Why shouldn't there be another civilization after new natural ressources have built up? It surely won't be human, but there's no reason another intelligent species shouldn't emerge on earth in the distant future.
- Human perception is as good as it gets. Anything living 100 billon years from now will be so different from us that it may perceive the world around it in completely different ways, and will accordingly have different technology for astronomy and everything else.
Almost everything we currently observe in science is outside the range of human perception. The limitations of human perception (or the perception of whatever intelligent beings there will be in the far future) is largely irrelevant. This doesn't of course invalidate your other two points.
The upside is, the people of the future can believe in a static universe, and insofar as their universe is compatible with that hypothesis, they're no worse off for not knowing the truth.
Do we know the truth? Maybe there's another important factor in the equation which is as invisible for as now as dark energy domination would have been earlier in the universe's history. Or maybe there's something interesting in the universe's history of which all traces are already invisible now, just as the expansion of the universe will (probably) be invisible to the future people.
And BTW, who knows what they will be able to measure? We don't know the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Thus how do we know that examination of those (which might follow finding it e.g. in advanced accelerator experiments, independent from any astronomic observations) wouldn't reveal other signs of the origin of the universe, signs which are currently hidden from us (because we miss the required knowledge to observe them), and which would tell those future observers about the history of the universe anyway?
Yes, but will there be Hurd drivers? Depends on your definition of hard drive. How does my definition of a hard drive affect the question if there will be Hurddrivers?
Interesting, but given what we've seen in the past few years, will policy makers even bother to read what the simulator came up with? Yes. If it matches their plans, they'll use it to justify those plans. It it doesn't, they'll just ignore it, because after all, it's just a simulation, and it might be wrong.
Of course the right way to use the computer would be to make two runs: The first run is to find out the best strategy for the problem at hand. The second run is to find out the best strategy to convince the boss to use the strategy just found.
Working prototype drives should be available within a decade. Sweet, just around the time Starcraft 2 and Duke Nukem Forever come out. Yes, but will there be Hurd drivers?
Well, it's undetectable for software not knowing what to search for. It's of course detectable by the author of the root kit, and I'm sure a requirement will be to demonstrate that the computer really is infected, otherwise she could simply infect none, and then simply decide which ones are "infected" after the fact.
If there's no such requirement of proof, I'll happily offer a test of my completely undetectable root kit. And I'll not even demand the source of the detector program (I'll also not offer mine).:-)
Again, haven't read TFA, but what is this going to give us?
Since it's about simulating a complete physical brain on a supercomputer, it will at least give us a better understanding of how the brain works.
We have billions of people to talk to already, so what good is a person you can manufacture? Will we enslave it?
That's actually an interesting question: If we really manage to emulate a human brain, will the computer running that simulation then have human rights? Will it be murder to destroy the computer or the simulation?
And also, assuming that the simulated brain really works equivalent to a real one: Is it ethical to create it? After all, that brain would not sit in a human body; it couldn't move freely, but would be "imprisoned" on that supercomputer. What would it mean for that simulated person to be a program running on a supercomputer? After all, it would not be a mind designed to be a supercomputer program, but a mind in a brain optimized for being part of a physical human body.
Of course there's the question if a mind can even appear in such a simulated brain if it is missing the input from the physical body and the physical surrounding world to interact with. More importantly, will a sane mind appear? Or would it be a torture for that mind to grow up as a supercomputer simulation?
Well, maybe it will just end up like Marvin: Very, very depressed...
How can you put quantum and organic computing on the same list as a hack to join up a bunch of projectors to make a larger screen and a fricking "beanbag" mouse that you wave about?
Simple. Just don't open a new file when finished describing the former and starting with the latter.
BTW, I didn't see anything about organic computing in the article. There was something about simulating a brain on a (silicon) supercomputer.
A hand-carried fusion reactor, unless you want to take down the grid with those ideas...
Well, add on that list: The closed time loop computer. By sending information to the past, it allows to infinitely speed up software: The result of one step is just sent to the past for preparation of the next step. Since also the final result gets sent into the past, you get your result immediatly. Indeed, you can get your result before you even asked the question!
Heck, I could build a space elevator today with enough money. ??? I'm confused.
In order for any object to span the length the space elevator would need to, it needs to have a density similar to that of graphite and a tensile strength no less than 65 GPa. And that's just to support itself. This is with the optimized shape.
Now the strongest thing we can make at length is carbon fibre at 5.6GPa, Kevlar at ~4GPa. For comparison, steel has a tensile strength of ~2GPa.
So far as I can tell. An infinite amount of money won't change this. That is, unless the money will be spent on advanced material research. He didn't say he would build that space elevator starting from earth. There are lots of celestal bodies which have far less gravity than earth, and it shouldn't be too hard to find one where the strength of current materials would suffice for a space elevator. With enough money, it should be possible to build one there.
