> [...] do you have any idea how much waste-heat you're talking about?
As SpyHunter and others have pointed out, the cells in your body are already doing this, so depending on the armaments used in the "war", the waste-heat situation could be nominal.
>I know! We'll inject 30 mg./kg of DMT into the whole human race while having our "god modules" stimulated by Transcranial magnetic induction! Yeah that'll do it.
So you're saying that no matter how bad anything gets, as long as we're sufficiently buzzed, it'll be OK...
That sounds like a plan for another societal model, this time from fiction: THX1138 http://imdb.com/title/tt0066434/
It wasn't exactly like you describe, but the idea was to keep people sedated enough they couldn't assert themselves.
>I seem to recall something about this idea on the TV show Andromeda [...] the Nietzscheans whose bodies had nanobots that would fight off attacking nanobots.
Damn... You mean even at my most prophetic, I'm no better than cheezy science fiction?;-)
>Why do people think we're suddenly going to be able to build nanomachines to do amazing feats that bacteria can't do after billions of years of evolution?
Because THIS TIME, WE are in charge!
Think about it; if evolution as a theory is true, nature look like it doesn't have any SPECIFIC plans, s/he's just shakin' the dice and throwing them. Imagine when we'll be steering!
You're right, we have a lot to learn, but imagine what we'll do, eventually.
Er... Maybe I should have added "if we don't kill ourselves first"
>Personally, I think interest in "nanobots" is misguided.
I don't. I like the idea of being able to transmute a set of molecular chains into another... Alchemy... It's what wizards have quested for for millenia!
>We have a template for working nanomachines that is time-tested and proven: DNA for central program storage and replication, RNA for messaging, [..]
DNA... RNA... Are those standards bodies or body standards? LOL
>Nano-research should focus on biology, [..]
Not exclusively, come on. We're going to re-define what biology is. Maybe even invent non-carbon biologies.
>Imagine what an army of ricin-bearing nanotech assassins could do to a UN delegation?
And with that, the genie is out of the bottle!
Just kidding, but yeah, every paranoid scenario may eventually get played out.
Progress is cool because it doesn't happen very fast.
As a rule, it takes a while for people or societies to change or adapt, and that gives bad evolutionary solutions the time to wither and die if they aren't truly useful.
With stuff like this however, things could end up going so fast that by comparison, human beings from THIS day and age may have trouble identifying beings from say 300 years into the future, as human by our current definition...
Maybe progress is just a *little* too fast, these days...
Re:I wonder if it'll eventually come to this -
on
Diamond Age Approaching?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
>I'm not convinced that a tiny nanobot army is going to be more intelligent, adaptable or effective as my own immune system anytime soon.
Maybe not at first, but eventually, yes. Just compare the very first computers with what we have now.
Maybe back when computers started, a problem (system crash or somesuch) would come along every 1000 machine-cycels or so, and have to be straightened out by an operator.
Now, computers perform billions of machine-cycles reliably.
Of course, the number has gotten bigger, but the amount of uptime versus downtime may not have improved so much...
Think about the implications for humanity much further down the line.
If we DON'T destroy ourselves, we'll reach an evolutionary dead-end.
We won't need better immunitary systems, we'll have mechanical one!
Every aspect that is sub-par will be fixed by machines, and our DNA or whatever it is that is controlling our evolution will be obsolete!
THAT'S something to ponder... I don't know whether I'm dizzy from elation or fear.
To be fair, I made a typo in my orginal post - the article says Daimler-Chrysler hasn't used Linux for seven years.
Same difference though.
On an interesting aside, *I* HAVE used SCO Unix (back in '92, I believe), and both times I did, it proved to foreshadow today's events:
Being a COMPLETE newbie with anything *nix in those days, I was nonetheless given the task to shut down and restart a SCO Unix server.
Being clueless (I admit), I fiddled around until I simply got fed-up and pressed the reset button on the PC.
Now I KNOW that that is NO WAY to go about things, but as I said, I was clueless.
