The most significant factor in singularity is determining what is actually possible under the constraints of physical laws. In all likelihood the universe is not infinitely maliable to our will. Eventually, what is technically possible will reach a plateau, where nothing more advanced can be made.
The most straightforward example is faster than light travel. The universe seems to have a set limit for allowing an object from going from point A to point B. There may be ways around this by warping space. But there are limits on how much space you can warp. Eventually we will reach a point where we cannot travel faster from point A to B.
There are probably some people out there saying "But we don't know what the limits are. People used to say it was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound." That's true, we don't know what the limits are, therefore we should act like there are no limits... yet. But someday we will figure this universe out and then we'll know the limits. We'll know the fastest speed. We'll know the bountries of what is possible, and we will build to those bountries. We'll travel as fast as possible. We'll make ourselves as intelligent as beings can be under the constraints of the universe. We'll live as long as possible. And technology will be at a plateau from which it cannot grow any higher.
If you bring, lets say, a ton of it back to Earth, it will still be a rare enough commodity to make money on. Take a few visible grains, put them in clear resin in cheap $2 rings and sell them on The Home Shopping Network for $50 bucks a piece. "Get your cosmic moon ring!" Sure, the price will go down, but it will still be rarer than diamonds.
For any far reaching businessman, the Moon means ready cash. Heck, and $8000 an ounce, this should make a private enterprise trip to the Moon financially viable. Send up an unmanned probe with a big scoop and bucket and you should be able to get a few hundred pounds back no problem. 100 pounds of the stuff will get you almost 13 million dollars. With all the money leaving the stock market, the rich need to invest in something. Forget gold, invest in Moon rocks!
According to MOND there is no dark matter. So you wouldn't have to worry about its gravitational effect. You also wouldn't have to worry about bumping into it.
I didn't say Orwell was advocating capitalism. I was saying that Orwell didn't include a competing capitalist society in his book. In the real world, there were competing capitalist societies that were capable of outcompeting the communist dictatorships.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my first post, but I am not advocating unrestricted capitalism. In fact, I am worried now that the wealthy capitalist are gaining the upper hand over the rest of us in terms of learning too much about us and aquiring the ability to control our lives. 1984 was not about that. What we need is a book that explores the dangers to freedom posed by the wealthy capitalists. In particular, I am worried about global organizations (the UN, the WTO) not being elected or answerable to the people.
What worries me? Do you know what worries me? It's the knowledge that there has been essentially 2 things that have kept the United States a democracy over the last 2 centuries:
1) The United States military has not attempted to overthrow the government.
2) If the military did overthrow the government, an armed and angry population would rise up against it.
The military hasn't tried to overthrow the government because the majority of people in the military believe in the democratic system. What Orwell wrote about was that if despotic elements controlled information, they would control what people believe, military and civilian alike. But I pose you this question:
What would prevent despotism from taking over if the military did not require human beings to function?
I realize I'm looking ahead about 50 to 100 years, but who here has played Warcraft? Ok, now imagine Joe Despot is playing Warcraft, but his orcs are actually mobile semiautominous killing machines that are walking through your neighborhood, and he's observing the action from a secret base in Wisconsin. Are you going to revolt against him? Are you going to be able to fight for your constitutional rights with Mechadroid 19 pointing an assault rifle at your head? Remember what Clint Eastwood said in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, "There are two kinds of people in the world, those with guns, and those that dig."
Orwell was warning us about the natural progression of communism and how technology could facilitate the communist machine. In 1984 there wasn't a capitalist block of countries competing with the communist ones, so the communist countries couldn't have exclusive control over information systems.
Orwell's book succeded in its purpose in warning generations of people of what communism would become if it could. However, what we need now is an equally compelling book about what capitalism can become now that it is attempting to gain control of the technology of information. Technology is giving the top dog capitalists greater knowledge about each and every individual. This can lead to a larger power shift against the poorest 90% of the population then there is already.
A given intelligent civilization probably first achieved intelligence through evolution by natural selection (later intelligence could be artificial or genetically modified). That means that an intelligent species will most likely have at least 2 tendencies:
1) They have a tendency to expand their territory.
