A much more efficient method of storing large amounts of energy is "pumped hydroelectric energy storage". This is simply conversion of electricity to gravitational potential energy by pumping water from a lower reservoir to a higher one while excess energy is being generated by another source (e.g. solar), and converting the gravitational potential energy back into electrical energy when it isn't (e.g., at night). With modern designs, the generator simply is used in "reverse" to act as a pump.
This process is over 90% efficient, as opposed to production of ethanol, which is under 20% efficient.
Even if you don't have suitable geography for pumped hydroelectric nearby, and even if you want to power a portable device by charging batteries, the overall system efficiency of transporting electrical energy through the grid to a pumped hydro plant, storing it, converting it back, transporting it through the grid again, and charging the battery for the portable device is STILL significantly more efficient than producing and distributing ethanol.
If it's anything like other wikis, it will be constantly defaced by clueless idiots. A few of those might be "reactionaries", but most are just losers who are incapcable of making a positive contribution to anything.
No, their offer (if it's real) sets the value of a pirated copy of Windows to $1 less than the price of a legitimate copy, assuming that you want the latter.
On the other hand, we could argue as to what is the value of a legitimate copy.
We knew this when redhat first said they were going to stop giving away free support back in april of 2003
What on earth are you talking about? The free support for RHL was mailing lists and Bugzilla, with no service level agreement for either. The free support for Fedora is exactly the same.
The only thing that went away was PAID support. When you PURCHASED an official RHL box, you got 30 days of PAID installation support with it, and you could BUY additional support.
You may recall that Red Hat abandoned (read fscked!) their end user base by EOL'ing Red Hat Linux 9 and decided not to release another desktop version for the masses.
When they first announced Fedora, that was sort of my take on it. I was unhappy about it, but willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion time has shown that they have done exactly what they said, and not screwed anyone. The Fedore Core distributions have had the same degree of quality I had come to expect of the RHL distributions, on a more stable release schedule, with no official support. If you want paid support, or less frequent releases, you can use RHEL.
Most of the people that criticize Fedora seem to be criticizing it over the very things that were done deliberately as project objectives.
The only area in which they've failed to meet the stated objectives is in facilitating community participation, and this new foundation seems like a step in the right direction to improve that.
How about building an ATM machine into the phone? Then when I need $20 to buy a burger, fries, and a shake at a joint that doesn't take plastic, I just swipe my ATM card on the phone, enter the PIN, and out pops a fresh new $20 bill. I suppose the phone would have to be a bit bigger to contain a stack of $20 bills, and I'd have to take it in to be refilled from time to time. Maybe they could just work out a deal with the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving to include blank money and print it on the fly. That way you could get all denominations.
Of course, it would need some serious DRM.
Maybe it's too much to expect this to be built into a phone, but I'll bet they could make it in a package that would fit a DIN-size car stereo location. That would be nearly as convenient.
This is why I say subjective viewpoint, objectively there would appear to be a gap in consciousness during surgery, but subjectively from their viewpoint it is seemless as they are never 'not aware' of being there.
I disagree. When I wake up in the morning, or after surgery, I'm aware of not having "been there" for an indeterminate period of time. I'm aware that it is not simply the next moment after I lost consciousness. If it was, I would presumably remember exactly what I was thinking right before losing consciousness, but most of the time I don't. And when I do remember it, it is a long-term memory, not the "just a second ago" sort of memory. My mental state upon waking is very different than my mental state upon going to sleep, and the same is true for anaesthesia; this is not consistent with continuity of consciousness. It's much more like "rebooting" than like "resume from suspend".
Even if there was some sort of "subjective continuity" of the type you describe, it would obviously be an illusion, so it's unclear what it would have to do with continuity of consciousness (or lack thereof) in any practical sense.
But you don't have continuity anyhow; most people lose continuity at least once a day.
Suppose you wake up one morning and there are two of you, with no way to tell which is the original (maybe neither!). And one of you gets hit by a bus and killed. Are you going to claim that the "original you" was killed, or not? Why does it matter?
How do you know that my "viewpoint" isn't simply transferred to the new "medium"? You can't even prove that my "viewpoint" when I wake up in the morning is the same one as when I went to bed the previous night.
Somehow I don't think that will qualify me for this promotion, though.
One morning last year I woke up from a dream in which I met Bill Gates at a conference, and we had a nice chat, though I don't remember the details. Although I do think it would be interesting to meet him in real life, I'm not sure what I'd want to say or ask.
Aside perhaps from deliberately misquoting the song "Steven Spielberg, Give Me Some of Your Money" by Moe Moskowitz and the Punsters.
Sure. And if I go to the uploading clinic, get anaesthetized, uploaded, and they incinerate the meat, there is just as much continuation of the subjective viewpoint as when I go to sleep each night.
People that claim the result isn't "you" and that "you died and only a copy survived" merely show a prejudice regarding the nature of consiousness; no one has yet articulated a sufficent definition of consiousness to support such an assertion.
there are laws of physics (unknown to us as of yet or not) that *will* put a sudden stop to Moore's law, [...] it seems like there definitely *will* be a stop when the Planck scale is hit
I fully agree. However, there is no known reason why uploading requires Moore's law to extend all the way to Planck scale. If it continues for another 30 years, uploading may be possible, and if it continues for another decade past that, uploading may be inexpensive.
Note that it is not strictly speaking necessary for the uploaded environment to run at real-time speed. The main simulation requirement is storage and processing capacity, not timing. Of course, if the simulation is substantially slower than real time, it won't be nearly as appealing (though arguably still better than death).
