All that this means is that deep down, Elon Musk doesn't have any faith in kindness and goodness and altruism, nor does he understand the tit-for-tat principle of reciprocity: First do onto others what you expect them to repay you with in turn.
And what does that have to do with so-called "AI"? My view is that it is a fantasy to assume that if you create a powerful being, then it will treat you morally. Tit for tat fails when one player is powerful enough that they don't have to play the game and/or don't care about the consequences that get imposed for engaging in non-cooperating behavior.
Not surprisingly, given that a number of successfull people have, shall we just say, "unusual" mental build-ups and motivational matrices?
A successful person is someone who isn't consistently a failure. The real "unusual" people here are the ones who never succeed.
I find it interesting how I can even name several such destinations and you still occasionally insist on claiming that space is empty. This argument started out dead.
"it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space"...or you're 80 and never got over the gee-whiz Space Age propaganda. Do you really think there's just this massive amount of people of "modest means" (How? I thought we're all getting so wealthy?) waiting to go to space?
Well, yes, of course. People are getting wealthier, space is a very attractive lure for some fraction of people (I'd say at least 1%), and there's a lot of people.
The popularity of just taking a ride on a MIG is an indication of this latent demand.
You're a loon. Very likely an under-35 programmer with no kids. You'll see how "wealthy" you are after marriage, kids, and a house. See how much you have left over for your "universe of destinations"! Bahahahahaaaa!!!!
I find it interesting how I can even name several such destinations and you still insist on claiming that space is empty. This argument started out dead.
"it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space"...or you're 80 and never got over the gee-whiz Space Age propaganda. Do you really think there's just this massive amount of people of "modest means" (How? I thought we're all getting so wealthy?) waiting to go to space?
A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in something like a 1% change in the Earth's temperature due to heat retained (at least as claimed by the IPCC). So when someone says "The heat isn't going anywhere", they are a bit wrong - only a small extra portion of heat is being retained for a time. There's also the matter of whether the heat is actually being retained in the first place or being emitted into space.
Neither is space. It's baffling to me how you space fans can't grasp that.
Space is not a destination, it is a universe of destinations. Obviously, only a few destinations are within near future reach such as Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, some asteroids, etc. And even on the slim basis of what we currently know, there are a lot of people who are interested in visiting those destinations or in creating new destinations (such as orbital space stations). These are the space fans.
As I see it, peoples' wealth continues to grow while the cost of access to space declines. Eventually, it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space. When that happens, I think we'll see a lot more going on in space just from people who choose to visit various destinations in space.
Greenhouse gases don't heat the atmosphere. And they only moderate change the amount of heat retained by the Earth. The heat eventually goes into space.
Yes, good point. I wish people who have that happen to themselves would realize, "hey, maybe there's something not quite right upstairs" and think next time before they do that.
Funny how saying "libertarian" causes some people to stop thinking.
Those in power... you mean the people when their representation still had a modicum of integrity?
Of course not. He's no doubt instead referring to bureaucrats, politicians, and businesses able to sell access for wealth and opportunity. I doubt most people feel the urge to fantasize that sort of power doesn't exist just because there is a "modicum of integrity" and someone said "libertarian".
I apologize for that. I note though that Dr. Storms baldly asserts the claim that there are hundreds of such experimental attempts, a bunch of which are alleged to be successful with "large amounts" of power/heat produced (using his own book as sole reference). I can grant the former, since the attempts are public record. The successes though? I have to see more solid evidence of these than I've seen so far.
For example, the most successful experiment to date (Andrea Rossi's nickel-based LENR fusion) involves an experimental setup with plenty of opportunity for fraud and deception.
Meanwhile the experiments that Storm details are so marginal, that they attempt to determine the presence of fusion based on trace element analysis or correlation of high noise observations (like the ratio of estimated energy production to helium production). Reproducibility remains a huge problem throughout this work.
Don't get me wrong. Cold fusion most likely happens naturally just due to quantum tunneling. The whole point of these experiments is to create contrived situations where the quantum tunneling resulting in fusion happens far more often (many orders of magnitude more often, perhaps hundreds of orders of magnitude more often). Even if we are to eventually have highly successful cold fusion widely used for energy production and other uses, we'll still transition through this murky region of uncertain experimental evidence.
