So Jon you argue that my using of my free speech to call Singer a monster is hysterical and reduces your liberties while your opinion that he is not a monster is worthy and makes us more free?
This is an example of using a double standard to try and win an debate. You overlook the possibility that to some of us the idea of killing children is monstrous and evil and anyone that advocates this is an evil monster.
I believe that the entire argument you make about freedoms is a smokescreen to try and reduce my freedom to speak by twisted emotional blackmail.
No, his point is that large groups of people are themselves using emotional blackmail to even eliminate discussion of his idea. Instead of trying to refute it, all they're doing is labeling him a monster, murdered, advocate of genocide. And trying to make anyone else not even consider discussing his idea for fear of being labeled the same way.
There's an enormous difference between bringing up an idea for discussion, and implementing it. Treating him like such a horrible person and making him fear for his life for suggesting an idea is censorship - social censorship. Especially when we know he really can't go out an implement it, even a little bit.
Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to be a hysterical emotional reactionary. Just that it does more harm than good. ---
Thank you for writing this article. As much as it's going to be debated as to whether it belongs on Slashdot or not, it makes a lot of points that people don't think about.
America is on of the freest countries in the world. But in absolute terms we still have a long ways to go - it's full of laws that have no real purpose being there, and there are plenty of people wanting to go away from freedom.
It's easy to talk about how wonderful this country is if you're a white wealthy straight christian male. Start moving away from this type of person and watch freedoms decrease, both legal freedoms and social freedoms. You're gay? Sorry, you can't marry who you want even though we can't offer one good reason to make it illegal. You're atheist? Heck, you're not even allowed to take public office in some states, not like people would vote for you anyways.
People should be willing to discuss any idea, no matter how radical. After all, even if the idea itself is bad and useless, it can spawn other discussions and ideas that can be useful.
I'm hoping you're right, that the net will not only prevent censorship, but that it will help encourage the next generation to be willing to listen and discuss the controvercial ideas, not just reject them out of hand. To eliminate the remaining 'taboo' topics and opinions, such as that religion has bad effects.
America, land of bigotry, home of censorship. Where freedom is selectively given out to those that can buy it. ---
Perhaps the gene for bipolar disorder could be eradicated, and thus many people would be saved the trial of living a life of highs and lows. But as a person who is mild bi-polar, I see that struggle as INTRINSIC to my personality and being.
Just as I forgo chemical mood alteration, I would definitely resist the temptation to genetically eradicate such an integral part of my person. My life, my art, my work -- they are all closely tied into who I am, and who I am is defined by all of my "normal" AND abnormal attributes.
But had you been born not being mildly bi-polar, would you then not have been a complete person? Would you not have been able to fit into society?
We are each our own person, which is a combination of all the genetic and environmental factors. We integrate our imperfections, our struggles, into who we are. And if we didn't have those imperfections and struggles we wouldn't have been the same person. But we still would have been a person. We still would have had other things to affect us and cause other struggles.
I have my imperfections, my flaws. They have helped shape who I am now and who I will be. That doesn't mean I would not want any of them to not have occured.
As long as there are differences between people, there will be "imperfections" real and perceived, to cause each person to have their difficulties to overcome.
Who draws the line as to what is beneficial via eradication and what is not?
True, it is a difficult decision. But it doesn't mean we should abadon any attempts to do so and just leave things as they are.
Many of the best artists were somewhat insane. If we had been able to avoid many mental disorders at that time, we may not have had them. But would you be willing to decide that having some great art is worth allowing a person to suffer such a fate during their life? ---
I suspect that most prospective parents would hesitate to resort to genetic enhancement of their offspring. However, if this becomes available, many parents will feel compelled to make use of it just to keep their children competitive. The only way to prevent this domestic genetic arms race is to strictly regulate genetic enhancement technology. I'm not sure regulation is a good idea, but the alternative scares me.
There has to be some form of governmental intervention with regards to genetic engineering of children.
If we allow it to run in the usual capitalism-driven system, where only those who can afford it can have it, it won't take long before we develop two distinct genetic classes - the upper class, which has genetically enhanced themselves, and the lower class, which no longer has the abilities to compete.
Do we really want to divide ourselves into two distinct species over time? I don't, and I suspect there are plenty of others who don't want to either. Which means we can't allow money to dictate who has access. ---
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I would be perfect enough to slip through their filters, but I am arrogant enough to think that I deserve just as much right to exist as a "perfect" engineered alternative.
I don't remember the article making any claims that non-engineered people would not be allowed to exist anymore, so that's kind of irrelevant.
And when you talk about how the imperfections make things so much more interesting, you sound like you're suggesting that we shouldn't even mess with our children's genetics.
Try telling someone with a genetic disease, or a genetic learning disability, that it's better that they have those problems. That we shouldn't try and do anything about them because they "add character and flavor".
