Tesla didn't deteriorate in his later life, that's just the official narrative to conceal how he actually died (as part of a Navy teleportation experiment gone wrong commonly known as the Philadelphia Experiment.)
It is meant to function much like the brain implant the main character of Farscape got which worked against his interests to extract information, only much much more clunky.
That sounds very useful, finding mechanism where a finely tuned molecule happens to demolish a whole class of viruses could be a discovery on the level with antibiotics.
It already exists: Favipiravir - originally designed to combat the Flu, even works on Ebola. They don't use it except in extreme cases because it's the only drug known to take out nearly all known viruses while safe and they are afraid of resistances forming like what happened with antibiotics.
If you are speaking of a computer simulation then there is likely little which could be done, though there is still the slim chance that the hardware allows for the manipulation of the environment in unplanned ways (i.e. in an FPGA driven by genetic algorithms you can create an RF transceiver to communicate with the outside world, even though the FPGA itself isn't something someone would pick to do that thing because it isn't ideal for the scenario - the group interactions of several flip-flops can induce the new effect on the environment of RF I/O.) In such a scenario it is also possible a computer driving a simulation would be attached to a network of machines with a robotic arm, automated lithographic process, CNC or some other equivalent available that would allow for an escape.
The far more likely scenario when people refer to a "simulation" is that of something like "we exist as a simulated universe inside of a black hole" wherein "simulation" only means "the laws of physics as we see them are different from the rest of the universe." Escape from such a system might seem more complex (trying to figure out how to get out of a black hole or the equivalent in one piece) but in reality the laws of physics would be a direct translation.
When physicists use the word "simulation" they rarely mean "The Matrix" or "on a computer" but rather the second definition above.
A "prime directive" implies that evolution is an intelligent force with a goal. I'm not the one thinking like a "bible-thumper" here.
No, jackass, it implies evolution is a system with rules. If you select for one thing without selecting for others the others gradually decline. Mutation is largely random (there are some patterns, but they are beyond the scope of this discussion and largely irrelevant at the macroscopic scale anyway.) When everything is randomly mutating and you say "but give higher precedence to things with this mutation" (which, without an intelligent force is a thing that happens through any selection process) the chance of unfavorable mutations in other areas arising increases because you tend to have roughly the same number of mutations overall per generation (barring things like toxins, excessive radiation, viral exposure, etc in the environment) if they aren't happening in the thing you are selecting for they are happening in the things you are not selecting for.
Nice one-liner, unfortunately not based in reality. Without selection there is no evolution, even worse, when the selection criteria changes from "intellect" to "anything else" - you end up with "anything else." Evolution hasn't stopped, it just no longer requires high intellect and everything which isn't selected for is selected against over time.
Nice one-liner, unfortunately not based in reality. Without selection there is no evolution, even worse, when the selection criteria changes from "intellect" to "anything else" - you end up with "anything else." Evolution hasn't stopped, it just no longer requires high intellect and everything which isn't selected for is selected against over time.
So are you a bible thumper then? Seems odd to reject evolution's prime directive: selection criteria, seems even more odd if you accept it as real and presume modern society doesn't move us toward Idiocracy. No great wonder why we haven't had a ground-breaking physicist in about a century (Hell, most of them are still chasing dark matter/energy to fill mathematical errors.) Nobody said Idiocracy didn't have a transition period.
And no, "just look at the news!" isn't proof that you're right, and yes that IS what you were about to say. It's what you retards ALWAYS say. No exceptions.
It would be a lot easier to take your arguments at face value and address them if you had any, even more so if you presumed the people you spoke to were different. Though I guess in crazyland all the people who hold differing views to your own on the internet are the same person out to get you, huh?
Microsoft has never been known for security prowess, it stands to reason the Wikileaks dump was controlled and Microsoft had foreknowledge of what was being dumped.
Cool, get back to us when you've figured out how you teach someone how to design and build a device that they're not allowed to use.
I'm sure you thought that was a really intelligent argument. Funny that you failed to consider a plethora of industries where that is exactly the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't.
Tesla didn't deteriorate in his later life, that's just the official narrative to conceal how he actually died (as part of a Navy teleportation experiment gone wrong commonly known as the Philadelphia Experiment.)
It is meant to function much like the brain implant the main character of Farscape got which worked against his interests to extract information, only much much more clunky.
lol, you keep talking. Hold on to that impotent rage and ego. When you're an old man on your deathbed it will probably be all you have left.