And it's worth noting here that despite whatever the American Physical Society or the US Department of Energy has said about cold fusion in 1989, research continues. They aren't really in the way now. I don't expect conservative, perhaps hide-bound institutions to embrace every new concept that comes along, even if in theory, that's their job.
Here's the thing. What is valuable to you? Dumping lots of mass to the Moon? Or spending a few years extra? Operations (the cost of monitoring and planning an ongoing mission) tends to be rather cheap compared to R&D or the cost of deployment right now. The Moon in particular can host near real time teleoperations meaning that even if labor on the Moon is extraordinarily expense (or even non-existent), any such expedition can tap labor from Earth at vastly lower cost.
Further, there's probably a happy intermediate state where particularly difficult to manufacture, but very low mass stuff like ICs or components made under extreme conditions (like small high temp parts or exotic materials) can be shipped from Earth while most of the mass can be constructed on the Moon.
And it's worth noting here that there are already plans for making a basic machine shop from scratch. One needs to be able to construct a furnace and have access to sufficient metal. You can construct human operated machining tools from a lot less starting technology than what I'm proposing.
When you stop pretending your straw man represents some actual point of view. Libertarianism isn't entirely realistic, but then neither are the imaginary misrepresentations of it.
The US already has an acting Surgeon General. If this were really important to the Obama administration they could have found a candidate that would pass the Senate.
By supporting other Danish industries you ensure future goodwill
You do as well with South Korea. And when it comes to "goodwill" you have to ask what is going to come of that goodwill. Maersk will probably get screwed in Europe over the next few decades no matter which shipyard it uses. At least South Korea has reason to remember who threw them some business and humble enough to do something in kind.
I don't think it's just about money. I think it's also about actual capability to do the job on a fast schedule and goodwill.
*sigh* This is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation about solid rockets floating about out there, spread and repeated by shuttle detractors in a cargo cult like fashion until it's now regarded as a law of nature. What most people (including engineers who should know better) don't realize is that you don't need to shut them down in the first place- you just need them to produce net zero thrust.
For "misinformation" it is quite correct, the booster is still burning even if it is producing net zero thrust. For example, if there is premature ignition of a solid rocket booster on the launch pad, then that SRBs will burn out no matter what you do with it, even if it is producing net zero thrust. And a launch pad isn't designed to hold a burning booster for several minutes even if it isn't producing net thrust.
I'm sure that NASA has thought this risk through entirely, but it is still there. The problem doesn't go away just because there is a means to make the booster produce no net thrust.
Price should not be the only metric to be used for measuring competitiveness. Supporting the society and industries that in turn support you should always be prioritized.
South Korea and its industries support Maersk too.
Unfortunately, stockholders only care about short-term savings and profits. No one dares to think in the long term, because that would mean slightly lessened profits in the short term.
What "long term" benefit is there with going with a Danish shipyard? What does that shipyard or Denmark itself offer than South Korea doesn't offer?
Good point. And there wouldn't be significant additional transmission costs since the concept requires lots of long distance transmission capacity anyway. I think there would still be some need for storage in your scheme, but existing hydroelectric probably would be more than adequate.
Some things just don't break down into little pieces in an economical fashion.
Then I guess we better focus in the near term on things that can be launched in small pieces. I'm not going to support, say, a 200 ton to orbit launch vehicle just because someone can think of peculiar payloads that a 20 ton vehicle can't launch. Capability != utility. We still have yet to have a reason for putting that 1000 ton NPR in orbit.
And I'll note that one can get decent performance out of a variety of competitive propulsion/powerplant combinations which can be broken down into small pieces.
Finally, if we are going to launch large unwieldy structures into space from Solar System bodies, then the Moon is a better place to do so, both because delta v is much smaller, but also because there is no atmosphere and hence, a much weaker restriction on fairing size (it just needs to be able to withstanding the acceleration of launch without damage). A near Earth asteroid might even be a better choice, especially if it can be moved to Earth orbit first.
Dr. Ramsey's condition has been fulfilled hundreds of times over the last quarter century and there has been absolutely no acknowledgement by the APS of its crime.
The first condition hasn't happened once much less hundreds of times, hence there is no "crime" for which the American Physical Society need acknowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
We have done more harm to ourselves than any other sentient intelligence in existence, we need to control and regulate our own intelligence first.
We already do that. So what is second?
All that this means is that deep down, Elon Musk doesn't have any faith in kindness and goodness and altruism, nor does he understand the tit-for-tat principle of reciprocity: First do onto others what you expect them to repay you with in turn.