My personal favorite is the SUV commercial where they show a bunch of guys preparing to launch themselves with a slingshot, then they show a SUV and talk about how SUV owners have never been able to go from 0-60 this fast before... and on the bottom of the screen it says "claim applies to SUV".
Though I also liked the car comemrcial where it's driving fast and such on the desert, and the disclaimer says "Professional Driver. Closed course. Lucky Him." ---
Given what I've seen of wearable computing so far, and with other technologies, such as the embedded chips that can be used by a "smart" building to tell where you are and whether you are authorized to enter certain rooms, I would guess that useful, wearable computing would really hit its stride in another two to three years. Maybe five at the outside.
I suspect things like this are where it will really start to take off - then the world around us is designed for interaction with it.
I could see machines being designed with mini transmitters to inform a wearable of it's location and orientation - imagine a car mechanic with a wearable that would allow them to see every detail of the car without opening up a thing, being able to see whatever parts were relevant, and the best method for accessing those parts. Where the machine would hold all the technical data and dispense it instantly right over top of the real view.
Or for a doctor, being able to set it up so that it would highlight the relevant organs to the surgery they are performing, along with listing anything they have to be especially careful of, and reminding them of every detail.
The big question is - which will come first? Will we start designing our environment to interact with wearables, and then watch the industry grow? Or the other way around?
Regardless, until we can enhance our brains and body, wearables will eventually be the best method for allowing us to do more, do it faster, and do it better. ---
Will you be exposing "national security" secrets by telling people in other countries about bugs in the software and how to fix them? Will helping someone improve security in their system be treason?
Next thing you know, open source will be considered munitions. ---
The only other inhabitants are... deadly coral snakes. It seems romantic...
I tried to come up with a witty comment, but everything I came up with seemed pretty indadequate next to that quote.
I can see it now... "... and the winner of the 1 million is... the coral snake!! He finished off the last two competetors in their sleep to get the full share of the money!" ---
There was also a comparison to Lysenkoism. Now Lysenkoism is a politicized (Stalinist, to be precise) version of Lamarckism, which proposed that acquired characteristics could be inherited by subsequent generations. It was wrong. It doesn't work, as thousands of starving Siberians could attest. It doesn't work for living things. Genetics simply doesn't work that way. But DNA code is fundamentally different from binary code. Acquired characteristics can be "inherited" by later, improved versions of binary code. Using the loaded word "Lysenkoism" in describing open source is misleading at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
Offtopic, I know, but I'd like to say that they're not so sure that Lamarckism was completely wrong. There is some evidence that a organism might pass on a few things related to the environment that organism lived in. I think it involved something with methylation of genes and the like - that a gene can become methylated during life, and the methylation state is passed on to offspring, where it can influence how much the gene expresses itself (in other words, suggesting that genes aren't digital - on or off - but analog)
The example I read said something about a bad famine causing a population to not grow as tall during that generation - but that subsequent generations also didn't get as tall as before the famine, but were heading that way. ---
B) Your second thing has potential. But don't expect some revolutionary nanotech. Nothing forseable provides capability for a nanotech explosion. One invention does not an industry make, one thing that many slashdotters don't seem to realize
In regards to nanotech and the invention I mentioned, it does. The creation of an assembler is what will cause the nanotech explosion. Are you aware of what the assembler is? It's a machine capable of manipulating atoms to build from them, and is programmable. The first real assembler will be able to build a copy of itself. It's the goal - when you create a working assembler, you've started the nanotech revolution.
C) There is a slight chance of each of these things happening, but realize, government laws don't stop hobby/school projects very well, and the core of AI's typically aren't based on massive teams but small groups of people or individuals.
I didn't say it would STOP them...:) It would be like passing a law against cloning. It'll prevent anyone in the country from being public about doing it, but not prevent it from being done. ---
Actually, after nanotech spreads, I suspect that very few "scarce" resources will exist anymore: when you can either recycle landfills in toto, or build using analogs or other materials (i.e., using the waste carbon dioxide of 20th Century Industry as feedstock for diamondoid materials. ..), there will likely be few, if ANY shortages. ..other than talent. . ..
The only real shortage we'd them be worried about would be space and energy. Space for everyone to live in and enjoy - I don't look forward to living in small apartments in huge hundred-story buildings, and hope that never comes. Energy will be the bigger one - hopefully we find huge sources, like fusion - but a LOT of energy will end up being required for all of that atomic manipulation. That will be the biggest commodity, besides talent and information. ---
I've actually liked the idea of predicting the future in a group like this... makes it interesting to see what other people see happenind...