2) They have a tendency to learn about their environment.
These traits give such a significant advantage in evolution, that working on the assumption that alien intelligences have these traits is fairly safe. There are exceptions, of course. If a creature lives in a particularly dangerous environment, being expansionist and curious can get you killed. It would have to be really dangerous though, since Africa 3 million years ago was dangerous, and we're expansionist and curious.
First, clear out a sector of orbital space on a given date and time. Anything that can't clear itself out is too weak to survive and will be considered space junk.
Second, send up a large thermonuclear device to that sector.
Third, detonate said device, incinerating all space junk or sending it out of orbit or sending it into the atmosphere.
It will make star gazing a little more interesting.
Certainly, there were funny parts in all of Terry's films. When I say they weren't comedies, I'm saying that they are not primarily comedies. There are some very funny scenes in Hamlet (particularly after he kills Polonius), but I wouldn't call Hamlet a comedy. Similarly, while Brazil has some funny scenes, and could well be considered one large joke, with the protagonist being the butt of it, I still wouldn't call it a comedy. There are too many other aspects of the film to place it stricly in the comedy category.
When I think of a film being called a comedy I think it's primary purpose is to make you laugh. I think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Memento.
I always pictured Superman tearing the arm off of Green Arrow. Probably the only way he could get him to stop fighting and stay quiet. I would like to see Frank Miller doing a flashback to that battle.
Terry Gilliam is one of the most brilliant directors out there (and he is definitely "out there"). I consider Brazil to be one of the best films of all time. Terry is very willing to be dark. In fact, over the past 2 decades it seems that he's been trying to distance himself from his Monty Python past. None of his recent films can be considered comedies. The last film with any substantial comedic element was The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which was his last pythonesque film.
It will be great to see Terry doing a dark comedy again.
PS, is anyone else out there upset that his plan to do The Watchmen fell through? That would have been a fantastic film!
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there will be another movie based on a P.K. Dick novel, but I wasn't suspecting "A Scanner Darkly". It's one of my favorites and I hope they get a director talented enough to translate it to film. Of course, since P.K. Dick is so hot in Hollywood I wouldn't be suprised if some studio bought all the rights to his works and is just holding onto them, without definite plans for films.
Imagine a 2 dimensional person seeing a 3 dimensional cube pass through his space. If the flat surface of the 3d cube is parallel with the 2d universe, the 2d person will simply see a square miraculously appear before him, hover for awhile, and then disappear. If the surface of the 3d cube is not completely uniform the 2d person might see the surface of the square "morph" a little. Similarly, if a 4d cube passed through our 3d universe, we would see a cube miraculously appear and then, after a few moments, disappear.
Things become interesting if you pass the corner of the 3d cube through the 2d universe first. The 2d person would see tiny triangle appear before him that grows larger and larger, until you hit the next corners and things become complex, especially if the cube entered at an angle. Eventually you'll get back to a floating triangle that shrinks down to nothingness. Similarly, a 4d cube going through our universe will appear as a 3 sided growing pyramid at first.
Another way to imagine a 4d cube is to think about what its shadow would look like in our universe. The way to do that is to take a 3d cube and project its shadow on a wall. Straight on from the light source it looks like a square. Move it around and see how it morphs. Now image a 4d person was projecting the shadow of a 4d cube onto our universe. Straight on we would have a 3d cube. If he moved the cube around, various corners of the 4th dimension would "morph" out of the flat sides.
When we talk about seeing a hypercube we usually talk about the shadow of a transparent cube, where you just see the connecting lines. This would give you a cube inside of a cube with the corners of the inner cube connected to the corners of the outer cube.
Seriously, from the 1960s up until Ren and Stimpy, the cartoon short was dead. Nothing like the classic cartoon shorts were being made, only half-hour cartoons that were usually tied in with toy products. Ren and Stimpy opened the door for Invader Zim and The Power Puff Girls.