And what does that have to do with so-called "AI"? My view is that it is a fantasy to assume that if you create a powerful being, then it will treat you morally. Tit for tat fails when one player is powerful enough that they don't have to play the game and/or don't care about the consequences that get imposed for engaging in non-cooperating behavior.
Not surprisingly, given that a number of successfull people have, shall we just say, "unusual" mental build-ups and motivational matrices?
A successful person is someone who isn't consistently a failure. The real "unusual" people here are the ones who never succeed.
"it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space" ...or you're 80 and never got over the gee-whiz Space Age propaganda. Do you really think there's just this massive amount of people of "modest means" (How? I thought we're all getting so wealthy?) waiting to go to space?
Well, yes, of course. People are getting wealthier, space is a very attractive lure for some fraction of people (I'd say at least 1%), and there's a lot of people.
The popularity of just taking a ride on a MIG is an indication of this latent demand.
You're a loon. Very likely an under-35 programmer with no kids. You'll see how "wealthy" you are after marriage, kids, and a house. See how much you have left over for your "universe of destinations"! Bahahahahaaaa!!!!
The obvious rebuttal is learn basic finance.
"it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space" ...or you're 80 and never got over the gee-whiz Space Age propaganda. Do you really think there's just this massive amount of people of "modest means" (How? I thought we're all getting so wealthy?) waiting to go to space?
Well,
A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in something like a 1% change in the Earth's temperature due to heat retained (at least as claimed by the IPCC). So when someone says "The heat isn't going anywhere", they are a bit wrong - only a small extra portion of heat is being retained for a time. There's also the matter of whether the heat is actually being retained in the first place or being emitted into space.
"Concorde wasn't a destination"
Neither is space. It's baffling to me how you space fans can't grasp that.
Space is not a destination, it is a universe of destinations. Obviously, only a few destinations are within near future reach such as Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, some asteroids, etc. And even on the slim basis of what we currently know, there are a lot of people who are interested in visiting those destinations or in creating new destinations (such as orbital space stations). These are the space fans.
As I see it, peoples' wealth continues to grow while the cost of access to space declines. Eventually, it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space. When that happens, I think we'll see a lot more going on in space just from people who choose to visit various destinations in space.
Greenhouse gases don't heat the atmosphere. And they only moderate change the amount of heat retained by the Earth. The heat eventually goes into space.
Protein has about the same amount of calories per gram as carbohydrates do.
Yes, good point. I wish people who have that happen to themselves would realize, "hey, maybe there's something not quite right upstairs" and think next time before they do that.
Those in power... you mean the people when their representation still had a modicum of integrity?
Of course not. He's no doubt instead referring to bureaucrats, politicians, and businesses able to sell access for wealth and opportunity. I doubt most people feel the urge to fantasize that sort of power doesn't exist just because there is a "modicum of integrity" and someone said "libertarian".
- And finally, treaties inherently do not have the force of law behind them.
No. They can have the force of law and can override legislative law at both the federal and state levels.
I apologize for that. I note though that Dr. Storms baldly asserts the claim that there are hundreds of such experimental attempts, a bunch of which are alleged to be successful with "large amounts" of power/heat produced (using his own book as sole reference). I can grant the former, since the attempts are public record. The successes though? I have to see more solid evidence of these than I've seen so far.
For example, the most successful experiment to date (Andrea Rossi's nickel-based LENR fusion) involves an experimental setup with plenty of opportunity for fraud and deception.
Meanwhile the experiments that Storm details are so marginal, that they attempt to determine the presence of fusion based on trace element analysis or correlation of high noise observations (like the ratio of estimated energy production to helium production). Reproducibility remains a huge problem throughout this work.
Don't get me wrong. Cold fusion most likely happens naturally just due to quantum tunneling. The whole point of these experiments is to create contrived situations where the quantum tunneling resulting in fusion happens far more often (many orders of magnitude more often, perhaps hundreds of orders of magnitude more often). Even if we are to eventually have highly successful cold fusion widely used for energy production and other uses, we'll still transition through this murky region of uncertain experimental evidence.
And it's worth noting here that despite whatever the American Physical Society or the US Department of Energy has said about cold fusion in 1989, research continues. They aren't really in the way now. I don't expect conservative, perhaps hide-bound institutions to embrace every new concept that comes along, even if in theory, that's their job.