------
- By 2010, a third-world country will suffer a huge combination of famine and plague due to overpopulation. Another one will happen by 2015, and the UN will start doing things to reduce the population growth as we approach 8 billion, such as requiring freely availble birth control and abortion in some areas. The Vatican will very quietly object as to not want to appear in favor of famine and plague.
- By 2030, the first nanotech assembler will be created. Patent and licensing issues will slow down the spread and use of nanotechnology to a crawl for the next 5 to 10 years.
- By 2010, a form of partially conscious AI will be developed with intelligence equal to that of a cat or dog. Emergent behavior and personality will clearly develop. Within 2 years, the US Congress will pass a bill prohibiting the creation of AI with any higher intelligence, mainly to appease religious conservatives. By 2020, an AI with human-equivalent intelligence will be developed outside the US.
- By 2030, the first AI will be granted equal rights to a human. AI and human will compromise by insisting that the AI stay "resident" in one machine as it's "body". Humans will, however, refuse to give the AI access to it's code. A decision in a court somewhere in the next 5 years will determine that the AI must have that access.
- By 2050, after nanotechnology has become more widespread, and in combination with medical research that has eliminated half of the types of cancer, average life span in industrialized nations will be 120. Increases in anti-aging will keep people aware, mobile, and looking young into their 70's. Creation of new body parts will be commonplace, and at least one AI will have been incarnated into a completely built human body.
-By 2100, so much will have been learned about consciousness and the human body that death from old age becomes almost extinct, at least in industrialized countries. A new form of government will be required to arise as the speed of technological advancement, and the scale of the issues, bog existing ones down so much that they become obsolete.
Nor is homosexuality, for that matter. Does anyone here happen to realize how many female sea gulls are lesbians?
Last I knew, they had observed homosexual behavior in hundreds of animal species of all levels. Kind of kills the "it's unnatural" argument, doesn't it? ---
The only thing LD has going for it is that some movies were released as a criterion collection (which I hardly know what that means) and will probably never be released that way again
They're already doing the Criterion Collection with DVDs also. I picked up Armageddon from it, and it had 2 dicsc worth of stuff. A bunch of making of... stuff, all the tv spots, outtakes, etc. And it said it was the Director's Cut of the movie - however, I didn't see any difference from when I saw it at the theater.
There's a web site for the Criterion Collection somewhere (don't have the URL handy). I know I really want to get Silence of the Lambs through it.
And I,(this may be Flame Bait) don't want to get a DVD because I don't think theres's much of a future for it. Sorry!
I'd have a hard time believing that there's no future in DVD at this point in time.
Look how the CD became such a staple - and DVD players and discs have sold better than CDs did after the same amount of time on the market. In other words, it's getting higher acceptance than CDs did.
Look at your local electronics store. Best Buy and Circuit City, for example, have been constantly expanding their DVD shelf space and selection. Some dept. store chains like Target now have them right by the videos, with plenty of shelf space. They're part of every movie ad now - "Now Available on VHS and DVD". There's a constant re-release of older movies on the format.
With Disney releasing their cartoons on DVD, I think that every major studio is now releasing movies on the format, and many minor ones. I don't think that there is ANY doubt left that DVD is going to be the CD of video - the next standard. I wouldn't be suprised if, in the next year, Blockbuster starts stocking DVDs along with VHS in most/all their stores, right with the VHS, instead of in a special section like the ones that have it now. I also won't be suprised to see it start taking up equal shelf space with VHS in most electronics stores. ---
What's the point of living like someone in those pods depicted in the Matrix?
The "real world" is nothing more than the environment that we are forced to interact with on a regular basis. What's to say it would be any more real than if we were in some sort of computer-generated world 24/7? Heck, there's no way to know that we're currently NOT actually in some Matrix-like creation, because one that's properly constructed and interfaced with the mind (in whatever form it's in) will give no hints of not being real.
As long as nothing bad will happen to my body while I'm in the other environment, I wouldn't mind spending all my time in an enjoyable created world, as long as it provided means for me to interact with others, learn, and perform activities that I like.
I think you're assuming that some sort of constructed environment would be inferior to what we call the real world. ---
From my own personal experience, if they're trying out Civ first, they won't get onto trying out anything else.
From my personal experience, trying out Civ:CtP will mean they will move on to other things very quickly.
I picked up Civ:CtP when it first came out (for Win95, I don't have Linux up and running at the moment due to needing a REAL modem), and spent about 15 minutes playing it before moving on to Rollercoaster Tycoon which I got at the same time. Haven't come back to it since.
Of course, that may just be due to the fact that I have countless hours of Civ and Civ II experience, and didn't want to figure out the totally new (and IMHO unnecessary) interface. That interface has been pretty standardized for any Civ-type game, and to change it so much was a bad idea in my book.
One of these days I'll get back to it, though now that I also have Civ II Test of Time it's looking less and less likely.:) ---
Some may find it offensive, mostly practising Wiccans!! Wicca isn't Satanism.