The computer never successfully booted again. The admin had to reformat and reinstall everything. I had somehow totally screwed the filesystem on the machine in a way the operating system could not recover.
I was a Windows-person back then, and I remember thinking smarmily "What a crap OS, at least with Windows, that doesn't happen"
The second time was when we had to install SCO Unix to use it as a test-development server for one of our products.
The mouse we had for the computer was some generic type of mouse, and it WASN'T supported by SCO.
Never fear, let's CALL SCO and ask if they can help us -
"No problem sir, we'll support your make of mouse, $15K, please"
Let's say that we found a different solution, and every time after that when we needed *nix, we DIDN'T choose SCO. SCO came to be considered by all the techies I knew as being expensive, and not being good quality. Let's hope there HASN'T been any of their code copied into Linux, right?
So SCO has really underwhelmed me so far. I figure this current bit is more of the same.
Yes, but obviously not in the spirit which the system of laws was intended.
It's EXACTLY that kind technical hair-splitting that is cheapening humanity in general; no one wants to play fair.
And there are probably slimy counter-counter-tactics that each party will resort to before this is over, but in the end there won't be any true accountability.
I am not kidding when I say I worked on diagrams in Visio2000 and use WinSCP almost every day under Wine. Very stable. Not without glitches, but definitely preferable to a dual-boot in my case.
Here's an article that might help you get MSVC (v6.0 I believe) running under Wine. As you pointed out, NO GUI, but you can indeed compile with it, apparently. I haven't tried it.
In my case, instead of getting MSDEV working on Linux, I decided to drop MSDEV in favour of GCC. I'm porting from Windows/MSDEV to GCC for Windows Mac and Linux.
As for transitions, I simply jumped ship one day. About 5 months ago now, I changed from Windows to linux at home.
And this is after MANY years of knowing Windows inside&out, and not knowing Linux at all.
It was a damned tough go there at first, but I have come to believe nothing can stop me now, what with all the other people trying to do the same thing that can guide me...
i don't know what your situation is, of course, so for you, Windows may be the best solution...
Good luck in whatever endeavour you embark. Cheers.
Wine has been evolving steadily. The Wine developers have succeeded in modularizing just about every aspect of their Windows API to the point where a whole other operating system (ReactOS) can use it! Not to mention that there has also been some cross-pollination of Wine with Cygwin.
THOSE are the solutions to bet on, and not simply because they're older and more established but because they are open-source and have been audited by thousands, with some of the best minds on the planet on top of it!
How is ONE company going to match that without the same number of developers and expertise?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... OK, I DIDN'T understand what you meant originally.
Interesting idea, subvert war by religious experience.
The only thing I'd worry about is the eventual differences of opinions all those cults would have.
Eventually there'd be a bunch of "true" children of God whose plans would undoubtedly include bombing all the infidels.
I feel a heightened perception IS the way to go, but I fear that human nature may still prevent such a lovely vision from being accomplished.
Still, it would probably be fun!
> [...] do you have any idea how much waste-heat you're talking about?
As SpyHunter and others have pointed out, the cells in your body are already doing this, so depending on the armaments used in the "war", the waste-heat situation could be nominal.
I wonder if containment issues will be enough to prevent terrorists from using them...
If it is too difficult to handle without getting yourself killed, I mean.
It doesn't seem that far-fetched to think something similar might already have happened.
For example, terrorist(s) died handling uranium while trying to create a bomb of some type.
Maybe the nano-technology will have similar pitfalls when used destructively.
>I know! We'll inject 30 mg./kg of DMT into the whole human race while having our "god modules" stimulated by Transcranial magnetic induction! Yeah that'll do it.
So you're saying that no matter how bad anything gets, as long as we're sufficiently buzzed, it'll be OK...
That sounds like a plan for another societal model, this time from fiction: THX1138
http://imdb.com/title/tt0066434/
It wasn't exactly like you describe, but the idea was to keep people sedated enough they couldn't assert themselves.
