the end of t2 pretty much just reset the entire loop. cyberdyne systems will probably [i]still[/i] develop skynet, but much later than the timeline given in the first movie.
That's my theory, too. I mean, it can go any way we want it to, right? It is science fiction.
The question is, in T3, will John Connor try to stop the machines from wrecking shit in the first place? For example, are all the major cities going to be nuked? Or will there be some daring heroics in which John blows up SkyNet before it becomes self-aware? Lotsa possibilities!
BTW, your tagline is strong.
Re:Why not new Nobel Prizes? Math Prize and more..
on
Nobel Prizes Awarded
·
· Score: 1
The economics prize is not a true Nobel prize. It's "The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and NOT funded out of Nobel's estate.
Of course... this is why I said the economics prize is "sort of" a new one. But like I said, you could imagine something similar. The U. Stockholm math department, or the Mittag-Leffler Institute (if there is such a thing) could start offering a math prize, and then eventually this could be subsumed into the Nobel prize ceremony. Philosophically, we could argue whether or not this is a "real" prize, but I'd take it...
Anyway, I think it's unlikely that this will happen, because, as I said before, there is no perceived need for a math prize. But it's possible even in keeping with the Nobel tradition. It's a good question about math. For example, there is the Fields medal, which is sort of like a math Nobel, but it is different in certain ways, and rewards different kinds of work. The tradition is not to give it to a mathematician over 40 (which is simply ridiculous... e.g. Andrew Wiles didn't get one for proving Fermat's Last Theorem, because he was in his early 40s. If there were a Nobel in math, he would have gotten it.), and it tends to reward "foundational" work as opposed to one big result, as the Nobel focuses on.
Ehh...
Re:Why not new Nobel Prizes? Math Prize and more..
on
Nobel Prizes Awarded
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Nobel's direction for his money was pretty clear so it's unlikely there will ever be new prizes.
This doesn't follow. The economics prize of sort of new. You could imagine something similar happening with math, for example.
Not that it's necessary, mind you, because there's no real need for a math Nobel prize at this point...
So, why can't there be a CPU in the arm? Maybe it's some seriously distributed processing.
On the other hand, maybe they don't have the CPU or anything like it. But a robotic hand that came from a futuristic Terminator could teach us a hell of a lot anyway. So it would just take longer for those dudes to develop AI. And, they'd have to make it happen later anyway, because as far as I can remember, SkyNet was supposed to become "self-aware" (whatever the fuck that means) in 1997.
So check this out. The Connors' throwing Arnold and his shit into the lava did slow down the AI development, and change the future. But it didn't change it enough! Now, we'll be moving slowly with only the arm instead of the chip, so now SkyNet will become self-aware in 2013. But it will still rock our house.
Well, Sumo is broadcast on ESPN now. I don't know whether or not it's live, but if it were live, it would be in the middle of the night, which is when ESPN broadcats Sumo. So who knows?
Well, at the very least, I can think of a couple of possibilities. We could build some sort of intra-brain prosthetic for people with brain damage. For example, if someone had a lesion which interfered with their ability to see, presumably, we could eventually "rewire" that part of the visual cortex back up.
On the other hand, we could develop some kind of organic computing. Science fiction aside, though, I'm not sure what advantage an organic computer would give. But a lot of people seem to think this sort of thing would be useful, so what the hey...
That's a good point. I guess you sometimes know what someone's karma is close to, if you see what the post started at, but it would be useful to know this. I'm sort of surprised that they don't allow one to view it.
The overall lack of geographic features over the ocean pretty much negates most opportunities for static charges to balance themselves between earth and sky, without any points to collect at.
On the other hand, I know from being at sea during any type of storm, you can get some seriously big waves. I imagine that in the middle of the ocean, you'll have wave on the order of 10m high, at least. This seems like enough of a height variation.
I guess there's two reasons I can think of that you wouldn't have strikes over water: first, any charge on the "ground" would tend to disperse more rapidly than it would when you're on land, and second, there's less convection due to the night/day cycle, so the clouds over the ocean rub together a bit less.
I also noticed that the point most hit on the US seemed to be my hometown, New Orleans... I always expected that, baby!