My point exactly. Wiccans would find it offensive. I personally would find a web site like that offensive, and I'm not even Wiccan. (Just like I think www.godhatesfags.com to be utterly offensive, repulsive, and revolting) But would the people responsible for deciding what is offensive and what isn't? There's a good chance that none of them would be Wiccan, and that they wouldn't see a reason to prevent it.
The US Consitution provides for the individual's right to bear arms, not for hunting, not for protection from criminals, and certainly not to equalize some perception of physical prowess. The right to bear arms was intended to ensure that the citizenry could always protect itself from an over-bearing and unjust government.
And that should make it clear how much of an anachronism the 2nd Amendment is. Even if you armed every single person with fully automatic weapons, do you think we could stand up to the government? They have tanks, helicopeters, fighter jets, bombers, cruise missles, etc.
If we REALLY want to allow the citizens to have enough weaponry to protect them from their government, then we should be putting SAM missile batteries in our backyars. Heavy artillery on our vehicles. Allow people to have private ownership of F-16 fighters. (I REALLY hope I'm not giving the NRA any ideas) Let people build their own nuclear devices.
We CAN'T "protect" ourselves from the government if it really decides to come after us. So the 2nd Amendment is WORTHLESS in that aspect. ---
"Forgive my ignorance about domain registration, but why can't whatever body controls it just refuse to allow offensive names. Another post said they initially reserved names with offensive words. "
Who gets to make the decision? What grounds do they make it on?
Refusing "offensive" words is one thing - there are some guidelines as to which are acceptable and which aren't. They can use the famous "seven dirty words" for example.
But it gets way too fuzzy when they start going for more. Where's the line? What's offensive? Is "wiccaissatanic.com" offensive? To some, yes. To others, no. If you start picking and choosing, you soon end up in the middle no matter which way you go. It's safer to just allow practically everything. ---
if they decide to make it serious - they should make it like Everything. Except a little more moderated. "Field Agents" could write in with their entries, and it would be looked over and possibly submitted by volunteers over the network.
Well, Everything is definately a better choice to base it off of them h2g2. I've played with them both, and h2g2 got boring. However, I've spent more than my share of time on Everything.
We've already mentioned the idea of The Handheld Everything on there, so it's not like the idea is anything new.
Everything is starting to show that a large community-maintaned database is not necessarily a bad thing, because of collaborative filtering and all. Everything 2 should give an even better demonstration as to how well it works, as it starts to become the ultimate reference guide. ---
Apparently the FBI provoked the crime. Such practice is highly illegal, AFAIK, in my country.
My question is: why haven't these people figured it out yet that the "13 year old kids" they talk to on IRC about sex are NOT 13 year old kids.
If you check the statistics, I think the number of cases involving kids under driving age getting involved with older people over the net for sexual reasons or the like can be counted on one hand.
If any of these guys even used a quick flash of common sense they'd know that the second someone starts talking to them telling them they're a little kid and such is either: a) another adult playing games, or b) a cop who's going to bust you.
Sure the guy was dumb, but last I knew that wasn't illegal. (If I were feeling really cynical, I'd say that in fact being dumb is ENCOURAGED by the government... but I'm not feeling that cynical today) ---
Let's take that a step further... It's conceited to think that humans are the end-all be-all of evolution... That the universe was designed for their presence.
If anything, I think humanity is a stepping stone for something better... And something without a soul, I'm sure. : )
Agreed. I see us, humanity, as the "pinnacle" of natural evolution. The production of an organism that has the ability to understand itself, figure out how it works, and then guide and even cause it's own further evolution.
I can't even consider us to be the "top of the line" organism, something which there can be no improvement to. I can think of countless improvements myself - and that's just one person.
I don't think there is anything wrong with evolving ourselves - in fact, I think it should almost be looked on as a requirement. We know how we work, we know what our flaws are, so as a service to the future we NEED to correct and improve. I'd be really pissed to find out that my parents/grandparents had the ability to make me smarter, healthier, better, but didn't. ---
My final point: They predict AI robots will help us do all the heavy labor that humans normally do. We already have machines, but is there really any reason to make them intelligent? I would feel much more comfortable ordering my hamburger sans pickles with a non-sentient robot than one that actually thinks. Adding AI to those robots used to make cars just opens up a whole new can of worms. Why do that when our current solution works just fine?
My biggest question... if we are making robots to do the jobs that we don't want to do, and then we make the robots intelligent, won't they then decide that they don't want to do the jobs either?
I guess that's more of a conscious/feeling thing than intelligence-based... but still - if we make something more intelligent than we are then shouldn't us, the less intelligent humans, be the ones to do the less intelligent jobs?