>I seem to recall something about this idea on the TV show Andromeda [...] the Nietzscheans whose bodies had nanobots that would fight off attacking nanobots.
;-)
Damn... You mean even at my most prophetic, I'm no better than cheezy science fiction?
>Why do people think we're suddenly going to be able to build nanomachines to do amazing feats that bacteria can't do after billions of years of evolution?
Because THIS TIME, WE are in charge!
Think about it; if evolution as a theory is true, nature look like it doesn't have any SPECIFIC plans, s/he's just shakin' the dice and throwing them. Imagine when we'll be steering!
You're right, we have a lot to learn, but imagine what we'll do, eventually.
Er... Maybe I should have added "if we don't kill ourselves first"
>Personally, I think interest in "nanobots" is misguided.
I don't. I like the idea of being able to transmute a set of molecular chains into another... Alchemy... It's what wizards have quested for for millenia!
>We have a template for working nanomachines that is time-tested and proven: DNA for central program storage and replication, RNA for messaging, [..]
DNA... RNA... Are those standards bodies or body standards? LOL
>Nano-research should focus on biology, [..]
Not exclusively, come on. We're going to re-define what biology is. Maybe even invent non-carbon biologies.
*rimshot*
It was early '94 actually.
Totally my fault, really. It was the dumbest thing to do, push reset...
LOL
But to plead on my own behalf, I thought SCO could take it!
LOL
Sorry, typo on my part, I meant they hadn't used Linux, not SCO Unix.
My bad.
>Imagine what an army of ricin-bearing nanotech assassins could do to a UN delegation?
And with that, the genie is out of the bottle!
Just kidding, but yeah, every paranoid scenario may eventually get played out.
Progress is cool because it doesn't happen very fast.
As a rule, it takes a while for people or societies to change or adapt, and that gives bad evolutionary solutions the time to wither and die if they aren't truly useful.
With stuff like this however, things could end up going so fast that by comparison, human beings from THIS day and age may have trouble identifying beings from say 300 years into the future, as human by our current definition...
Maybe progress is just a *little* too fast, these days...
>I'm not convinced that a tiny nanobot army is going to be more intelligent, adaptable or effective as my own immune system anytime soon.
Maybe not at first, but eventually, yes.
Just compare the very first computers with what we have now.
Maybe back when computers started, a problem (system crash or somesuch) would come along every 1000 machine-cycels or so, and have to be straightened out by an operator.
Now, computers perform billions of machine-cycles reliably.
Of course, the number has gotten bigger, but the amount of uptime versus downtime may not have improved so much...
Think about the implications for humanity much further down the line.
If we DON'T destroy ourselves, we'll reach an evolutionary dead-end.
We won't need better immunitary systems, we'll have mechanical one!
Every aspect that is sub-par will be fixed by machines, and our DNA or whatever it is that is controlling our evolution will be obsolete!
THAT'S something to ponder...
I don't know whether I'm dizzy from elation or fear.
Might be hunger, I better go eat.
I hear you.
But you know, there has been a small positive side in this for you; you've obviously developed your understanding of law and legal proceedings.
I know it's a sort of sad-education, but what can I say, you'll have to distill the good that you can out of it.
Rock on, killjoe.
Maybe the people that can afford it in the future will have scads of nanobots in their bodies, patrolling it.
The human body will turn into the next battleground, and nano-armies will be the ones fighting on it.
After all, if bio-terrorism is going in that direction, someone will develop counter-measures.
Whole armies fighting between the pores of your skin and in your tissues - weird!
To be fair, I made a typo in my orginal post - the article says Daimler-Chrysler hasn't used Linux for seven years.
Same difference though.
On an interesting aside, *I* HAVE used SCO Unix (back in '92, I believe), and both times I did, it proved to foreshadow today's events:
Being a COMPLETE newbie with anything *nix in those days, I was nonetheless given the task to shut down and restart a SCO Unix server.
Being clueless (I admit), I fiddled around until I simply got fed-up and pressed the reset button on the PC.