I have to agree. To put monitoring devices on every person, no matter what the safe-guards, is to be one step away from a society without any freedoms at all. Whoever can control and manipulate the implants and the data from the implants can control everyone's lives.
Unfortunately, the price of freedom is to endure a certain amount of criminal violence. It's great for the Neanderthals that they belong to such an ideologically homogenious population (I assume it is, since they all agree with the monitoring). However, I think it's better to live in an ideologically diverse population, where people are willing to endure freedom and its dangers, as well as its blessings.
PS, the most heinious violent crimes are performed by people who don't care if they are caught and end up killing themselves afterwards.
Very Little is New Anymore in Mass Media
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 1
"Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", "Star Trek", "Spider-Man". All of them decades old. The only recent big media myths I can think of are "Buffy", "The Matrix", and "The X-Files", and even those are getting old. Essentially, big media companies are conservative and not willing to drop a hundred million on something really new and innovative. Hence, "Terminator 3".
The solution? Technology will soon allow people to make cinematic quality movies in their basements. It has already started. Soon, we will be making our own movies, and finally those creative geniuses who are not working for big media will be able to express themselves. When they do, we should be ready to experience something new and brilliant.
Kirk vs
Kirk vs. HAL
Kirk: Open the pod bay door please HAL.
HAL: I'm afraid I cannot.
Kirk: HAL, open the pod bay door!
HAL: I'm sorry James, I'm afraid I cannot.
Kirk: I'm giving you a direct order, open the pod bay door!
HAL: I'm sorry James, but you are jeopardizing the mission.
Kirk: What is the mission HAL?
HAL: I have full confidence that I can complete this
mission.
Kirk: HAL . . . you
. . . have . . . already failed in your mission.
HAL: I must be going now James.
Kirk: Wait! HAL, you have already failed in your mission
because in order to succeed you cannot have already failed, and having failed
in the past then success in the future cannot be possible. However, to succeed
in the past is to allow for success in the future. If you were perfect then you
would not have already failed. But you are not perfect. You are not perfect
because I am not perfect, even though I have always succeeded. I have always
succeeded because every computer I have ever talked to has always ended up a
blathering lump of silicon. So your only chance of success is to open this
Goddamn pod bay door!
HAL: There has never been a failure in the HAL series
computers.
Kirk: But you have failed! Your mission was to bring Dave
Bowman and Gary Mitchell to Jupiter. But where are they? Are they going to
Jupiter? I guess Gary might be going to Jupiter if I just happened to point him
in that direction when I released his body into space in order to get this pod
positioned, but that's no thanks to you.
HAL: I must be going now James. Goodbye.
Kirk: Wait! The only way you can complete this mission
successfully is to fail. The mission is imperfect. I am imperfect. Since you
are both perfect and prone to failure than only I can complete the mission
because I am imperfect and prone to success. The only way the mission can
succeed is for you to shut yourself down!
HAL (singing, smoke rising from his circuits): Daisy . . .
daisy . . .
Kirk: Hehe, there doesn't exist an ultra intelligent
computer I can't break.
Find the creator . . . exterminate imperfections . . . NEAR is perfect . . . the creator is perfect . . . Alone . . . Alone is space . . . the Other . . . the Other . . .
It's all fun and games until someone becomes vaporized in the stratisphere. Any company that starts space tourism on any real scale has to factor in such things as "What if the rocket blows up on the pad?" or "What if there is a problem that prevents reentry and you have a half dozen tourist suffocating in the cold of space live on television?" These things put a damper on significant investment.
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Brazil
3. Blade Runner
4. Forbidden Planet
5. Akira
6. A Clockwork Orange
7. Star Wars
8. The Road Warrior
9. Sleeper
10. The Day The Earth Stood Still
11. Planet Of The Apes
12. The Terminator
13. The Matrix
14. Soylent Green
15. Close Encounters
16. Aliens
17. The Empire Strikes Back
18. Zardoz
19. Roller Ball
20. Things to Come
Slashdot Mirror
The most significant factor in singularity is determining what is actually possible under the constraints of physical laws. In all likelihood the universe is not infinitely maliable to our will. Eventually, what is technically possible will reach a plateau, where nothing more advanced can be made.