Ok, I'm waiting for the flames. But I'm not trying to be flamebait here, I mean the title seriously.
I have used Linux, on and off, for the last 3-4 years. I've adminstered my own box, so I know a little. Now, I'm not a computer professional, and I know that there is a ton of stuff I don't know about Linux. For the record, I work in academia (I'm a faculty member of a very geek-dense university), and I've decided that for the kind of stuff I do, Linux is sometimes useful, sometimes not. One major, consistent, problem that I have had running Linux is that frequently, one must ask colleagues about how certain things work, how things are configured, etc. Most Linux "gurus" are, IMHO, arrogant about their knowledge, and not willing to explain, in reasonably simple terms, how something works. Look... because of my career path, I'm not inherently turned off by technical explanations, but when I ask a simple, straightforward question, and the answer is complicated and chock-full of jargon, it's a turn-off. I have even heard, on at least three separate occasions (involving three separate gurus) a "guru" tell someone who is trying to do something in Linux "Well, if you think it's too complicated, just use Windows." This attitude is, in my experience, much more the norm than the exception.
Now, of course, I know that there will be a bunch of people who don't agree that this is a common attitude, but I would wager that most of those people are people who are very well-versed, and heavily invested, in Linux. Of course you don't run into this attitude on a daily basis, simply because you're not having to ask experts questions which they feel are "beneath them".
Bottom line: Linux is, for even a technical person, way the hell harder to run "out of the box". It has some serious advantages, no question. But if you're a professional of some sort or another who needs computing, but doesn't really need to be able to hack the pull-down menus of your browser, M$ products are very attractive. And, in my experience, the situation is aggravated by the attitude of those with the knowledge.
Look, if I talked to my calculus students the way I've been talked to by Linux guys, I'd lose half my class. If all my colleagues did, the department would lose funding. Anyone trying to promote Linux in any way must consider these issues.
I must say I find the accussation that Global Warming is over discussed, hyped, etc... bemusing. To me FOOTBALL is overhyped, CELEBRITY is overhyped, the WEATHER is overhyped- each of these are covered in every news bulletin in the world, every day.
Until people generally have the scientific background to understand these issues there should be more not less discussion in the media. Atmospheric effects of mans activities are poorly understood, so two main points of view are adopted - 'how can little old us effect something so big???' and 'don't piss in the bath'.
Hear, here! Meterologists don't have the slightest idea of what is going on is our atmosphere these days. IANAM, but I am a mathematician who does some fluids, so I'm hearing from these atmosphere guys all of the time. No serious scientist claims to understand these mechanisms.
What we do know is that the tempature of the planet has risen, pretty dramatically, over the last century, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen steadily over the last 300 years. This is not necessarily a causal relationship, but we do have a mechanism by which they would be related (i.e. more CO2 -> more greenhouse effect -> more temperatures). Of course, we don't know that we are causing any of it. For example, maybe the sun got brighter, or whatever, and so the earth heated up, and this caused many plants to die, leading to an increase in CO2. There is (speculative) evidence that we are causing it, however, to some degree.
I think you're right about the two major points. The first position people take is specious. There are many examples of humans causing drastic biological and environmental changes. We have certainly caused changes big enough to end up affecting us. Can we raise the temperature of the earth? Who knows. We can, however, release enough junk into the air to wreck our own worlds, we have proved this time and again. I guess I'm more in the "don't piss in the bath" camp, because once we mess it up, it may very well be permanent. It is worth our while to be cautious.
Another thing which the anti-global-warming politicians and pundits need to be worried about: if the earth is warming up independent of us, this is not a victory for them! For example, let's say that we have some very small affect on global warming, and most of the warming is some natural process. We will then need to curb our emissions even more, because then we have less room for error. For example, if you're on a fixed income, and inflation goes up, you have to spend less. It's not your fault inflation went up, but you have to spend less anyway. Not fair, but c'est la vie.
Well, if enough people go on a climax-of-total-recall type midnight stroll through mars' atmosphere, perhaps the pressure will increase a little? I suggest starting with...
