Had a similar idea, believe it or not. I was thinking about this kind of thing when to cloak aeroplanes... just never knew how it should work. Hopefully someone figured it out now.
Anything can be a religion. Think about it. How did religions come to be in the first place? My guess is that they started off as fictional stories to explain things they didn't know anything about thousands of years ago. That includes celestial phenomenon, weather phenomenon and indeed whether a battle would be won or whether the harvest would be good this year. Very soon, I assume, a few people realized that if people believe in a higher power to which you must suck up to (like pray and sacrifice animals and even humans), then you could easily use peoples beliefs to control the people itself. Religions - whichever religion it may be - are basically nothing but a story with some amazing characters, lots of adventures and some fictional supernatural entities. Religious wars are even more stupid as they are nothing but people fighting over whos imaginary friend is better. But, as much as I don't like the religions, at least I recognize every citizens right to choose exactly what they wish to believe, may it be Jesus, Allah, some space war lord with a name that starts with X, or Yoda.
1. Build a time machine. 2. Go into the future to gather information about it. 3. Go back to your own time with your new knowledge. 4. ????? 5. Prophet!
No,gravity does indeed distort spacetime. That it bends space, you can see that when stuff is drawn to gravity sources such as a planet. Imagine a rubbersheet with a heavy object on it. The heavy object will "drag down" and distort the sheet, so that when you let a tiny ball or something roll over the sheet, it will fall down towards the object. Now imagine this in three dimensions, and you will see why things getting too close to earth is dragged down. And gravity distorts not only space but the space time, which indeed means that time itself is distorted. Pardon my bad english...
The article says that altering the past is "obviously impossible". But isn't travelling back into the past a way of altering the past? Or was my arrival in the past something that happened back then, before I even made the trip back in time...? Or are such paradoxes impossible, maybe because every possible event in any given time in history exists in its own universe, waiting to happen when the right preceding event occurs? If someone changed what we call the past, would we notice it?
Compared to some of the slashdot people, I'm new to the internet. I started back in '95 (however before that I had been reading in a popular tech magazin about something new called "the world wide web"). It was a good time, using First Class as the email client (as well as the local network client), and Netscape 1.0 as the browser. No spam, no popups... Just a lot of informative and clean websites. Email and surfing the web was fun, now a big part of it is a big battle against spyware and spam:( I'm worried that new internet users will be scared away when they see their mailbox overloaded with spam, when they see Usenet packed with similar stupid spam, when their computers are infested with spyware and intrusive ad banners. Maybe new novice users will think that it's not worth it, and they wont use internet once they see the bad sides of it.
When a problem gets bigger, OO will be more helpful. If we're talking about how people tend to think, I can right now admit that I hate recursion becuase I simply do not think like that. I *can't* think like that. I avoid recursive solutions whenever I can. Yes I know, it's offtopic:)
I didn't assume she was a libertarian until I heard about her... and everyone said she was. Yes I agree she could be more laissez faire about a few things, I thought so too after I read the blog. But, that is also the only thing I've read from Grubb.
Who is libertarian and who is not? I myself am a liberal to the most part, but I'm probably moving towards libertarianism more and more. Question is if there's a complete and absolute definition on what libertarianism is? To me, some libertarians seem to be less libertarians and more liberal, and some of them seem to be anarchocapitalists. I am pretty sure that if you ask two libertarians whether we should have a central government or not, one might say "yes" while the others say "no". Then even those who are for a central government will very likely have different ideas as to how big it should be and what authorities it should have. And what about intellectual property laws? It seems to me that some libertarians want IP laws, others do not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that libertarians aren't identical copies of each other and their views may differ. But that thing about 6 months maternal leave is clearly NOT for the government to decide.
We're giving out thousands of times more info through Discovery and other such channels and so on. The difference is, though it's difficult, it's possible to stop this probe. Our radio and TV transmissions are impossible to stop. Should we stop this too and use only wiretechnology for information exchange? For how long have we had TV broadcasting, like 60 years or so? By now there's a lot of information for anyone within a 60 light year radius from us, even further if they pick up our radio signals. If they can understand our TV programmes, they should know by now that we can't even unite as a species but instead we choose to kill each other every now and then. They also know some of our technology; if they are 30 lightyears ago they're aware that we have the ability of interplanetary travel. Will they be worried about this? Or will we be considered too primitive for them to establish contact? Are we a threat to others? Or will they realize that we have many good sides too, and that that would make them think we're worthy of contact with them?
Whether it is right or wrong to give out information about us, I don't know. There is a possibility someone will try to benefit from this, in one way or another. In case of contact, it could give them an unfair advantage.
