I put my thoughts into speech or writing (of some sort) and you read them
Except that this is a terrible form of communication. It's slow, inaccurate, and subject to interpretation. What if we could transfer thoughts directly, without having to transform them into words (with their inherent drawbacks) and then back again.
I'll say it right now - yes, probably some kind of thought->thought enviroment, over an FTL link. Figure something like the matrix which uses gravity as the transmission medium.
Given that info, I'd be more than willing to sign up for the requisite 15+ months. So why can't they do something like that here in the States? What's holding them back - red tape, technical issues?
That one was great. It was on about 2 months ago, and I couldn't believe they were running it what with that comment and him being dead. Kinda like Homer Vs. The City of New York (The simpsons one with the world trade towers). I never thought they'd show that again, but the just did that too.
At least now because of Mr. Hubbard, when movie critics die, they known for sure what movie is going to be playing on a continious loop in Hell's Metroplex. Poor Gene Siskel...
That's a good question. There is, however, a material difference between the future and the past: writing and libraries. Unless we assume widespread distruction on a unprecedented level, there still will be people who understand some of the major languages of this era. Written language is very compact and clear, compared to pictographs; it'd be worth a try in addition to pictographs, especially for the most heavily radioactive first couple thousand years.
Aha! But we have had writing (and by writing, I mean script; not, for example, cave paintings) for some 5000+ years, dating back to the egyptians. (Shameless google-provided proof here). But after just 5,000 years, no one could read it. The egyptians were still there, there was no widespread destruction, and presumably there were scholars. But it took the *chance* finding of the Rosetta stone to allow us to decipher it - a stone with both egyptian and newer (totally understood) greek writing on it. So, just because it's written in what is today a popular language and format doesn't mean it will be readable in 5,000 years, even by scholars. [Let alone 100,000]. There's already historical precedent to say that's just not true.
I'd even go further - I'd say with the internet, the language will evolve much faster, not slower. Merrian-Webster just completed their decennial update by adding by-far more words than ever in history, mostly because of the internet.
There are maybe a few dozen people in the world who could even partially decipher indo-european, and that is only some 10,000 years old (it started in Ankara around 8,000 BC and is the mother tongue of the latin and germanic families). Now, instead of 10,000, what is it were 100,000 years. How many people would speak it then?
The principle idea in building yucca is they *assume* it is going to be forgotten about and not updated. (Good engineering, btw - they plan for the worst) I mean, in 100,000 years a lot can happen, and chances are that the sign won't be kept up to date.
The copyright clearance obtained for the original project didn't include republication rights, so they're not able to republish the content in a different form without contacting all the copyright holders.
...copyright on a thousand year old book? Did I miss the Sonny Bono Act II or something
Yes, that might be true. Nowadays, for the first time in history, it's possible to record the actual speech (as opposed to symbols for speech). But, by the same token, the advent of the internet will only speed language evolution. For the first time, it's easily possible to sit down and communicate with someone half a world away. That will almost certainly encourage language homogenization, but that still means change.
Sorry for another reply to my own post, but here's a great resource for seeing how the language has changed over time. It has.wav readings of beowulf. The reason I keep citing beowulf (no, I don't have some computer-cluster fetish) is that it is basically the only surviving example of old-english, or so I was taught. If you listen to it, you can really see how in just 1200 years, the language has totally changed.
I think you've hit on a really insightful idea. I'm reminded of a quote from Newsradio: "You can't take something off the Internet - it's like taking pee out of a pool."
The guarenteed way of protecting data against time is to make lots and lots of copies. The internet is the perfect medium for that. So yes, why don't they put it on the internet?
Language drifts and changes. Pick up a copy Beowulf, circle AD 800. Chances are you won't understand a whole lot, it's written in old english. What with the great vowel shift, the meanings of most of those words have significantly changed. Now, instead of 1200 years, imagine what 100,000 years of language evolution would do to such a warning. That's why ANY warning they choose will probably be pictoral, not script.
