@turp182, as you say, the process of house-building could be far more automated; I assume you got that my point was that the 3D printed house claim was a bit far-fetched for a single (important) component of a house build.
Nice link to the house factory website.. Pretty hideous - but also pretty cool, I guess.
There are so many approaches to really cool house-building. Where I live, amongst the endless terraced houses of North London (UK), all built in the late 19th Century during the massive London population acceleration, the main material is brick - all of which were made pretty-much on-site from the local earth, and big kilns. So the energy and wood were transported in - but the main building material was taken from on-site.
It would be really cool to use the existing materials of an area - to build the site automatically. Yes - glass, etc. may need to come from further afield.
I rather like the idea of a semi-autonomous house-building machine wandering off into the desert creating endless variations of house and residential area, based on some elegant fractal algorithm, using what materials there are, and the sun and wind for it's energy supply. I guess one could start off looking at adobe - basically something not much more complex than a giant sandcastle robot.
Well, the video helps to see what they used the 3D printer for. It's pretty cool - but there were a huge amount of traditional building techniques used. Foundations, fillings, doorways, windows, roofing, interior walls cabling, drainage and water supply - all done by pink goo beings. But the insulation was 3D printed - and it's quite fun.
I would make my own Internet. I would not be alone. We would have the DRinternet and the FRinternet. It would be good. You would know that anything on FRinternet is free from DRM. So, the whole of wikipedia would be there for a start. Anyone who wanted to be on FRinternet would have to let go of any DRM. I would ensure that the domain services are separate so that by design one cannot link to the DRinternet from the FRinternet.
I didn't find the trilogy boring, but I didn't find it covered any new ground either. Likewise, the premise and the conclusion seemed to be rather weak. I guess it's rather unexciting that they should turn this into a TV series..
Something like Gibson's Bigend trilogy would work better for me (I guess the sprawl trilogy would be misconceived as a copycat of all of it's copycats) - or any of the Mieville novels. Lem's Star Diaries would be fun - or the cyberiad. Even though Tarkovsky had a go, the Strugatsky's Roadside Picnic would be an epic series.
This is just an uneducated and poor representation of what is socialism. The notion of 'government' is very different within a socialist framework than it is from a right-wing framework.
You appear to identify that a socialist government, with public ownership of many state services, is a corporation and normally the nation's largest employer, exploiting efficiencies of scale in order to deliver cost-effective services to the population. The primary difficulty facing a socialist government are to do with inefficiencies creeping in due to a lack of effective competition. This one issue is what has been keeping western european nations occupied for the last 40 years.
As to 'enforcing surrender of assets (time, wealth)' - this is called taxation. It certainly isn't an artefact of socialism, but it is part of a general social contract that the citizen has with her/his legal membership to the sovereign state. There is nobody stopping us from changing our citizenship to that of, eg, Panama - where you are not be expected to pay tax on money earned off-shore. Of course, you will lose all the other perks of your current nationality - which for western europe is state-sponsored education, healthcare, pensions, housing, policing, military defence, and many other benefits.
My understanding is different to yours, even though we are both reasonably well read. I continue this without attempting to steer you away from your convictions - and I respect that which you hold dear. But for me, notions of collaboration and competition do not really belong to the realm of biological evolution, just as they do not belong to chemistry: even if we talk if different elemental atoms ‘competing’ for e.g. an oxygen atom, we are only doing so in a rather free sense.
Spencer (and others) wanted to use Darwinism to describe and illuminate social policy, but it could easily be argued that they read into Darwin what it was they were already committed to; read e.g. Kropotkin’s ‘Mutual Aid’ for a completely different steer that is just as informed by Darwin but with radically distinct conclusions.
I reckon Jonathan Haidt’s ‘the righteous mind’ is a great place to start (if somewhat reductive) looking at how politics becomes polarised - but be warned - one ends up with some form of Pluralism or another!
Because nothing in this world was ever accomplished through competition that couldn't have been done far better through cooperation. But also, socialism (by it's name) requires us to understand and empathise with those who aren't ourselves (or extensions of ourselves). That itself supports a pluralist stance, which itself weakens the traditional conservative / libertarian ethical foundations.
Socialism is a natural conclusion of the agora - when we are in the agora, we must deal with the fact that our views and beliefs are just one way of being - and we must work with those who hold differing - and even heterogenous views.
The Conservatism/Libertarian Right is an artefact of the rural, where strangers are to be feared rather than to be welcomed as trading partners.
