life? For instance, which people adopted capitalism most easily in the east after the fall of the wall? The old and wise?
Don't think so.