Our brains themselves provide an existence proof that it is possible for a machine to contain human-level intelligence and consciousness, since the brain is just a very complex biological machine. The current method of replicating brains is very easy but doesn't preserve state; the trick will be determining how to replicate them (possibly with a different underlying technology) such that the state can be transferred.
It hasn't been programmed to do so. Are you
asserting that it is impossible
for a computer to think? If so, what is your
basis for making such an assertion?
your brain doesn't compute.
I suspect that you can win a Nobel prize for proving that assertion.
We'll be another step closer to creating the Kwisatz Haderach!
Or better yet, the Kumquat Hagendaz, so that we will finally be able to have entrees to go with our beer. ("National Lampoon's Doon" by Ellis Weiner, 1984)
Re:Braindumping onto a computer? Bad idea.
on
Download Your Brain
·
· Score: 1
The Human Brain is so powerfull (far more powerfull than a computer) because it forgets.
And a simulation of you would also forget.
Our brain needs a physical body we identfy with and regular intervals of shutdown (sleep) in order to function properly.
There's no obvious reason that that can't be simulated as well.
Dumping them pure informational contents of a human brain onto a HD in order to store what we know would bring disappointing results.
For some useful insight into this question, watch the animated short "To Be" (John Weldon, 1990). Unfortunately not currently available on video; at one time it was available as part of a compilation of Canadian Film Board animation.
Re:Quantum-mechanics, crosstalk, brain-death, etc.
on
Download Your Brain
·
· Score: 1
some scientists have speculated that there are quantum-mechanical processes that go on in the brain that can't be reproduced by a traditional computer.
That's not so much in the nature of speculation, as it is a known fact. The universe is non-deterministic, and quantum uncertainty does have macroscopic effects; get used to it.
The real question is whether quantum uncertainty is necessary to intelligence/consciousness. Some people, notably including Roger Penrose ("The Emperor's New Mind"), have speculated that it is, but there is as yet no convincing argument or proof.
Slashdot Mirror
This process is over 90% efficient, as opposed to production of ethanol, which is under 20% efficient.
Even if you don't have suitable geography for pumped hydroelectric nearby, and even if you want to power a portable device by charging batteries, the overall system efficiency of transporting electrical energy through the grid to a pumped hydro plant, storing it, converting it back, transporting it through the grid again, and charging the battery for the portable device is STILL significantly more efficient than producing and distributing ethanol.
On the other hand, we could argue as to what is the value of a legitimate copy.
Make sure the inhibitor chip is well-protected.
I, for one, welcome our new geriatric and quadriplegic robot-suit overlords.
And it's inaccurate to claim that RH will be out of the picture.
The only thing that went away was PAID support. When you PURCHASED an official RHL box, you got 30 days of PAID installation support with it, and you could BUY additional support.
Most of the people that criticize Fedora seem to be criticizing it over the very things that were done deliberately as project objectives.
The only area in which they've failed to meet the stated objectives is in facilitating community participation, and this new foundation seems like a step in the right direction to improve that.
Of course, it would need some serious DRM.
Maybe it's too much to expect this to be built into a phone, but I'll bet they could make it in a package that would fit a DIN-size car stereo location. That would be nearly as convenient.
You mean, all those messages I sprinkle in my programs that say "Copyright 2005 Eric Smith" don't give them a hint?
Even if there was some sort of "subjective continuity" of the type you describe, it would obviously be an illusion, so it's unclear what it would have to do with continuity of consciousness (or lack thereof) in any practical sense.
Suppose you wake up one morning and there are two of you, with no way to tell which is the original (maybe neither!). And one of you gets hit by a bus and killed. Are you going to claim that the "original you" was killed, or not? Why does it matter?
How do you know that my "viewpoint" isn't simply transferred to the new "medium"? You can't even prove that my "viewpoint" when I wake up in the morning is the same one as when I went to bed the previous night.
Somehow I don't think that will qualify me for this promotion, though.
One morning last year I woke up from a dream in which I met Bill Gates at a conference, and we had a nice chat, though I don't remember the details. Although I do think it would be interesting to meet him in real life, I'm not sure what I'd want to say or ask.
Aside perhaps from deliberately misquoting the song "Steven Spielberg, Give Me Some of Your Money" by Moe Moskowitz and the Punsters.
People that claim the result isn't "you" and that "you died and only a copy survived" merely show a prejudice regarding the nature of consiousness; no one has yet articulated a sufficent definition of consiousness to support such an assertion.
That was much less commonly done in the mid 1960s, and it was usually not referred to as either an upload or a download.
Note that it is not strictly speaking necessary for the uploaded environment to run at real-time speed. The main simulation requirement is storage and processing capacity, not timing. Of course, if the simulation is substantially slower than real time, it won't be nearly as appealing (though arguably still better than death).
Our brains themselves provide an existence proof that it is possible for a machine to contain human-level intelligence and consciousness, since the brain is just a very complex biological machine. The current method of replicating brains is very easy but doesn't preserve state; the trick will be determining how to replicate them (possibly with a different underlying technology) such that the state can be transferred.
They'll be wiped out by the army of Uma Thurmans. It will be great fun to watch!
For some useful insight into this question, watch the animated short "To Be" (John Weldon, 1990). Unfortunately not currently available on video; at one time it was available as part of a compilation of Canadian Film Board animation.
The real question is whether quantum uncertainty is necessary to intelligence/consciousness. Some people, notably including Roger Penrose ("The Emperor's New Mind"), have speculated that it is, but there is as yet no convincing argument or proof.