Chukwa the world turtle, is swimming through the Ocean of Milk (aka the milky way(. It's only necessary to have something for the turtle to stand on if one already asserts the relatively modern idea of empty space as we know it. "turtle's all the way down is" a misinterpretation (the story a fabrication), attempting to make the believer look foolish. A sensible answer to "What is the tortoise standing on?" would be "The turtle is swimming", or "The ocean of milk, which is bottomless".
It is about as humorous as asking a Christian creationist - "So, what day was it before Monday" - and the reply being - "Oh, every day was a Monday before that". Quite funny, if you aren't a creationist.
If we accept the Chukwa myth on it's metaphorical basis, then it's not dissimilar from all those marbles-on-mattresses pictures used to show the curvature of space-time under gravitational fields, If we were to cross-pollinate the metaphor, we could say that the child Chukwa is swimming around a whirlpool caused by the mighty Surya-Chukwa (the sun-turtle), while the baby Chandra-Chukwa (moon) is swimming around a similar 'whirlpool' created by our own Chukwa.
So, just because current science prefer marbles and mattresses, it doesn't make it particularly funny if someone else uses turtles and oceans. What makes it sad is when someone takes another myth and ridicules it in a short-sighted, and arrogant, manner. Moreover, the (rather tired) scientific misogyny comes out in naming the person in question as being a woman.
Sorry - but this article is just clickbait. Someone is getting paid for the number of watches of black-panther-clip-dora-milaje-fight-scene at screen rant. Move along. Nothing interesting at all.
UFO existence has been an incredibly powerful and useful disinformation weapon used by the USA for over 50 years. Why on earth stop now? Elizondo is obviously in PSYOP, and he is correct - there's still some legs to the UFO game, even though xkcd demonstrated the fact that UFO's just aren't there with https://xkcd.com/1235/
The assumption, that the world is the same, and languages are attached to it, lies at the bottom of the idea of this learning strategy. The example given - of 'table and chairs' demonstrates this. Most of these ideas belong to a 19th century eurocentric understanding of the world we live in. Modern neuroscience and other work points to the fact that the world we perceive is very much dominated by the language we use, and not the other way around.
Concrete Example: For a large portion of the 19th-20th Century many Greeks measured distance in cigarettes - how many cigarettes I will smoke while travelling from one place to another. There is no cognate in English for this. Not only that, but the language usage indicates a specific timespan as well as cultural differences.
"Idiom!" I hear you say. Consider cultures where there are many more tables than there are chairs - such as in Asia where most people sit on the floor or on cushions.
"But there are some universals - we can still use those!" - generally, there are no universals, or so few that they are not worth talking about. Talk to an anthropologist about it. Not even the concept of 'mother' is a universal.
Your assumption that the views of the parent are leftist do more to betray your own ideology than cast any light on the author. Meanwhile, the lack of technical content and complete lack of reasoning in your narrative, mixed with declarative rhetorical statements strongly suggests that the Conservatives suit you down to the ground.
Regardless, and in light of your fascination with politics, I strongly recommend you read Jonathon Haidt's well-received book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion". Not because I want you to shift your political views - but merely so that you can understand why some great thinkers, scientists, philosophers, (and yes, morons) vote Left. The book is ingenious in that it allows us to empathise and relate to each side of the political (and religious) divide in a meaningful and well structured manner.
As for the business of criminalising reversing anonymisation, I agree, it's a good idea in principle, but it is essentially a straw man: The exemptions will include the police and intelligence services, who don't break domestic laws by spying on their neighbours, but then swap the data over. Meanwhile, big business (e.g., the likes of Facebook, etc) don't need to even try to reverse anonymity - they already know more about you than your mother does, and for all the wrong reasons.
One of the difficulties facing the challenge of modern PI obfuscation is that it's pretty trivial to reverse anonymity, which itself makes it very hard to develop clinical environments for social and medical research. Take, for instance, a clinical trial: If the sponsor (the pharmaceutical company) is able to identify an individual patient engaged in the trial, then the trial has, essentially, failed (Why? Because there is no way of subsequently demonstrating that the sponsor has then not used a back-channel to skew the data), which can be very expensive indeed.
This set of laws does very little to address those issues - because it's making it illegal to reverse anonymity - a bit like locking the door after the horse has bolted.