1: Most of the population from south of the mason-dixon line
2: Members of the Taliban, except osama, who should be executed in some unique medieval fashon
3: Racists
4: Sexists
5: Criminals
6: PETA Members:) j/k
I think that this post is telling us something. You feel comfortable lumping together all 80 million Southerners, yet after PETA, you felt that you had to put a "just kidding".
Don't worry, I'm not flaming you. I'm just saying your attitude is indicative of something in today's society...
I'd really love it if people would stop bashing an economic system they apparently know nothing about.
Yea, you heard me. Economic system. Communism has nothing to do with the way a government deals with it's citizen's rights. Commisism is merely an economic arrangement by which everything becomes public property. The government merely manages all aspects of an economy, essentially making the entire populace members of the public service. (Which, kinda has it's own problems, heh, heh...)
While what you say is strictly true on paper, I would say that it probably won't work out in practice. For example, it is technically true that socialism is an economic system, and democracy is a political system. But I think it is not possible to separate the economic and political situations of a country (or any other grouping).
For example, the former "Communist countries", which would be more accurately named "really, really socialist countries" could have, in theory, had that level of socialism without a totalitarian political structure. But in practice, the only efficient way for a government to consolidate all of that economic power is to use political power of some sort or another.
Now, of course, you're right that various levels of democracy and socialism can coexist, but I claim that they are not completely independent at all. And I might even go so far as to say that the optimal amount of democracy exists only when there is some level of socialism (like what we have here in the US, e.g.), because in a really free, completely unregulated market, the little man gets pushed out. So it is of course wrong to claim that democracy and socialism are diametrically opposed, as the original poster claimed. But neither are they independent.
In this day and age it wouldn't surprise me if a company was more irritated at a find like this than anything else
True... but what do you mean, "this day and age"? I think this would have always been true. Essentially, this is why so few of Imperial Roman buildings still exist in Rome; the subsequent Romans were always ripping them down for building materials (common), destroying them because they were pagan images (less common), or ripping them down so they could build something new (perhaps least common).
But, either way, a developer isn't going to be happy to find this. This is one thing we rarely have to deal with in the US, but it's pretty common in Europe, and, say, Israel. I don't know about the other parts of the Middle East, but I imagine most of the Arab governments have other things to worry about than archaeology.
Italy is quite amazing in that when ruins are found, they are generally left untouched. Rome is a great example of this in that there are vast ruins right in the downtown areas!!
This is true, although after spending some time in Italy and dealing with the infrastructure, I'm not sure that the ruins are there for archaeological reasons...
Does anyone know of any realistic engineering applications of superconductivity? For example, products that one might see after a room-temperature superconductor is developed?
I've heard all of these stories about stuff floating around, etc., but what's the real deal?
What is the true definition of patriotism: driving around with a flag flying off a pole mounted to the cab of my truck...or...fighting to insure that my personal freedom, privacy, and civil liberties are left intact once the troops come home.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my theory, too. I mean, it can go any way we want it to, right? It is science fiction.
The question is, in T3, will John Connor try to stop the machines from wrecking shit in the first place? For example, are all the major cities going to be nuked? Or will there be some daring heroics in which John blows up SkyNet before it becomes self-aware? Lotsa possibilities!
BTW, your tagline is strong.
Of course... this is why I said the economics prize is "sort of" a new one. But like I said, you could imagine something similar. The U. Stockholm math department, or the Mittag-Leffler Institute (if there is such a thing) could start offering a math prize, and then eventually this could be subsumed into the Nobel prize ceremony. Philosophically, we could argue whether or not this is a "real" prize, but I'd take it...
Anyway, I think it's unlikely that this will happen, because, as I said before, there is no perceived need for a math prize. But it's possible even in keeping with the Nobel tradition. It's a good question about math. For example, there is the Fields medal, which is sort of like a math Nobel, but it is different in certain ways, and rewards different kinds of work. The tradition is not to give it to a mathematician over 40 (which is simply ridiculous... e.g. Andrew Wiles didn't get one for proving Fermat's Last Theorem, because he was in his early 40s. If there were a Nobel in math, he would have gotten it.), and it tends to reward "foundational" work as opposed to one big result, as the Nobel focuses on.
Ehh...
This doesn't follow. The economics prize of sort of new. You could imagine something similar happening with math, for example.