This article reminds me of something else I read - that the DOE is currently paying good money for people to help design a warning for Yucca Mountain (the giant nuclear storage facility out in Nevada). That one has to last as much as 100,000 years, albeight it has to store a lot less information (stay the F*** out). I wonder what kind of overlap there would be between the two?
They do not have a trademark on Mickey Mouse, that's the point. Walt Disney never thought of doing it when he made the original cartoon back in '28, why would he? So once it becomes public domain, that's it - they are totally at risk of someone annihalting their wholesome image.
Auto-ID has begun to withdraw many of the documents cited in the CASPIAN release, and might substitute with less offensive files. Cryptome archived the original files and has replaced the original CASPIAN links to Auto-ID with Cryptome links.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 7, 2003
RFID Site Security Gaffe Uncovered by Consumer Group CASPIAN asks, "How can we trust these people with our personal data?"
CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) says anyone can download revealing documents labeled "confidential" from the home page of the MIT Auto-ID Center web site in two mouse clicks.
The Auto-ID Center is the organization entrusted with developing a global Internet infrastructure for radio frequency identification (RFID). Their plans are to tag all the objects manufactured on the planet with RFID chips and track them via the Internet.
Privacy advocates are alarmed about the Center's plans because RFID technology could enable businesses to collect an unprecedented amount of information about consumers' possessions and physical movements. They point out that consumers might not even know they're being surveilled since tiny RFID chips can be embedded in plastic, sewn into the seams of garments, or otherwise hidden.
"How can we trust these people with securing sensitive consumer information if they can't even secure their own web site?" asks CASPIAN Founder and Director Katherine Albrecht.
"It's ironic that the same people who assure us that our private data will be safe because 'Internet security is very good, and it offers a strong layer of protection' [see http://www.autoidcenter.com/new_media/media_kit/qu estions_answers.pdf]
http://cryptome.org/rfid/questions_answers.pdf would provide such a compelling demonstration to the contrary," she added.
Among the "confidential" documents available on the web site are slide shows discussing the need to "pacify" citizens who might question the wisdom of the Center's stated goal to tag and track every item on the planet [ http://www.autoidcenter.com/media/communications.p df ],
http://cryptome.org/rfid/communications.pdf alo ng with findings that 78% of surveyed consumers feel RFID is negative for privacy and 61% fear its health consequences [ http://www.autoidcenter.org/media/pk-fh.pdf ].
http://cryptome.org/rfid/pk-fh.pdf PR firm Fleischman-Hillard's confidential "Managing External Communications" suggests a variety of strategies to help the Auto-ID Center "drive adoption" and "neutralize opposition," including the possibility of renaming the tracking devices "green tags." It also lists by name several key lawmakers, privacy advocates, and others whom it hopes to "bring into the Center's 'inner circle'" [ http://www.autoidcenter.com/media/external_comm.pd f ].
http://cryptome.org/rfid/external_comm.pdf Desp ite the overwhelming evidence of negative consumer attitudes toward RFID technology revealed in its internal documents, the Auto-ID Center hopes that consumers will be "apathetic" and "resign themselves to the inevitability of it" instead of acting on their concerns [ http://www.autoidcenter.com/publishedresearch/cam- autoid-eb002.pdf ].
http://cryptome.org/rfid/cam-autoid-eb002.pdf C onsumer citizens who are not feeling apathetic will be pleased to learn that the site provides names and contact information for the corporate executives who oversee the Center's efforts. Since the phone list isn't labeled "confidential," we're assuming that Auto-ID Center Board members are open to calls and mail that might help them better understand public opinion on this important subject.
Anyone interested in speaking with Dick Cantwell, the Gillette VP who heads the Center's Board of Overseers, for example,
Slashdot Mirror
I believe on southpark, they call that 'bear with wide canyon'
That's *exactly* what I was going to say 8)
I put my thoughts into speech or writing (of some sort) and you read them
Except that this is a terrible form of communication. It's slow, inaccurate, and subject to interpretation. What if we could transfer thoughts directly, without having to transform them into words (with their inherent drawbacks) and then back again.