Instead, it would be far more useful to develop and publish a set of standards for anonymising data (and many other aspects of the IT industry), just as we find in e.g. the construction industry. The difficulty with that is that the big players (the likes of Oracle, Microsoft, and so on) use their significant lobbying power to provide standards that implicitly require a lock-in to their own platforms. (We can see analogous examples of this in, for instance, MOD field and operations computers which are often stuck to running Windows 95).
It's early days - we are still very much in the cowboy era of the 'new frontier'. Legislation, and the legislative process altogether is ineffective and inefficient as a means of mitigation, because technology is changing far too rapidly for legislation to ever catch up. Try Charlie Stross' text: Accelerando as a great (and entertaining) source for this. (Free, as in beer, copy: http://www.antipope.org/charli... )
So there are loads of people who seem to find his exploits bad or wrong. But I think - great, go for it. Those MMOs are either overtly or covertly encouraging many people to spend huge amounts of time (and often, hard cash) for a meager award. The games companies are not much more than modern parasites - and 'Manfred' is merely a parasite's parasite.
Who, actually, gets harmed. The gamers want the cash - he can supply it at market rates - and the publishers are already horrendously bloated and fattened on the continual streams of micropayments.
Maybe because his name is a reference to the Prantagonist of Accelerando, but I, for one, am in favour of Manfred's profession.
So, what I don't get is the political angle on this. I don't think there are very many people who deny that the climate is changing any more. Sure, there's a question of whether or not it's being substantially caused by human activity. Sure, I (along with 98% scientists) believe that there is a correlation. But regardless of human activity, are there really people out there who deny the correlation between CO2 and CC, regardless of human involvement?
Maybe they should go and spend some time on Venus.
On the other hand, you could just subscribe to a real news-for-geeks site such as eurekalert.org and read all about what's happening days or weeks before the news gets hammered by general press, or turned into a blog item for some blogger to post onto/. hoping to generate more traffic to his/her blog.
Slashdot Mirror
@turp182, as you say, the process of house-building could be far more automated; I assume you got that my point was that the 3D printed house claim was a bit far-fetched for a single (important) component of a house build.
Nice link to the house factory website.. Pretty hideous - but also pretty cool, I guess.
There are so many approaches to really cool house-building. Where I live, amongst the endless terraced houses of North London (UK), all built in the late 19th Century during the massive London population acceleration, the main material is brick - all of which were made pretty-much on-site from the local earth, and big kilns. So the energy and wood were transported in - but the main building material was taken from on-site.
It would be really cool to use the existing materials of an area - to build the site automatically. Yes - glass, etc. may need to come from further afield.
I rather like the idea of a semi-autonomous house-building machine wandering off into the desert creating endless variations of house and residential area, based on some elegant fractal algorithm, using what materials there are, and the sun and wind for it's energy supply. I guess one could start off looking at adobe - basically something not much more complex than a giant sandcastle robot.
Well, the video helps to see what they used the 3D printer for. It's pretty cool - but there were a huge amount of traditional building techniques used. Foundations, fillings, doorways, windows, roofing, interior walls cabling, drainage and water supply - all done by pink goo beings. But the insulation was 3D printed - and it's quite fun.
I would make my own Internet. I would not be alone.
We would have the DRinternet and the FRinternet.
It would be good. You would know that anything on FRinternet is free from DRM.
So, the whole of wikipedia would be there for a start.
Anyone who wanted to be on FRinternet would have to let go of any DRM.
I would ensure that the domain services are separate so that by design one cannot link to the DRinternet from the FRinternet.
Isn't it called TOR?
This is pretty https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Realtime dynamic radiosity rendering is nice - it's used a lot in gaming for developing static patches.
We also developed the SPX viewer which allowed for 'lots' of colours! I seem to recall that much of the imagery was pr0n. But we were teenagers.
Ah but we used to break those boundaries as well! I was on a demo crew who played with overscan - cf. http://aldabase.com/atari-st-f...
I didn't find the trilogy boring, but I didn't find it covered any new ground either. Likewise, the premise and the conclusion seemed to be rather weak. I guess it's rather unexciting that they should turn this into a TV series..
Something like Gibson's Bigend trilogy would work better for me (I guess the sprawl trilogy would be misconceived as a copycat of all of it's copycats) - or any of the Mieville novels. Lem's Star Diaries would be fun - or the cyberiad. Even though Tarkovsky had a go, the Strugatsky's Roadside Picnic would be an epic series.
But then none of these involve chinese authors...
That should read:- "You appear NOT to identify that a socialist government"
This is just an uneducated and poor representation of what is socialism. The notion of 'government' is very different within a socialist framework than it is from a right-wing framework.