Not that it's necessary, mind you, because there's no real need for a math Nobel prize at this point...
Excercise doesn't do jack. Period. Just do the math, one hour in gym increases your daily energy consumption in _low single digit_ percentage.
I repeat: One hour of _heavy labour_ has *minimal* effect on your daily energy use.
I'm not entirely sure where you got your information. For example, according to this website, a 200-lb person burns 900 Calories an hour jogging.
If that is a single digit increase in your daily energy use, then you're a machine!
On the other hand, maybe they don't have the CPU or anything like it. But a robotic hand that came from a futuristic Terminator could teach us a hell of a lot anyway. So it would just take longer for those dudes to develop AI. And, they'd have to make it happen later anyway, because as far as I can remember, SkyNet was supposed to become "self-aware" (whatever the fuck that means) in 1997.
So check this out. The Connors' throwing Arnold and his shit into the lava did slow down the AI development, and change the future. But it didn't change it enough! Now, we'll be moving slowly with only the arm instead of the chip, so now SkyNet will become self-aware in 2013. But it will still rock our house.
Hey, why not?
Well, Sumo is broadcast on ESPN now. I don't know whether or not it's live, but if it were live, it would be in the middle of the night, which is when ESPN broadcats Sumo. So who knows?
On the other hand, we could develop some kind of organic computing. Science fiction aside, though, I'm not sure what advantage an organic computer would give. But a lot of people seem to think this sort of thing would be useful, so what the hey...
That's a good point. I guess you sometimes know what someone's karma is close to, if you see what the post started at, but it would be useful to know this. I'm sort of surprised that they don't allow one to view it.
Interesting philosophical question: Do you read ACs?
Yeah! I've already bid on the 5th amendment... From now on, all you clowns have to incriminate yourselves, but not me... moooahhaha
On the other hand, I know from being at sea during any type of storm, you can get some seriously big waves. I imagine that in the middle of the ocean, you'll have wave on the order of 10m high, at least. This seems like enough of a height variation.
I guess there's two reasons I can think of that you wouldn't have strikes over water: first, any charge on the "ground" would tend to disperse more rapidly than it would when you're on land, and second, there's less convection due to the night/day cycle, so the clouds over the ocean rub together a bit less.
I also noticed that the point most hit on the US seemed to be my hometown, New Orleans... I always expected that, baby!
I have used Linux, on and off, for the last 3-4 years. I've adminstered my own box, so I know a little. Now, I'm not a computer professional, and I know that there is a ton of stuff I don't know about Linux. For the record, I work in academia (I'm a faculty member of a very geek-dense university), and I've decided that for the kind of stuff I do, Linux is sometimes useful, sometimes not. One major, consistent, problem that I have had running Linux is that frequently, one must ask colleagues about how certain things work, how things are configured, etc. Most Linux "gurus" are, IMHO, arrogant about their knowledge, and not willing to explain, in reasonably simple terms, how something works. Look... because of my career path, I'm not inherently turned off by technical explanations, but when I ask a simple, straightforward question, and the answer is complicated and chock-full of jargon, it's a turn-off. I have even heard, on at least three separate occasions (involving three separate gurus) a "guru" tell someone who is trying to do something in Linux "Well, if you think it's too complicated, just use Windows." This attitude is, in my experience, much more the norm than the exception.
Now, of course, I know that there will be a bunch of people who don't agree that this is a common attitude, but I would wager that most of those people are people who are very well-versed, and heavily invested, in Linux. Of course you don't run into this attitude on a daily basis, simply because you're not having to ask experts questions which they feel are "beneath them".
Bottom line: Linux is, for even a technical person, way the hell harder to run "out of the box". It has some serious advantages, no question. But if you're a professional of some sort or another who needs computing, but doesn't really need to be able to hack the pull-down menus of your browser, M$ products are very attractive. And, in my experience, the situation is aggravated by the attitude of those with the knowledge.
Look, if I talked to my calculus students the way I've been talked to by Linux guys, I'd lose half my class. If all my colleagues did, the department would lose funding. Anyone trying to promote Linux in any way must consider these issues.