Here's the thing. What is valuable to you? Dumping lots of mass to the Moon? Or spending a few years extra? Operations (the cost of monitoring and planning an ongoing mission) tends to be rather cheap compared to R&D or the cost of deployment right now. The Moon in particular can host near real time teleoperations meaning that even if labor on the Moon is extraordinarily expense (or even non-existent), any such expedition can tap labor from Earth at vastly lower cost.
Further, there's probably a happy intermediate state where particularly difficult to manufacture, but very low mass stuff like ICs or components made under extreme conditions (like small high temp parts or exotic materials) can be shipped from Earth while most of the mass can be constructed on the Moon.
And it's worth noting here that there are already plans for making a basic machine shop from scratch. One needs to be able to construct a furnace and have access to sufficient metal. You can construct human operated machining tools from a lot less starting technology than what I'm proposing.
Stop pretending it's some sort of aberration.
When you stop pretending your straw man represents some actual point of view. Libertarianism isn't entirely realistic, but then neither are the imaginary misrepresentations of it.
Who ya going to believe? Honest, trustworthy msmonroe who would never steer you wrong or your lying eyes?
The US already has an acting Surgeon General. If this were really important to the Obama administration they could have found a candidate that would pass the Senate.
By supporting other Danish industries you ensure future goodwill
You do as well with South Korea. And when it comes to "goodwill" you have to ask what is going to come of that goodwill. Maersk will probably get screwed in Europe over the next few decades no matter which shipyard it uses. At least South Korea has reason to remember who threw them some business and humble enough to do something in kind.
I don't think it's just about money. I think it's also about actual capability to do the job on a fast schedule and goodwill.
The opposite of money is tribalism and there is nothing in between?
You're the only one proposing this claim. And since you don't take it seriously either, then maybe you shouldn't bother.
*sigh* This is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation about solid rockets floating about out there, spread and repeated by shuttle detractors in a cargo cult like fashion until it's now regarded as a law of nature. What most people (including engineers who should know better) don't realize is that you don't need to shut them down in the first place- you just need them to produce net zero thrust.
For "misinformation" it is quite correct, the booster is still burning even if it is producing net zero thrust. For example, if there is premature ignition of a solid rocket booster on the launch pad, then that SRBs will burn out no matter what you do with it, even if it is producing net zero thrust. And a launch pad isn't designed to hold a burning booster for several minutes even if it isn't producing net thrust.
I'm sure that NASA has thought this risk through entirely, but it is still there. The problem doesn't go away just because there is a means to make the booster produce no net thrust.
Price should not be the only metric to be used for measuring competitiveness. Supporting the society and industries that in turn support you should always be prioritized.
South Korea and its industries support Maersk too.
Unfortunately, stockholders only care about short-term savings and profits. No one dares to think in the long term, because that would mean slightly lessened profits in the short term.
What "long term" benefit is there with going with a Danish shipyard? What does that shipyard or Denmark itself offer than South Korea doesn't offer?
Consider it a huge warning. that your shipyards aren't competitive.
Good point. And there wouldn't be significant additional transmission costs since the concept requires lots of long distance transmission capacity anyway. I think there would still be some need for storage in your scheme, but existing hydroelectric probably would be more than adequate.
Now imagine 3D printing bolt action rifles... in space. That's utopia right there.
Some things just don't break down into little pieces in an economical fashion.
Then I guess we better focus in the near term on things that can be launched in small pieces. I'm not going to support, say, a 200 ton to orbit launch vehicle just because someone can think of peculiar payloads that a 20 ton vehicle can't launch. Capability != utility. We still have yet to have a reason for putting that 1000 ton NPR in orbit.
And I'll note that one can get decent performance out of a variety of competitive propulsion/powerplant combinations which can be broken down into small pieces.
Finally, if we are going to launch large unwieldy structures into space from Solar System bodies, then the Moon is a better place to do so, both because delta v is much smaller, but also because there is no atmosphere and hence, a much weaker restriction on fairing size (it just needs to be able to withstanding the acceleration of launch without damage). A near Earth asteroid might even be a better choice, especially if it can be moved to Earth orbit first.
Dr. Ramsey's condition has been fulfilled hundreds of times over the last quarter century and there has been absolutely no acknowledgement by the APS of its crime.
The first condition hasn't happened once much less hundreds of times, hence there is no "crime" for which the American Physical Society need acknowledge.