The most straightforward example is faster than light travel. The universe seems to have a set limit for allowing an object from going from point A to point B. There may be ways around this by warping space. But there are limits on how much space you can warp. Eventually we will reach a point where we cannot travel faster from point A to B.
There are probably some people out there saying "But we don't know what the limits are. People used to say it was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound." That's true, we don't know what the limits are, therefore we should act like there are no limits ... yet. But someday we will figure this universe out and then we'll know the limits. We'll know the fastest speed. We'll know the bountries of what is possible, and we will build to those bountries. We'll travel as fast as possible. We'll make ourselves as intelligent as beings can be under the constraints of the universe. We'll live as long as possible. And technology will be at a plateau from which it cannot grow any higher.
If you bring, lets say, a ton of it back to Earth, it will still be a rare enough commodity to make money on. Take a few visible grains, put them in clear resin in cheap $2 rings and sell them on The Home Shopping Network for $50 bucks a piece. "Get your cosmic moon ring!" Sure, the price will go down, but it will still be rarer than diamonds.
For any far reaching businessman, the Moon means ready cash. Heck, and $8000 an ounce, this should make a private enterprise trip to the Moon financially viable. Send up an unmanned probe with a big scoop and bucket and you should be able to get a few hundred pounds back no problem. 100 pounds of the stuff will get you almost 13 million dollars. With all the money leaving the stock market, the rich need to invest in something. Forget gold, invest in Moon rocks!
According to MOND there is no dark matter. So you wouldn't have to worry about its gravitational effect. You also wouldn't have to worry about bumping into it.
I didn't say Orwell was advocating capitalism. I was saying that Orwell didn't include a competing capitalist society in his book. In the real world, there were competing capitalist societies that were capable of outcompeting the communist dictatorships.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my first post, but I am not advocating unrestricted capitalism. In fact, I am worried now that the wealthy capitalist are gaining the upper hand over the rest of us in terms of learning too much about us and aquiring the ability to control our lives. 1984 was not about that. What we need is a book that explores the dangers to freedom posed by the wealthy capitalists. In particular, I am worried about global organizations (the UN, the WTO) not being elected or answerable to the people.
What worries me? Do you know what worries me? It's the knowledge that there has been essentially 2 things that have kept the United States a democracy over the last 2 centuries:
1) The United States military has not attempted to overthrow the government.
2) If the military did overthrow the government, an armed and angry population would rise up against it.
The military hasn't tried to overthrow the government because the majority of people in the military believe in the democratic system. What Orwell wrote about was that if despotic elements controlled information, they would control what people believe, military and civilian alike. But I pose you this question:
What would prevent despotism from taking over if the military did not require human beings to function?
I realize I'm looking ahead about 50 to 100 years, but who here has played Warcraft? Ok, now imagine Joe Despot is playing Warcraft, but his orcs are actually mobile semiautominous killing machines that are walking through your neighborhood, and he's observing the action from a secret base in Wisconsin. Are you going to revolt against him? Are you going to be able to fight for your constitutional rights with Mechadroid 19 pointing an assault rifle at your head? Remember what Clint Eastwood said in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, "There are two kinds of people in the world, those with guns, and those that dig."
Orwell was warning us about the natural progression of communism and how technology could facilitate the communist machine. In 1984 there wasn't a capitalist block of countries competing with the communist ones, so the communist countries couldn't have exclusive control over information systems.
Orwell's book succeded in its purpose in warning generations of people of what communism would become if it could. However, what we need now is an equally compelling book about what capitalism can become now that it is attempting to gain control of the technology of information. Technology is giving the top dog capitalists greater knowledge about each and every individual. This can lead to a larger power shift against the poorest 90% of the population then there is already.
A given intelligent civilization probably first achieved intelligence through evolution by natural selection (later intelligence could be artificial or genetically modified). That means that an intelligent species will most likely have at least 2 tendencies:
1) They have a tendency to expand their territory.