Personally, I'd rather we merge the two so as to not have any one form of life trying to decide if the other is inferior or superior. ---
Slashdot Mirror
So Jon you argue that my using of my free speech to call Singer a monster is hysterical and reduces your liberties while your opinion that he is not a monster is worthy and makes us more free?
This is an example of using a double standard to try and win an debate. You overlook the possibility that to some of us the idea of killing children is monstrous and evil and anyone that advocates this is an evil monster.
I believe that the entire argument you make about freedoms is a smokescreen to try and reduce my freedom to speak by twisted emotional blackmail.
No, his point is that large groups of people are themselves using emotional blackmail to even eliminate discussion of his idea. Instead of trying to refute it, all they're doing is labeling him a monster, murdered, advocate of genocide. And trying to make anyone else not even consider discussing his idea for fear of being labeled the same way.
There's an enormous difference between bringing up an idea for discussion, and implementing it. Treating him like such a horrible person and making him fear for his life for suggesting an idea is censorship - social censorship. Especially when we know he really can't go out an implement it, even a little bit.
Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to be a hysterical emotional reactionary. Just that it does more harm than good.
---
Thank you for writing this article. As much as it's going to be debated as to whether it belongs on Slashdot or not, it makes a lot of points that people don't think about.
America is on of the freest countries in the world. But in absolute terms we still have a long ways to go - it's full of laws that have no real purpose being there, and there are plenty of people wanting to go away from freedom.
It's easy to talk about how wonderful this country is if you're a white wealthy straight christian male. Start moving away from this type of person and watch freedoms decrease, both legal freedoms and social freedoms. You're gay? Sorry, you can't marry who you want even though we can't offer one good reason to make it illegal. You're atheist? Heck, you're not even allowed to take public office in some states, not like people would vote for you anyways.
People should be willing to discuss any idea, no matter how radical. After all, even if the idea itself is bad and useless, it can spawn other discussions and ideas that can be useful.
I'm hoping you're right, that the net will not only prevent censorship, but that it will help encourage the next generation to be willing to listen and discuss the controvercial ideas, not just reject them out of hand. To eliminate the remaining 'taboo' topics and opinions, such as that religion has bad effects.
America, land of bigotry, home of censorship. Where freedom is selectively given out to those that can buy it.
---
Perhaps the gene for bipolar disorder could be eradicated, and thus many people would be saved the trial of living a life of highs and lows. But as a person who is mild bi-polar, I see that struggle as INTRINSIC to my personality and being.
Just as I forgo chemical mood alteration, I would definitely resist the temptation to genetically eradicate such an integral part of my person. My life, my art, my work -- they are all closely tied into who I am, and who I am is defined by all of my "normal" AND abnormal attributes.
But had you been born not being mildly bi-polar, would you then not have been a complete person? Would you not have been able to fit into society?
We are each our own person, which is a combination of all the genetic and environmental factors. We integrate our imperfections, our struggles, into who we are. And if we didn't have those imperfections and struggles we wouldn't have been the same person. But we still would have been a person. We still would have had other things to affect us and cause other struggles.
I have my imperfections, my flaws. They have helped shape who I am now and who I will be. That doesn't mean I would not want any of them to not have occured.
As long as there are differences between people, there will be "imperfections" real and perceived, to cause each person to have their difficulties to overcome.
Who draws the line as to what is beneficial via eradication and what is not?
True, it is a difficult decision. But it doesn't mean we should abadon any attempts to do so and just leave things as they are.
Many of the best artists were somewhat insane. If we had been able to avoid many mental disorders at that time, we may not have had them. But would you be willing to decide that having some great art is worth allowing a person to suffer such a fate during their life?
---
I suspect that most prospective parents would hesitate to resort to genetic enhancement of their offspring. However, if this becomes available, many parents will feel compelled to make use of it just to keep their children competitive. The only way to prevent this domestic genetic arms race is to strictly regulate genetic enhancement technology. I'm not sure regulation is a good idea, but the alternative scares me.
There has to be some form of governmental intervention with regards to genetic engineering of children.
If we allow it to run in the usual capitalism-driven system, where only those who can afford it can have it, it won't take long before we develop two distinct genetic classes - the upper class, which has genetically enhanced themselves, and the lower class, which no longer has the abilities to compete.
Do we really want to divide ourselves into two distinct species over time? I don't, and I suspect there are plenty of others who don't want to either. Which means we can't allow money to dictate who has access.
---
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I would be perfect enough to slip through their filters, but I am arrogant enough to think that I deserve just as much right to exist as a "perfect" engineered alternative.
I don't remember the article making any claims that non-engineered people would not be allowed to exist anymore, so that's kind of irrelevant.
And when you talk about how the imperfections make things so much more interesting, you sound like you're suggesting that we shouldn't even mess with our children's genetics.