I'll say it right now - yes, probably some kind of thought->thought enviroment, over an FTL link. Figure something like the matrix which uses gravity as the transmission medium.
It could have been better. How? As a snuff film :)
You know you're a nerd when big bandwidth makes you this happy
:)
OR
Maybe it was the asian school girl under the table when the picture was taken
Any place that can produce Legend of the Overfiend is definitely an interesting place to live
Given that info, I'd be more than willing to sign up for the requisite 15+ months. So why can't they do something like that here in the States? What's holding them back - red tape, technical issues?
That one was great. It was on about 2 months ago, and I couldn't believe they were running it what with that comment and him being dead. Kinda like Homer Vs. The City of New York (The simpsons one with the world trade towers). I never thought they'd show that again, but the just did that too.
At least now because of Mr. Hubbard, when movie critics die, they known for sure what movie is going to be playing on a continious loop in Hell's Metroplex. Poor Gene Siskel...
That's a good question. There is, however, a material difference between the future and the past: writing and libraries. Unless we assume widespread distruction on a unprecedented level, there still will be people who understand some of the major languages of this era. Written language is very compact and clear, compared to pictographs; it'd be worth a try in addition to pictographs, especially for the most heavily radioactive first couple thousand years.
Aha! But we have had writing (and by writing, I mean script; not, for example, cave paintings) for some 5000+ years, dating back to the egyptians. (Shameless google-provided proof here). But after just 5,000 years, no one could read it. The egyptians were still there, there was no widespread destruction, and presumably there were scholars. But it took the *chance* finding of the Rosetta stone to allow us to decipher it - a stone with both egyptian and newer (totally understood) greek writing on it. So, just because it's written in what is today a popular language and format doesn't mean it will be readable in 5,000 years, even by scholars. [Let alone 100,000]. There's already historical precedent to say that's just not true.
I'd even go further - I'd say with the internet, the language will evolve much faster, not slower. Merrian-Webster just completed their decennial update by adding by-far more words than ever in history, mostly because of the internet.
There are maybe a few dozen people in the world who could even partially decipher indo-european, and that is only some 10,000 years old (it started in Ankara around 8,000 BC and is the mother tongue of the latin and germanic families). Now, instead of 10,000, what is it were 100,000 years. How many people would speak it then?
I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution.
The principle idea in building yucca is they *assume* it is going to be forgotten about and not updated. (Good engineering, btw - they plan for the worst) I mean, in 100,000 years a lot can happen, and chances are that the sign won't be kept up to date.
The copyright clearance obtained for the original project didn't include republication rights, so they're not able to republish the content in a different form without contacting all the copyright holders.
...copyright on a thousand year old book? Did I miss the Sonny Bono Act II or something
Yes, that might be true. Nowadays, for the first time in history, it's possible to record the actual speech (as opposed to symbols for speech). But, by the same token, the advent of the internet will only speed language evolution. For the first time, it's easily possible to sit down and communicate with someone half a world away. That will almost certainly encourage language homogenization, but that still means change.
Sorry for another reply to my own post, but here's a great resource for seeing how the language has changed over time. It has .wav readings of beowulf. The reason I keep citing beowulf (no, I don't have some computer-cluster fetish) is that it is basically the only surviving example of old-english, or so I was taught. If you listen to it, you can really see how in just 1200 years, the language has totally changed.
I think you've hit on a really insightful idea. I'm reminded of a quote from Newsradio: "You can't take something off the Internet - it's like taking pee out of a pool."
The guarenteed way of protecting data against time is to make lots and lots of copies. The internet is the perfect medium for that. So yes, why don't they put it on the internet?
Language drifts and changes. Pick up a copy Beowulf, circle AD 800. Chances are you won't understand a whole lot, it's written in old english. What with the great vowel shift, the meanings of most of those words have significantly changed. Now, instead of 1200 years, imagine what 100,000 years of language evolution would do to such a warning. That's why ANY warning they choose will probably be pictoral, not script.
The previous slashdot article
Sorry about the reply to my own post, but the article refers to Francis Bacon's shrieking pope paintings. Here's a link.