However, I don't think we should stay quiet all the time. Actually I think we should more actively send out radiomessages for *their* SETI-scientists to detect and maybe send back an answer to us. As I see it, if we establish contact by the means of radio signals, the chance is great that they are more advanced than us. Why? Becuase basically, we discovered radio yesterday. We might find civilizations that are new to radio too, but chances are they have advanced much more than that. Somehow I like to think that they would therefor be peaceful, because they have survived longer than we as a technological civilization, and therefor would pose no threat to us.
I don't think they will get so much info from that simple picture. No reason to be worried there. If they would figure out *what* it is, they have to figure out *where* in our DNA it is, and even then they have no clue about nearly anything regarding our DNA... let alone creating humans.
That is something I would watch, definitely:) I'm watching these RobotWars shows sometimes, and I'm always imagining something similar but with cooler weapons and AI instead. I am pretty sure it will come as soon as it's possible...
Yeah, basically they showed us it's possible in yet another application. It could ofcourse be used for many purposes in many different physical objects. I was, just now, thinking of planetary exploration on, say, Mars. We could send rovers, aeroplanes, balloons, and relaying sattelites to Mars to operate in that environment. They could program them with everything we know about that environment. These bots would still encounter new situations, "marsquakes" (if that happens there), power failure, sand storms... so they would have to be self learning in a way, to handle it in a better way next time. Also, every time one of them learns something new, they would relay the info to the others. Maybe they could even help each other out or cooperate if needed. I don't know how much more research would have to be done to do this, but the idea makes sense to me...
Especially tried to cheat by standing on it's wingtips or similar. I would like to see something else though. What if we build lots of small generic robots, let's say they have wheels to move around only. The on the floor there could be more components that robots can attach themselves to, like giving them legs, wings, arms, eyes, ears etc., and then give them all different objectives, for example to survive, escape, learn from others, etc. Could be interesting to see if it would evolve into some kind of robot society where they all evolve different abilities and so on.
Good god it's cumbersome and tideous to read those texts...!
I used to believe in patents, and well I still do, but this is just stupid. As if this has never been done before? Do they accept any patent application today?
Too bad there's no Einstein working in the patent offices these days
Impressive, indeed. Especially, maybe, considering the very weak signal this transmits to earth. Hopefully they will reach and pass the heliopause and reach interstellar space.
Slashdot Mirror
BMW is planning on introducing hydrogen fuelled cars in the near future, too, I think.
Defy physics? Yeah, good luck with that...
All these worlds are yours
Except Europa
Attempt no landing there
Use them together
Use them in peace
I haven't been here since the start, I came here back in 2000 I think. One of my favorite sites on the internet.
Windows 9x/Me is permitted but NT/2000 is not? So I guess security reasons can be ruled out.
Yes, but just because they were wrong about A doesn't mean they are wrong about B.
Check this one out:
Monthy Python Lego Movie
Had a similar idea, believe it or not. I was thinking about this kind of thing when to cloak aeroplanes... just never knew how it should work. Hopefully someone figured it out now.
Someone can not be a Jedi because it is FICTION.
:-)
And other religions are not?
Anything can be a religion. Think about it.
How did religions come to be in the first place? My guess is that they started off as fictional stories to explain things they didn't know anything about thousands of years ago. That includes celestial phenomenon, weather phenomenon and indeed whether a battle would be won or whether the harvest would be good this year. Very soon, I assume, a few people realized that if people believe in a higher power to which you must suck up to (like pray and sacrifice animals and even humans), then you could easily use peoples beliefs to control the people itself. Religions - whichever religion it may be - are basically nothing but a story with some amazing characters, lots of adventures and some fictional supernatural entities. Religious wars are even more stupid as they are nothing but people fighting over whos imaginary friend is better. But, as much as I don't like the religions, at least I recognize every citizens right to choose exactly what they wish to believe, may it be Jesus, Allah, some space war lord with a name that starts with X, or Yoda.
1. Build a time machine.
2. Go into the future to gather information about it.
3. Go back to your own time with your new knowledge.
4. ?????
5. Prophet!
No,gravity does indeed distort spacetime. That it bends space, you can see that when stuff is drawn to gravity sources such as a planet. Imagine a rubbersheet with a heavy object on it. The heavy object will "drag down" and distort the sheet, so that when you let a tiny ball or something roll over the sheet, it will fall down towards the object. Now imagine this in three dimensions, and you will see why things getting too close to earth is dragged down. And gravity distorts not only space but the space time, which indeed means that time itself is distorted.
Pardon my bad english...
The article says that altering the past is "obviously impossible". But isn't travelling back into the past a way of altering the past? Or was my arrival in the past something that happened back then, before I even made the trip back in time...? Or are such paradoxes impossible, maybe because every possible event in any given time in history exists in its own universe, waiting to happen when the right preceding event occurs? If someone changed what we call the past, would we notice it?