Try telling someone with a genetic disease, or a genetic learning disability, that it's better that they have those problems. That we shouldn't try and do anything about them because they "add character and flavor".
---
My personal favorite is the SUV commercial where they show a bunch of guys preparing to launch themselves with a slingshot, then they show a SUV and talk about how SUV owners have never been able to go from 0-60 this fast before... and on the bottom of the screen it says "claim applies to SUV".
Though I also liked the car comemrcial where it's driving fast and such on the desert, and the disclaimer says "Professional Driver. Closed course. Lucky Him."
---
I suspect things like this are where it will really start to take off - then the world around us is designed for interaction with it.
I could see machines being designed with mini transmitters to inform a wearable of it's location and orientation - imagine a car mechanic with a wearable that would allow them to see every detail of the car without opening up a thing, being able to see whatever parts were relevant, and the best method for accessing those parts. Where the machine would hold all the technical data and dispense it instantly right over top of the real view.
Or for a doctor, being able to set it up so that it would highlight the relevant organs to the surgery they are performing, along with listing anything they have to be especially careful of, and reminding them of every detail.
The big question is - which will come first? Will we start designing our environment to interact with wearables, and then watch the industry grow? Or the other way around?
Regardless, until we can enhance our brains and body, wearables will eventually be the best method for allowing us to do more, do it faster, and do it better.
---
Will you be exposing "national security" secrets by telling people in other countries about bugs in the software and how to fix them? Will helping someone improve security in their system be treason?
Next thing you know, open source will be considered munitions.
---
The only other inhabitants are ... deadly coral snakes. It seems romantic ...
I tried to come up with a witty comment, but everything I came up with seemed pretty indadequate next to that quote.
I can see it now...
"... and the winner of the 1 million is... the coral snake!! He finished off the last two competetors in their sleep to get the full share of the money!"
---
There was also a comparison to Lysenkoism. Now Lysenkoism is a politicized (Stalinist, to be precise) version of Lamarckism, which proposed that acquired characteristics could be inherited by subsequent generations. It was wrong. It doesn't work, as thousands of starving Siberians could attest. It doesn't work for living things. Genetics simply doesn't work that way. But DNA code is fundamentally different from binary code. Acquired characteristics can be "inherited" by later, improved versions of binary code. Using the loaded word "Lysenkoism" in describing open source is misleading at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
Offtopic, I know, but I'd like to say that they're not so sure that Lamarckism was completely wrong. There is some evidence that a organism might pass on a few things related to the environment that organism lived in. I think it involved something with methylation of genes and the like - that a gene can become methylated during life, and the methylation state is passed on to offspring, where it can influence how much the gene expresses itself (in other words, suggesting that genes aren't digital - on or off - but analog)
The example I read said something about a bad famine causing a population to not grow as tall during that generation - but that subsequent generations also didn't get as tall as before the famine, but were heading that way.
---
B) Your second thing has potential. But don't expect some revolutionary nanotech. Nothing forseable provides capability for a nanotech explosion. One invention does not an industry make, one thing that many slashdotters don't seem to realize
:) It would be like passing a law against cloning. It'll prevent anyone in the country from being public about doing it, but not prevent it from being done.
In regards to nanotech and the invention I mentioned, it does. The creation of an assembler is what will cause the nanotech explosion. Are you aware of what the assembler is? It's a machine capable of manipulating atoms to build from them, and is programmable. The first real assembler will be able to build a copy of itself. It's the goal - when you create a working assembler, you've started the nanotech revolution.
C) There is a slight chance of each of these things happening, but realize, government laws don't stop hobby/school projects very well, and the core of AI's typically aren't based on massive teams but small groups of people or individuals.
I didn't say it would STOP them...
---
Actually, after nanotech spreads, I suspect that very few "scarce" resources will exist anymore: when you can either recycle landfills in toto, or build using analogs or other materials (i.e., using the waste carbon dioxide of 20th Century Industry as feedstock for diamondoid materials. . .), there will likely be few, if ANY shortages. . .other than talent. . . .
The only real shortage we'd them be worried about would be space and energy. Space for everyone to live in and enjoy - I don't look forward to living in small apartments in huge hundred-story buildings, and hope that never comes. Energy will be the bigger one - hopefully we find huge sources, like fusion - but a LOT of energy will end up being required for all of that atomic manipulation. That will be the biggest commodity, besides talent and information.
---
I've actually liked the idea of predicting the future in a group like this... makes it interesting to see what other people see happenind...
------
- By 2010, a third-world country will suffer a huge combination of famine and plague due to overpopulation. Another one will happen by 2015, and the UN will start doing things to reduce the population growth as we approach 8 billion, such as requiring freely availble birth control and abortion in some areas. The Vatican will very quietly object as to not want to appear in favor of famine and plague.