This article reminds me of something else I read - that the DOE is currently paying good money for people to help design a warning for Yucca Mountain (the giant nuclear storage facility out in Nevada). That one has to last as much as 100,000 years, albeight it has to store a lot less information (stay the F*** out). I wonder what kind of overlap there would be between the two?
The Star Trek folks even figured out how to deal with the now-famous actor (read $$) problem. Cancel the series and start a new one. Frequently.
I'm offended, but can't quite figure out where the error in that statement is
They do not have a trademark on Mickey Mouse, that's the point. Walt Disney never thought of doing it when he made the original cartoon back in '28, why would he? So once it becomes public domain, that's it - they are totally at risk of someone annihalting their wholesome image.
6 posts and it's gone. Ok, repost of the article:
7 July 2003
Auto-ID has begun to withdraw many of the documents cited in the CASPIAN release, and might substitute with less offensive files. Cryptome archived the original files and has replaced the original CASPIAN links to Auto-ID with Cryptome links.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 7, 2003
RFID Site Security Gaffe Uncovered by Consumer Group
CASPIAN asks, "How can we trust these people with our personal data?"
CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) says anyone can download revealing documents labeled "confidential" from the home page of the MIT Auto-ID Center web site in two mouse clicks.
The Auto-ID Center is the organization entrusted with developing a global Internet infrastructure for radio frequency identification (RFID). Their plans are to tag all the objects manufactured on the planet with RFID chips and track them via the Internet.
Privacy advocates are alarmed about the Center's plans because RFID technology could enable businesses to collect an unprecedented amount of information about consumers' possessions and physical movements. They point out that consumers might not even know they're being surveilled since tiny RFID chips can be embedded in plastic, sewn into the seams of garments, or otherwise hidden.
"How can we trust these people with securing sensitive consumer information if they can't even secure their own web site?" asks CASPIAN Founder and Director Katherine Albrecht.
"It's ironic that the same people who assure us that our private data will be safe because 'Internet security is very good, and it offers a strong layer of protection' [see http://www.autoidcenter.com/new_media/media_kit/qu estions_answers.pdf]
http://cryptome.org/rfid/questions_answers.pdf
would provide such a compelling demonstration to the contrary," she added.
Among the "confidential" documents available on the web site are slide shows discussing the need to "pacify" citizens who might question the wisdom of the Center's stated goal to tag and track every item on the planet [ http://www.autoidcenter.com/media/communications.p df ],
http://cryptome.org/rfid/communications.pdf
alo ng with findings that 78% of surveyed consumers feel RFID is negative for privacy and 61% fear its health consequences [ http://www.autoidcenter.org/media/pk-fh.pdf ].
http://cryptome.org/rfid/pk-fh.pdf
PR firm Fleischman-Hillard's confidential "Managing External Communications" suggests a variety of strategies to help the Auto-ID Center "drive adoption" and "neutralize opposition," including the possibility of renaming the tracking devices "green tags." It also lists by name several key lawmakers, privacy advocates, and others whom it hopes to "bring into the Center's 'inner circle'" [ http://www.autoidcenter.com/media/external_comm.pd f ].
http://cryptome.org/rfid/external_comm.pdf
Desp ite the overwhelming evidence of negative consumer attitudes toward RFID technology revealed in its internal documents, the Auto-ID Center hopes that consumers will be "apathetic" and "resign themselves to the inevitability of it" instead of acting on their concerns [ http://www.autoidcenter.com/publishedresearch/cam- autoid-eb002.pdf ].
http://cryptome.org/rfid/cam-autoid-eb002.pdf
C onsumer citizens who are not feeling apathetic will be pleased to learn that the site provides names and contact information for the corporate executives who oversee the Center's efforts. Since the phone list isn't labeled "confidential," we're assuming that Auto-ID Center Board members are open to calls and mail that might help them better understand public opinion on this important subject.
Anyone interested in speaking with Dick Cantwell, the Gillette VP who heads the Center's Board of Overseers, for example,