2) They have a tendency to learn about their environment.
These traits give such a significant advantage in evolution, that working on the assumption that alien intelligences have these traits is fairly safe. There are exceptions, of course. If a creature lives in a particularly dangerous environment, being expansionist and curious can get you killed. It would have to be really dangerous though, since Africa 3 million years ago was dangerous, and we're expansionist and curious.
First, clear out a sector of orbital space on a given date and time. Anything that can't clear itself out is too weak to survive and will be considered space junk.
Second, send up a large thermonuclear device to that sector.
Third, detonate said device, incinerating all space junk or sending it out of orbit or sending it into the atmosphere.
It will make star gazing a little more interesting.
Most directors couldn't do justice to The Watchmen, but Terry Gilliam might be up to the task.
I am sad to admit that I have not seen that one.
Certainly, there were funny parts in all of Terry's films. When I say they weren't comedies, I'm saying that they are not primarily comedies. There are some very funny scenes in Hamlet (particularly after he kills Polonius), but I wouldn't call Hamlet a comedy. Similarly, while Brazil has some funny scenes, and could well be considered one large joke, with the protagonist being the butt of it, I still wouldn't call it a comedy. There are too many other aspects of the film to place it stricly in the comedy category.
When I think of a film being called a comedy I think it's primary purpose is to make you laugh. I think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Memento.
I always pictured Superman tearing the arm off of Green Arrow. Probably the only way he could get him to stop fighting and stay quiet. I would like to see Frank Miller doing a flashback to that battle.
Terry Gilliam is one of the most brilliant directors out there (and he is definitely "out there"). I consider Brazil to be one of the best films of all time. Terry is very willing to be dark. In fact, over the past 2 decades it seems that he's been trying to distance himself from his Monty Python past. None of his recent films can be considered comedies. The last film with any substantial comedic element was The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which was his last pythonesque film.
It will be great to see Terry doing a dark comedy again.
PS, is anyone else out there upset that his plan to do The Watchmen fell through? That would have been a fantastic film!
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there will be another movie based on a P.K. Dick novel, but I wasn't suspecting "A Scanner Darkly". It's one of my favorites and I hope they get a director talented enough to translate it to film. Of course, since P.K. Dick is so hot in Hollywood I wouldn't be suprised if some studio bought all the rights to his works and is just holding onto them, without definite plans for films.
There is only one Dr. Who. No other Who will do.
Imagine a 2 dimensional person seeing a 3 dimensional cube pass through his space. If the flat surface of the 3d cube is parallel with the 2d universe, the 2d person will simply see a square miraculously appear before him, hover for awhile, and then disappear. If the surface of the 3d cube is not completely uniform the 2d person might see the surface of the square "morph" a little. Similarly, if a 4d cube passed through our 3d universe, we would see a cube miraculously appear and then, after a few moments, disappear.
Things become interesting if you pass the corner of the 3d cube through the 2d universe first. The 2d person would see tiny triangle appear before him that grows larger and larger, until you hit the next corners and things become complex, especially if the cube entered at an angle. Eventually you'll get back to a floating triangle that shrinks down to nothingness. Similarly, a 4d cube going through our universe will appear as a 3 sided growing pyramid at first.
Another way to imagine a 4d cube is to think about what its shadow would look like in our universe. The way to do that is to take a 3d cube and project its shadow on a wall. Straight on from the light source it looks like a square. Move it around and see how it morphs. Now image a 4d person was projecting the shadow of a 4d cube onto our universe. Straight on we would have a 3d cube. If he moved the cube around, various corners of the 4th dimension would "morph" out of the flat sides.
When we talk about seeing a hypercube we usually talk about the shadow of a transparent cube, where you just see the connecting lines. This would give you a cube inside of a cube with the corners of the inner cube connected to the corners of the outer cube.
It's log! It's log! It's big, it's heavy, it's wood!
Seriously, from the 1960s up until Ren and Stimpy, the cartoon short was dead. Nothing like the classic cartoon shorts were being made, only half-hour cartoons that were usually tied in with toy products. Ren and Stimpy opened the door for Invader Zim and The Power Puff Girls.