- By 2030, the first nanotech assembler will be created. Patent and licensing issues will slow down the spread and use of nanotechnology to a crawl for the next 5 to 10 years.
- By 2010, a form of partially conscious AI will be developed with intelligence equal to that of a cat or dog. Emergent behavior and personality will clearly develop. Within 2 years, the US Congress will pass a bill prohibiting the creation of AI with any higher intelligence, mainly to appease religious conservatives. By 2020, an AI with human-equivalent intelligence will be developed outside the US.
- By 2030, the first AI will be granted equal rights to a human. AI and human will compromise by insisting that the AI stay "resident" in one machine as it's "body". Humans will, however, refuse to give the AI access to it's code. A decision in a court somewhere in the next 5 years will determine that the AI must have that access.
- By 2050, after nanotechnology has become more widespread, and in combination with medical research that has eliminated half of the types of cancer, average life span in industrialized nations will be 120. Increases in anti-aging will keep people aware, mobile, and looking young into their 70's. Creation of new body parts will be commonplace, and at least one AI will have been incarnated into a completely built human body.
-By 2100, so much will have been learned about consciousness and the human body that death from old age becomes almost extinct, at least in industrialized countries. A new form of government will be required to arise as the speed of technological advancement, and the scale of the issues, bog existing ones down so much that they become obsolete.
---
Nor is homosexuality, for that matter. Does anyone here happen to realize how many female sea gulls are lesbians?
Last I knew, they had observed homosexual behavior in hundreds of animal species of all levels. Kind of kills the "it's unnatural" argument, doesn't it?
---
The only thing LD has going for it is that some movies were released as a criterion collection (which I hardly know what that means) and will probably never be released that way again
They're already doing the Criterion Collection with DVDs also. I picked up Armageddon from it, and it had 2 dicsc worth of stuff. A bunch of making of... stuff, all the tv spots, outtakes, etc. And it said it was the Director's Cut of the movie - however, I didn't see any difference from when I saw it at the theater.
There's a web site for the Criterion Collection somewhere (don't have the URL handy). I know I really want to get Silence of the Lambs through it.
---
And I,(this may be Flame Bait) don't want to get a DVD because I don't think theres's much of a future for it. Sorry!
I'd have a hard time believing that there's no future in DVD at this point in time.
Look how the CD became such a staple - and DVD players and discs have sold better than CDs did after the same amount of time on the market. In other words, it's getting higher acceptance than CDs did.
Look at your local electronics store. Best Buy and Circuit City, for example, have been constantly expanding their DVD shelf space and selection. Some dept. store chains like Target now have them right by the videos, with plenty of shelf space. They're part of every movie ad now - "Now Available on VHS and DVD". There's a constant re-release of older movies on the format.
With Disney releasing their cartoons on DVD, I think that every major studio is now releasing movies on the format, and many minor ones. I don't think that there is ANY doubt left that DVD is going to be the CD of video - the next standard. I wouldn't be suprised if, in the next year, Blockbuster starts stocking DVDs along with VHS in most/all their stores, right with the VHS, instead of in a special section like the ones that have it now. I also won't be suprised to see it start taking up equal shelf space with VHS in most electronics stores.
---
What's the point of living like someone in those pods depicted in the Matrix?
The "real world" is nothing more than the environment that we are forced to interact with on a regular basis. What's to say it would be any more real than if we were in some sort of computer-generated world 24/7? Heck, there's no way to know that we're currently NOT actually in some Matrix-like creation, because one that's properly constructed and interfaced with the mind (in whatever form it's in) will give no hints of not being real.
As long as nothing bad will happen to my body while I'm in the other environment, I wouldn't mind spending all my time in an enjoyable created world, as long as it provided means for me to interact with others, learn, and perform activities that I like.
I think you're assuming that some sort of constructed environment would be inferior to what we call the real world.
---
From my own personal experience, if they're trying out Civ first, they won't get onto trying out anything else.
:)
From my personal experience, trying out Civ:CtP will mean they will move on to other things very quickly.
I picked up Civ:CtP when it first came out (for Win95, I don't have Linux up and running at the moment due to needing a REAL modem), and spent about 15 minutes playing it before moving on to Rollercoaster Tycoon which I got at the same time. Haven't come back to it since.
Of course, that may just be due to the fact that I have countless hours of Civ and Civ II experience, and didn't want to figure out the totally new (and IMHO unnecessary) interface. That interface has been pretty standardized for any Civ-type game, and to change it so much was a bad idea in my book.
One of these days I'll get back to it, though now that I also have Civ II Test of Time it's looking less and less likely.
---
>Is "wiccaissatanic.com" offensive?
Some may find it offensive, mostly practising Wiccans!! Wicca isn't Satanism.