I must say I find the accussation that Global Warming is over discussed, hyped, etc... bemusing. To me FOOTBALL is overhyped, CELEBRITY is overhyped, the WEATHER is overhyped- each of these are covered in every news bulletin in the world, every day. Until people generally have the scientific background to understand these issues there should be more not less discussion in the media. Atmospheric effects of mans activities are poorly understood, so two main points of view are adopted - 'how can little old us effect something so big???' and 'don't piss in the bath'.
Hear, here! Meterologists don't have the slightest idea of what is going on is our atmosphere these days. IANAM, but I am a mathematician who does some fluids, so I'm hearing from these atmosphere guys all of the time. No serious scientist claims to understand these mechanisms.
What we do know is that the tempature of the planet has risen, pretty dramatically, over the last century, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen steadily over the last 300 years. This is not necessarily a causal relationship, but we do have a mechanism by which they would be related (i.e. more CO2 -> more greenhouse effect -> more temperatures). Of course, we don't know that we are causing any of it. For example, maybe the sun got brighter, or whatever, and so the earth heated up, and this caused many plants to die, leading to an increase in CO2. There is (speculative) evidence that we are causing it, however, to some degree.
I think you're right about the two major points. The first position people take is specious. There are many examples of humans causing drastic biological and environmental changes. We have certainly caused changes big enough to end up affecting us. Can we raise the temperature of the earth? Who knows. We can, however, release enough junk into the air to wreck our own worlds, we have proved this time and again. I guess I'm more in the "don't piss in the bath" camp, because once we mess it up, it may very well be permanent. It is worth our while to be cautious.
Another thing which the anti-global-warming politicians and pundits need to be worried about: if the earth is warming up independent of us, this is not a victory for them! For example, let's say that we have some very small affect on global warming, and most of the warming is some natural process. We will then need to curb our emissions even more, because then we have less room for error. For example, if you're on a fixed income, and inflation goes up, you have to spend less. It's not your fault inflation went up, but you have to spend less anyway. Not fair, but c'est la vie.
I think that this post is telling us something. You feel comfortable lumping together all 80 million Southerners, yet after PETA, you felt that you had to put a "just kidding".
Don't worry, I'm not flaming you. I'm just saying your attitude is indicative of something in today's society...
I think if you actually bothered to do this, you would probably deserve to go to jail for life.
While what you say is strictly true on paper, I would say that it probably won't work out in practice. For example, it is technically true that socialism is an economic system, and democracy is a political system. But I think it is not possible to separate the economic and political situations of a country (or any other grouping).
For example, the former "Communist countries", which would be more accurately named "really, really socialist countries" could have, in theory, had that level of socialism without a totalitarian political structure. But in practice, the only efficient way for a government to consolidate all of that economic power is to use political power of some sort or another.
Now, of course, you're right that various levels of democracy and socialism can coexist, but I claim that they are not completely independent at all. And I might even go so far as to say that the optimal amount of democracy exists only when there is some level of socialism (like what we have here in the US, e.g.), because in a really free, completely unregulated market, the little man gets pushed out. So it is of course wrong to claim that democracy and socialism are diametrically opposed, as the original poster claimed. But neither are they independent.
Unfortunately, using standard scientific notation, this would be 7.8e+4, and then you'd be in the same problem! Heh
True... but what do you mean, "this day and age"? I think this would have always been true. Essentially, this is why so few of Imperial Roman buildings still exist in Rome; the subsequent Romans were always ripping them down for building materials (common), destroying them because they were pagan images (less common), or ripping them down so they could build something new (perhaps least common).
But, either way, a developer isn't going to be happy to find this. This is one thing we rarely have to deal with in the US, but it's pretty common in Europe, and, say, Israel. I don't know about the other parts of the Middle East, but I imagine most of the Arab governments have other things to worry about than archaeology.
This is true, although after spending some time in Italy and dealing with the infrastructure, I'm not sure that the ruins are there for archaeological reasons...
I've heard all of these stories about stuff floating around, etc., but what's the real deal?
The flag. Definitely if it's really, really big.
In further news, who is Janet Ruso?
Are you insane? Eco was the shit. And EA hockey around '94,'95? De focken bomb, mang!
aRe |_| l33t?!?!!!?!?!???!!?
I think it might be just me and you, though...