You appear to identify that a socialist government, with public ownership of many state services, is a corporation and normally the nation's largest employer, exploiting efficiencies of scale in order to deliver cost-effective services to the population. The primary difficulty facing a socialist government are to do with inefficiencies creeping in due to a lack of effective competition. This one issue is what has been keeping western european nations occupied for the last 40 years.
As to 'enforcing surrender of assets (time, wealth)' - this is called taxation. It certainly isn't an artefact of socialism, but it is part of a general social contract that the citizen has with her/his legal membership to the sovereign state. There is nobody stopping us from changing our citizenship to that of, eg, Panama - where you are not be expected to pay tax on money earned off-shore. Of course, you will lose all the other perks of your current nationality - which for western europe is state-sponsored education, healthcare, pensions, housing, policing, military defence, and many other benefits.
You are conflating Pluralism with Relativism.
My understanding is different to yours, even though we are both reasonably well read. I continue this without attempting to steer you away from your convictions - and I respect that which you hold dear. But for me, notions of collaboration and competition do not really belong to the realm of biological evolution, just as they do not belong to chemistry: even if we talk if different elemental atoms ‘competing’ for e.g. an oxygen atom, we are only doing so in a rather free sense.
Spencer (and others) wanted to use Darwinism to describe and illuminate social policy, but it could easily be argued that they read into Darwin what it was they were already committed to; read e.g. Kropotkin’s ‘Mutual Aid’ for a completely different steer that is just as informed by Darwin but with radically distinct conclusions.
I reckon Jonathan Haidt’s ‘the righteous mind’ is a great place to start (if somewhat reductive) looking at how politics becomes polarised - but be warned - one ends up with some form of Pluralism or another!
You are conflating Herbert Spencer with Charles Darwin. You wouldn’t be the first.
Because nothing in this world was ever accomplished through competition that couldn't have been done far better through cooperation.
But also, socialism (by it's name) requires us to understand and empathise with those who aren't ourselves (or extensions of ourselves). That itself supports a pluralist stance, which itself weakens the traditional conservative / libertarian ethical foundations.
Socialism is a natural conclusion of the agora - when we are in the agora, we must deal with the fact that our views and beliefs are just one way of being - and we must work with those who hold differing - and even heterogenous views.
The Conservatism/Libertarian Right is an artefact of the rural, where strangers are to be feared rather than to be welcomed as trading partners.
Chukwa the world turtle, is swimming through the Ocean of Milk (aka the milky way(. It's only necessary to have something for the turtle to stand on if one already asserts the relatively modern idea of empty space as we know it. "turtle's all the way down is" a misinterpretation (the story a fabrication), attempting to make the believer look foolish. A sensible answer to "What is the tortoise standing on?" would be "The turtle is swimming", or "The ocean of milk, which is bottomless".
It is about as humorous as asking a Christian creationist - "So, what day was it before Monday" - and the reply being - "Oh, every day was a Monday before that". Quite funny, if you aren't a creationist.
If we accept the Chukwa myth on it's metaphorical basis, then it's not dissimilar from all those marbles-on-mattresses pictures used to show the curvature of space-time under gravitational fields, If we were to cross-pollinate the metaphor, we could say that the child Chukwa is swimming around a whirlpool caused by the mighty Surya-Chukwa (the sun-turtle), while the baby Chandra-Chukwa (moon) is swimming around a similar 'whirlpool' created by our own Chukwa.
So, just because current science prefer marbles and mattresses, it doesn't make it particularly funny if someone else uses turtles and oceans. What makes it sad is when someone takes another myth and ridicules it in a short-sighted, and arrogant, manner. Moreover, the (rather tired) scientific misogyny comes out in naming the person in question as being a woman.
Wish I could mod parent up. Yes, you are exactly right - and you know it.
Sorry - but this article is just clickbait. Someone is getting paid for the number of watches of black-panther-clip-dora-milaje-fight-scene at screen rant.
Move along. Nothing interesting at all.
UFO existence has been an incredibly powerful and useful disinformation weapon used by the USA for over 50 years. Why on earth stop now? Elizondo is obviously in PSYOP, and he is correct - there's still some legs to the UFO game, even though xkcd demonstrated the fact that UFO's just aren't there with https://xkcd.com/1235/
The assumption, that the world is the same, and languages are attached to it, lies at the bottom of the idea of this learning strategy. The example given - of 'table and chairs' demonstrates this. Most of these ideas belong to a 19th century eurocentric understanding of the world we live in. Modern neuroscience and other work points to the fact that the world we perceive is very much dominated by the language we use, and not the other way around.