Now I KNOW that that is NO WAY to go about things, but as I said, I was clueless.
The computer never successfully booted again.
The admin had to reformat and reinstall everything. I had somehow totally screwed the filesystem on the machine in a way the operating system could not recover.
I was a Windows-person back then, and I remember thinking smarmily "What a crap OS, at least with Windows, that doesn't happen"
The second time was when we had to install SCO Unix to use it as a test-development server for one of our products.
The mouse we had for the computer was some generic type of mouse, and it WASN'T supported by SCO.
Never fear, let's CALL SCO and ask if they can help us -
"No problem sir, we'll support your make of mouse, $15K, please"
Let's say that we found a different solution, and every time after that when we needed *nix, we DIDN'T choose SCO. SCO came to be considered by all the techies I knew as being expensive, and not being good quality. Let's hope there HASN'T been any of their code copied into Linux, right?
So SCO has really underwhelmed me so far. I figure this current bit is more of the same.
>they *are* being fought by the rules.
Yes, but obviously not in the spirit which the system of laws was intended.
It's EXACTLY that kind technical hair-splitting that is cheapening humanity in general; no one wants to play fair.
And there are probably slimy counter-counter-tactics that each party will resort to before this is over, but in the end there won't be any true accountability.
You're right, I *don't* like it.
You know, you're probably right.
I keep expecting these things to be fought by the rules and with truth.
I *am* naive.
>The first thing any lawyer does in almost any case is file for dismissal on some obscure precedent.
Not having used SCO Unix for seven years isn't really an obscure point, is it?
The fact they have a SOLUTION for Linux is what I'm talking about.
Maybe you should pass some of what you're smoking around too, we might have an even better time!
First they buckle and develop MediaPlayer Codecs for Linux, and now this.
Of course there will continue to be a Microsoft for a LONG time, but they just won't matter very much anymore.
You might find this funny.
Cache is from the french word "hide"
And at least in some places, cache-sexe is used to refer to something put over your genitals!
Sounds like you're promoting anarchy.
btw you should have posted AC, your point has merit.
>Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?
All rights that are not defended will fall by the wayside.
I am not kidding when I say I worked on diagrams in Visio2000 and use WinSCP almost every day under Wine. Very stable. Not without glitches, but definitely preferable to a dual-boot in my case.
i th -gnu-wine.html
Here's an article that might help you get MSVC (v6.0 I believe) running under Wine. As you pointed out, NO GUI, but you can indeed compile with it, apparently. I haven't tried it.
http://codingstyle.com/articles/using-ms-vcpp-w
I hope that helps.
In my case, instead of getting MSDEV working on Linux, I decided to drop MSDEV in favour of GCC. I'm porting from Windows/MSDEV to GCC for Windows Mac and Linux.
As for transitions, I simply jumped ship one day.
About 5 months ago now, I changed from Windows to linux at home.
And this is after MANY years of knowing Windows inside&out, and not knowing Linux at all.
It was a damned tough go there at first, but I have come to believe nothing can stop me now, what with all the other people trying to do the same thing that can guide me...
i don't know what your situation is, of course, so for you, Windows may be the best solution...
Good luck in whatever endeavour you embark.
Cheers.
True, Wine DOES need a lot of tweaking before the apps run right.
.DLL files.
Typically, there are missing
I've run Visio2000 with it, and I run WinSCP on it every day, practically.
Sure, Wine is not quite ready for the primetime, but I think you'd need something like Crossover most times when you want to do anything fancy.
Wine has been evolving steadily.
The Wine developers have succeeded in modularizing just about every aspect of their Windows API to the point where a whole other operating system (ReactOS) can use it!
Not to mention that there has also been some cross-pollination of Wine with Cygwin.
THOSE are the solutions to bet on, and not simply because they're older and more established but because they are open-source and have been audited by thousands, with some of the best minds on the planet on top of it!
How is ONE company going to match that without the same number of developers and expertise?
I remain sceptical, but I do wish them luck.