...how all the technical and scientific capabilities of humankind
We're still pretty shit at science. Can't even properly define, yet alone fully control, inertia or gravity.
That sounds very useful, finding mechanism where a finely tuned molecule happens to demolish a whole class of viruses could be a discovery on the level with antibiotics.
It already exists: Favipiravir - originally designed to combat the Flu, even works on Ebola. They don't use it except in extreme cases because it's the only drug known to take out nearly all known viruses while safe and they are afraid of resistances forming like what happened with antibiotics.
You will now prove me right.
But you've said nothing of consequence worth addressing?
So you've finally run out of things to trick yourself into believing?
It depends on the hardware in multiple respects.
If you are speaking of a computer simulation then there is likely little which could be done, though there is still the slim chance that the hardware allows for the manipulation of the environment in unplanned ways (i.e. in an FPGA driven by genetic algorithms you can create an RF transceiver to communicate with the outside world, even though the FPGA itself isn't something someone would pick to do that thing because it isn't ideal for the scenario - the group interactions of several flip-flops can induce the new effect on the environment of RF I/O.) In such a scenario it is also possible a computer driving a simulation would be attached to a network of machines with a robotic arm, automated lithographic process, CNC or some other equivalent available that would allow for an escape.
The far more likely scenario when people refer to a "simulation" is that of something like "we exist as a simulated universe inside of a black hole" wherein "simulation" only means "the laws of physics as we see them are different from the rest of the universe." Escape from such a system might seem more complex (trying to figure out how to get out of a black hole or the equivalent in one piece) but in reality the laws of physics would be a direct translation.
When physicists use the word "simulation" they rarely mean "The Matrix" or "on a computer" but rather the second definition above.
+1 Insightful
So much projection from the anonymous coward.
A "prime directive" implies that evolution is an intelligent force with a goal. I'm not the one thinking like a "bible-thumper" here.
No, jackass, it implies evolution is a system with rules. If you select for one thing without selecting for others the others gradually decline. Mutation is largely random (there are some patterns, but they are beyond the scope of this discussion and largely irrelevant at the macroscopic scale anyway.) When everything is randomly mutating and you say "but give higher precedence to things with this mutation" (which, without an intelligent force is a thing that happens through any selection process) the chance of unfavorable mutations in other areas arising increases because you tend to have roughly the same number of mutations overall per generation (barring things like toxins, excessive radiation, viral exposure, etc in the environment) if they aren't happening in the thing you are selecting for they are happening in the things you are not selecting for.
Nice one-liner, unfortunately not based in reality. Without selection there is no evolution, even worse, when the selection criteria changes from "intellect" to "anything else" - you end up with "anything else." Evolution hasn't stopped, it just no longer requires high intellect and everything which isn't selected for is selected against over time.
Nice one-liner, unfortunately not based in reality. Without selection there is no evolution, even worse, when the selection criteria changes from "intellect" to "anything else" - you end up with "anything else." Evolution hasn't stopped, it just no longer requires high intellect and everything which isn't selected for is selected against over time.
So are you a bible thumper then? Seems odd to reject evolution's prime directive: selection criteria, seems even more odd if you accept it as real and presume modern society doesn't move us toward Idiocracy. No great wonder why we haven't had a ground-breaking physicist in about a century (Hell, most of them are still chasing dark matter/energy to fill mathematical errors.) Nobody said Idiocracy didn't have a transition period.
And no, "just look at the news!" isn't proof that you're right, and yes that IS what you were about to say. It's what you retards ALWAYS say. No exceptions.
It would be a lot easier to take your arguments at face value and address them if you had any, even more so if you presumed the people you spoke to were different. Though I guess in crazyland all the people who hold differing views to your own on the internet are the same person out to get you, huh?
You're missing the very real implications of such a rule: idiots would be selected against and we wouldn't be barreling toward Idiocracy at 500MPH.
Looks an anonymous coward got offended.
Microsoft has never been known for security prowess, it stands to reason the Wikileaks dump was controlled and Microsoft had foreknowledge of what was being dumped.
TL;DR: Who cares?
Don't let the UID fool you, I'm one of the people here who actually fit the target audience of this site.
Except there are dozens of readily accessible examples working in different ways.
Cool, get back to us when you've figured out how you teach someone how to design and build a device that they're not allowed to use.
I'm sure you thought that was a really intelligent argument. Funny that you failed to consider a plethora of industries where that is exactly the case.
Wow, amazing argument, I have become convinced by your superior rhetorical skills.