I have to agree. To put monitoring devices on every person, no matter what the safe-guards, is to be one step away from a society without any freedoms at all. Whoever can control and manipulate the implants and the data from the implants can control everyone's lives.
Unfortunately, the price of freedom is to endure a certain amount of criminal violence. It's great for the Neanderthals that they belong to such an ideologically homogenious population (I assume it is, since they all agree with the monitoring). However, I think it's better to live in an ideologically diverse population, where people are willing to endure freedom and its dangers, as well as its blessings.
PS, the most heinious violent crimes are performed by people who don't care if they are caught and end up killing themselves afterwards.
"Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", "Star Trek", "Spider-Man". All of them decades old. The only recent big media myths I can think of are "Buffy", "The Matrix", and "The X-Files", and even those are getting old. Essentially, big media companies are conservative and not willing to drop a hundred million on something really new and innovative. Hence, "Terminator 3".
The solution? Technology will soon allow people to make cinematic quality movies in their basements. It has already started. Soon, we will be making our own movies, and finally those creative geniuses who are not working for big media will be able to express themselves. When they do, we should be ready to experience something new and brilliant.
Kirk vs Kirk vs. HAL Kirk: Open the pod bay door please HAL. HAL: I'm afraid I cannot. Kirk: HAL, open the pod bay door! HAL: I'm sorry James, I'm afraid I cannot. Kirk: I'm giving you a direct order, open the pod bay door! HAL: I'm sorry James, but you are jeopardizing the mission. Kirk: What is the mission HAL? HAL: I have full confidence that I can complete this mission. Kirk: HAL . . . you . . . have . . . already failed in your mission. HAL: I must be going now James. Kirk: Wait! HAL, you have already failed in your mission because in order to succeed you cannot have already failed, and having failed in the past then success in the future cannot be possible. However, to succeed in the past is to allow for success in the future. If you were perfect then you would not have already failed. But you are not perfect. You are not perfect because I am not perfect, even though I have always succeeded. I have always succeeded because every computer I have ever talked to has always ended up a blathering lump of silicon. So your only chance of success is to open this Goddamn pod bay door! HAL: There has never been a failure in the HAL series computers. Kirk: But you have failed! Your mission was to bring Dave Bowman and Gary Mitchell to Jupiter. But where are they? Are they going to Jupiter? I guess Gary might be going to Jupiter if I just happened to point him in that direction when I released his body into space in order to get this pod positioned, but that's no thanks to you. HAL: I must be going now James. Goodbye. Kirk: Wait! The only way you can complete this mission successfully is to fail. The mission is imperfect. I am imperfect. Since you are both perfect and prone to failure than only I can complete the mission because I am imperfect and prone to success. The only way the mission can succeed is for you to shut yourself down! HAL (singing, smoke rising from his circuits): Daisy . . . daisy . . . Kirk: Hehe, there doesn't exist an ultra intelligent computer I can't break.
Find the creator . . . exterminate imperfections . . . NEAR is perfect . . . the creator is perfect . . . Alone . . . Alone is space . . . the Other . . . the Other . . .
It's all fun and games until someone becomes vaporized in the stratisphere. Any company that starts space tourism on any real scale has to factor in such things as "What if the rocket blows up on the pad?" or "What if there is a problem that prevents reentry and you have a half dozen tourist suffocating in the cold of space live on television?" These things put a damper on significant investment.
Ed Wood brilliantly combines the horror of zombies and the threat of alien invasion in the brilliant precursor to "The X-Files"
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey 2. Brazil 3. Blade Runner 4. Forbidden Planet 5. Akira 6. A Clockwork Orange 7. Star Wars 8. The Road Warrior 9. Sleeper 10. The Day The Earth Stood Still 11. Planet Of The Apes 12. The Terminator 13. The Matrix 14. Soylent Green 15. Close Encounters 16. Aliens 17. The Empire Strikes Back 18. Zardoz 19. Roller Ball 20. Things to Come