No, it's clearly the fault of George W. Bush that they got extinct. Ok, I have no clue how he may caused it, but that doesn't matter, it must be his fault!:-)
However, scientists have found out that the penguins' waddling is more energy efficient than our walking (and no, that's not a joke, although I'm now too lazy to search for a reference).
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously haven't read the book.
42 minutes? 42 years? 42 centuries? 42 complete revolutions of the sun around the galactic center?
Why shouldn't there be another civilization after new natural ressources have built up? It surely won't be human, but there's no reason another intelligent species shouldn't emerge on earth in the distant future.
Almost everything we currently observe in science is outside the range of human perception. The limitations of human perception (or the perception of whatever intelligent beings there will be in the far future) is largely irrelevant. This doesn't of course invalidate your other two points.
No, he wrote "Sorry for the inconvenience."
Do we know the truth? Maybe there's another important factor in the equation which is as invisible for as now as dark energy domination would have been earlier in the universe's history. Or maybe there's something interesting in the universe's history of which all traces are already invisible now, just as the expansion of the universe will (probably) be invisible to the future people.
And BTW, who knows what they will be able to measure? We don't know the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Thus how do we know that examination of those (which might follow finding it e.g. in advanced accelerator experiments, independent from any astronomic observations) wouldn't reveal other signs of the origin of the universe, signs which are currently hidden from us (because we miss the required knowledge to observe them), and which would tell those future observers about the history of the universe anyway?
Don't worry, we've reserved a place for you on the B-Ark.
Of course the right way to use the computer would be to make two runs: The first run is to find out the best strategy for the problem at hand. The second run is to find out the best strategy to convince the boss to use the strategy just found.
Maybe the Mafia objected to be put in one bag with the RIAA and MPAA. :-)
Well, it's undetectable for software not knowing what to search for. It's of course detectable by the author of the root kit, and I'm sure a requirement will be to demonstrate that the computer really is infected, otherwise she could simply infect none, and then simply decide which ones are "infected" after the fact.
:-)
If there's no such requirement of proof, I'll happily offer a test of my completely undetectable root kit. And I'll not even demand the source of the detector program (I'll also not offer mine).
I suggest "Return of the Grammar Nazi." However you really should avoid "Apostrophe 9 from Outer Space."
SCNR
What about a man-made sandwich?
They want to simulate the Brain so they know how to take over the world.
Yes.
While it will certainly change society a lot, it's certainly nothing which will reinvent computing. Granted, the free-space mouse isn't either
Since it's about simulating a complete physical brain on a supercomputer, it will at least give us a better understanding of how the brain works.
That's actually an interesting question: If we really manage to emulate a human brain, will the computer running that simulation then have human rights? Will it be murder to destroy the computer or the simulation?
And also, assuming that the simulated brain really works equivalent to a real one: Is it ethical to create it? After all, that brain would not sit in a human body; it couldn't move freely, but would be "imprisoned" on that supercomputer. What would it mean for that simulated person to be a program running on a supercomputer? After all, it would not be a mind designed to be a supercomputer program, but a mind in a brain optimized for being part of a physical human body.
Of course there's the question if a mind can even appear in such a simulated brain if it is missing the input from the physical body and the physical surrounding world to interact with. More importantly, will a sane mind appear? Or would it be a torture for that mind to grow up as a supercomputer simulation?
Well, maybe it will just end up like Marvin: Very, very depressed
Simple. Just don't open a new file when finished describing the former and starting with the latter.
BTW, I didn't see anything about organic computing in the article. There was something about simulating a brain on a (silicon) supercomputer.
Well, add on that list: The closed time loop computer. By sending information to the past, it allows to infinitely speed up software: The result of one step is just sent to the past for preparation of the next step. Since also the final result gets sent into the past, you get your result immediatly. Indeed, you can get your result before you even asked the question!
In order for any object to span the length the space elevator would need to, it needs to have a density similar to that of graphite and a tensile strength no less than 65 GPa. And that's just to support itself. This is with the optimized shape.
Now the strongest thing we can make at length is carbon fibre at 5.6GPa, Kevlar at ~4GPa. For comparison, steel has a tensile strength of ~2GPa.
So far as I can tell. An infinite amount of money won't change this. That is, unless the money will be spent on advanced material research. He didn't say he would build that space elevator starting from earth. There are lots of celestal bodies which have far less gravity than earth, and it shouldn't be too hard to find one where the strength of current materials would suffice for a space elevator. With enough money, it should be possible to build one there.
Actually it was just the prohibitively high roaming fees.
No, it's clearly the fault of George W. Bush that they got extinct. Ok, I have no clue how he may caused it, but that doesn't matter, it must be his fault! :-)
However, scientists have found out that the penguins' waddling is more energy efficient than our walking (and no, that's not a joke, although I'm now too lazy to search for a reference).