My point exactly. Wiccans would find it offensive. I personally would find a web site like that offensive, and I'm not even Wiccan. (Just like I think www.godhatesfags.com to be utterly offensive, repulsive, and revolting) But would the people responsible for deciding what is offensive and what isn't? There's a good chance that none of them would be Wiccan, and that they wouldn't see a reason to prevent it.
---
The US Consitution provides for the individual's right to bear arms, not for hunting, not for protection from criminals, and certainly not to equalize some perception of physical prowess. The right to bear arms was intended to ensure that the citizenry could always protect itself from an over-bearing and unjust government.
And that should make it clear how much of an anachronism the 2nd Amendment is. Even if you armed every single person with fully automatic weapons, do you think we could stand up to the government? They have tanks, helicopeters, fighter jets, bombers, cruise missles, etc.
If we REALLY want to allow the citizens to have enough weaponry to protect them from their government, then we should be putting SAM missile batteries in our backyars. Heavy artillery on our vehicles. Allow people to have private ownership of F-16 fighters. (I REALLY hope I'm not giving the NRA any ideas) Let people build their own nuclear devices.
We CAN'T "protect" ourselves from the government if it really decides to come after us. So the 2nd Amendment is WORTHLESS in that aspect.
---
"Forgive my ignorance about domain registration, but why can't whatever body controls it just refuse to allow offensive names. Another post said they initially reserved names with offensive words. "
Who gets to make the decision? What grounds do they make it on?
Refusing "offensive" words is one thing - there are some guidelines as to which are acceptable and which aren't. They can use the famous "seven dirty words" for example.
But it gets way too fuzzy when they start going for more. Where's the line? What's offensive? Is "wiccaissatanic.com" offensive? To some, yes. To others, no. If you start picking and choosing, you soon end up in the middle no matter which way you go. It's safer to just allow practically everything.
---
if they decide to make it serious - they should make it like Everything. Except a little more moderated. "Field Agents" could write in with their entries, and it would be looked over and possibly submitted by volunteers over the network.
Well, Everything is definately a better choice to base it off of them h2g2. I've played with them both, and h2g2 got boring. However, I've spent more than my share of time on Everything.
We've already mentioned the idea of The Handheld Everything on there, so it's not like the idea is anything new.
Everything is starting to show that a large community-maintaned database is not necessarily a bad thing, because of collaborative filtering and all. Everything 2 should give an even better demonstration as to how well it works, as it starts to become the ultimate reference guide.
---
Apparently the FBI provoked the crime. Such practice is highly illegal, AFAIK, in my country.
My question is: why haven't these people figured it out yet that the "13 year old kids" they talk to on IRC about sex are NOT 13 year old kids.
If you check the statistics, I think the number of cases involving kids under driving age getting involved with older people over the net for sexual reasons or the like can be counted on one hand.
If any of these guys even used a quick flash of common sense they'd know that the second someone starts talking to them telling them they're a little kid and such is either: a) another adult playing games, or b) a cop who's going to bust you.
Sure the guy was dumb, but last I knew that wasn't illegal. (If I were feeling really cynical, I'd say that in fact being dumb is ENCOURAGED by the government... but I'm not feeling that cynical today)
---
Let's take that a step further... It's conceited to think that humans are the end-all be-all of evolution... That the universe was designed for their presence.
If anything, I think humanity is a stepping stone for something better... And something without a soul, I'm sure. : )
Agreed. I see us, humanity, as the "pinnacle" of natural evolution. The production of an organism that has the ability to understand itself, figure out how it works, and then guide and even cause it's own further evolution.
I can't even consider us to be the "top of the line" organism, something which there can be no improvement to. I can think of countless improvements myself - and that's just one person.
I don't think there is anything wrong with evolving ourselves - in fact, I think it should almost be looked on as a requirement. We know how we work, we know what our flaws are, so as a service to the future we NEED to correct and improve. I'd be really pissed to find out that my parents/grandparents had the ability to make me smarter, healthier, better, but didn't.
---
My final point: They predict AI robots will help us do all the heavy labor that humans normally do. We already have machines, but is there really any reason to make them intelligent? I would feel much more comfortable ordering my hamburger sans pickles with a non-sentient robot than one that actually thinks. Adding AI to those robots used to make cars just opens up a whole new can of worms. Why do that when our current solution works just fine?
My biggest question... if we are making robots to do the jobs that we don't want to do, and then we make the robots intelligent, won't they then decide that they don't want to do the jobs either?
I guess that's more of a conscious/feeling thing than intelligence-based... but still - if we make something more intelligent than we are then shouldn't us, the less intelligent humans, be the ones to do the less intelligent jobs?
Personally, I'd rather we merge the two so as to not have any one form of life trying to decide if the other is inferior or superior.
---