Concrete Example: For a large portion of the 19th-20th Century many Greeks measured distance in cigarettes - how many cigarettes I will smoke while travelling from one place to another. There is no cognate in English for this. Not only that, but the language usage indicates a specific timespan as well as cultural differences.
"Idiom!" I hear you say. Consider cultures where there are many more tables than there are chairs - such as in Asia where most people sit on the floor or on cushions.
"But there are some universals - we can still use those!" - generally, there are no universals, or so few that they are not worth talking about. Talk to an anthropologist about it. Not even the concept of 'mother' is a universal.
Your assumption that the views of the parent are leftist do more to betray your own ideology than cast any light on the author.
Meanwhile, the lack of technical content and complete lack of reasoning in your narrative, mixed with declarative rhetorical statements strongly suggests that the Conservatives suit you down to the ground.
Regardless, and in light of your fascination with politics, I strongly recommend you read Jonathon Haidt's well-received book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion". Not because I want you to shift your political views - but merely so that you can understand why some great thinkers, scientists, philosophers, (and yes, morons) vote Left. The book is ingenious in that it allows us to empathise and relate to each side of the political (and religious) divide in a meaningful and well structured manner.
As for the business of criminalising reversing anonymisation, I agree, it's a good idea in principle, but it is essentially a straw man: The exemptions will include the police and intelligence services, who don't break domestic laws by spying on their neighbours, but then swap the data over. Meanwhile, big business (e.g., the likes of Facebook, etc) don't need to even try to reverse anonymity - they already know more about you than your mother does, and for all the wrong reasons.
One of the difficulties facing the challenge of modern PI obfuscation is that it's pretty trivial to reverse anonymity, which itself makes it very hard to develop clinical environments for social and medical research. Take, for instance, a clinical trial: If the sponsor (the pharmaceutical company) is able to identify an individual patient engaged in the trial, then the trial has, essentially, failed (Why? Because there is no way of subsequently demonstrating that the sponsor has then not used a back-channel to skew the data), which can be very expensive indeed.
This set of laws does very little to address those issues - because it's making it illegal to reverse anonymity - a bit like locking the door after the horse has bolted.
Instead, it would be far more useful to develop and publish a set of standards for anonymising data (and many other aspects of the IT industry), just as we find in e.g. the construction industry. The difficulty with that is that the big players (the likes of Oracle, Microsoft, and so on) use their significant lobbying power to provide standards that implicitly require a lock-in to their own platforms. (We can see analogous examples of this in, for instance, MOD field and operations computers which are often stuck to running Windows 95).
It's early days - we are still very much in the cowboy era of the 'new frontier'. Legislation, and the legislative process altogether is ineffective and inefficient as a means of mitigation, because technology is changing far too rapidly for legislation to ever catch up. Try Charlie Stross' text: Accelerando as a great (and entertaining) source for this. (Free, as in beer, copy: http://www.antipope.org/charli... )
So there are loads of people who seem to find his exploits bad or wrong. But I think - great, go for it. Those MMOs are either overtly or covertly encouraging many people to spend huge amounts of time (and often, hard cash) for a meager award. The games companies are not much more than modern parasites - and 'Manfred' is merely a parasite's parasite.
Who, actually, gets harmed. The gamers want the cash - he can supply it at market rates - and the publishers are already horrendously bloated and fattened on the continual streams of micropayments.
Maybe because his name is a reference to the Prantagonist of Accelerando, but I, for one, am in favour of Manfred's profession.
So, what I don't get is the political angle on this. I don't think there are very many people who deny that the climate is changing any more. Sure, there's a question of whether or not it's being substantially caused by human activity. Sure, I (along with 98% scientists) believe that there is a correlation. But regardless of human activity, are there really people out there who deny the correlation between CO2 and CC, regardless of human involvement?
Maybe they should go and spend some time on Venus.
Yes, friend, I guess you could say that.
On the other hand, you could just subscribe to a real news-for-geeks site such as eurekalert.org and read all about what's happening days or weeks before the news gets hammered by general press, or turned into a blog item for some blogger to post onto /. hoping to generate more traffic to his/her blog.
Here's news: ''Synestia'': a new type of planetary object.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub...
Slashdot is so dead.
This isn't news. This is olds.
What's going on? Editors, wake up please.