Compared to some of the slashdot people, I'm new to the internet. I started back in '95 (however before that I had been reading in a popular tech magazin about something new called "the world wide web"). It was a good time, using First Class as the email client (as well as the local network client), and Netscape 1.0 as the browser. No spam, no popups... Just a lot of informative and clean websites. Email and surfing the web was fun, now a big part of it is a big battle against spyware and spam :( I'm worried that new internet users will be scared away when they see their mailbox overloaded with spam, when they see Usenet packed with similar stupid spam, when their computers are infested with spyware and intrusive ad banners. Maybe new novice users will think that it's not worth it, and they wont use internet once they see the bad sides of it.
When a problem gets bigger, OO will be more helpful. If we're talking about how people tend to think, I can right now admit that I hate recursion becuase I simply do not think like that. I *can't* think like that. I avoid recursive solutions whenever I can. Yes I know, it's offtopic :)
I didn't assume she was a libertarian until I heard about her... and everyone said she was. Yes I agree she could be more laissez faire about a few things, I thought so too after I read the blog. But, that is also the only thing I've read from Grubb.
Who is libertarian and who is not? I myself am a liberal to the most part, but I'm probably moving towards libertarianism more and more. Question is if there's a complete and absolute definition on what libertarianism is? To me, some libertarians seem to be less libertarians and more liberal, and some of them seem to be anarchocapitalists. I am pretty sure that if you ask two libertarians whether we should have a central government or not, one might say "yes" while the others say "no". Then even those who are for a central government will very likely have different ideas as to how big it should be and what authorities it should have. And what about intellectual property laws? It seems to me that some libertarians want IP laws, others do not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that libertarians aren't identical copies of each other and their views may differ. But that thing about 6 months maternal leave is clearly NOT for the government to decide.
Read her weblog, and Grubb seems like an honest person, with great ideas and views. Enthusiastic. Libertarian. We need more of those kinda people...
It's not like they have the right to publish anything they like on your or my paper.
We're giving out thousands of times more info through Discovery and other such channels and so on. The difference is, though it's difficult, it's possible to stop this probe. Our radio and TV transmissions are impossible to stop. Should we stop this too and use only wiretechnology for information exchange? For how long have we had TV broadcasting, like 60 years or so? By now there's a lot of information for anyone within a 60 light year radius from us, even further if they pick up our radio signals. If they can understand our TV programmes, they should know by now that we can't even unite as a species but instead we choose to kill each other every now and then. They also know some of our technology; if they are 30 lightyears ago they're aware that we have the ability of interplanetary travel. Will they be worried about this? Or will we be considered too primitive for them to establish contact? Are we a threat to others? Or will they realize that we have many good sides too, and that that would make them think we're worthy of contact with them?
Whether it is right or wrong to give out information about us, I don't know. There is a possibility someone will try to benefit from this, in one way or another. In case of contact, it could give them an unfair advantage.
However, I don't think we should stay quiet all the time. Actually I think we should more actively send out radiomessages for *their* SETI-scientists to detect and maybe send back an answer to us. As I see it, if we establish contact by the means of radio signals, the chance is great that they are more advanced than us. Why? Becuase basically, we discovered radio yesterday. We might find civilizations that are new to radio too, but chances are they have advanced much more than that. Somehow I like to think that they would therefor be peaceful, because they have survived longer than we as a technological civilization, and therefor would pose no threat to us.
I don't think they will get so much info from that simple picture. No reason to be worried there. If they would figure out *what* it is, they have to figure out *where* in our DNA it is, and even then they have no clue about nearly anything regarding our DNA... let alone creating humans.
That is something I would watch, definitely :)
I'm watching these RobotWars shows sometimes, and I'm always imagining something similar but with cooler weapons and AI instead. I am pretty sure it will come as soon as it's possible...
Yeah, basically they showed us it's possible in yet another application. It could ofcourse be used for many purposes in many different physical objects. I was, just now, thinking of planetary exploration on, say, Mars. We could send rovers, aeroplanes, balloons, and relaying sattelites to Mars to operate in that environment. They could program them with everything we know about that environment. These bots would still encounter new situations, "marsquakes" (if that happens there), power failure, sand storms... so they would have to be self learning in a way, to handle it in a better way next time. Also, every time one of them learns something new, they would relay the info to the others. Maybe they could even help each other out or cooperate if needed. I don't know how much more research would have to be done to do this, but the idea makes sense to me...
Especially tried to cheat by standing on it's wingtips or similar. I would like to see something else though. What if we build lots of small generic robots, let's say they have wheels to move around only. The on the floor there could be more components that robots can attach themselves to, like giving them legs, wings, arms, eyes, ears etc., and then give them all different objectives, for example to survive, escape, learn from others, etc. Could be interesting to see if it would evolve into some kind of robot society where they all evolve different abilities and so on.
Impressive, indeed. Especially, maybe, considering the very weak signal this transmits to earth. Hopefully they will reach and pass the heliopause and reach interstellar space.