*I* say that the next person who submits a story with any sort of intentional rhyming should be drawn, quartered, and then slashdotted. And yes, I know what all of those things are.
...with only a tiny bit of help from cannibalizing the remnants of Eastern Europe, and utilizing the technology of other countries to their advantage. The Russians stole the atomic bomb from us, they didn't develope it on their own. That, and their massive manufacturing capability (done at the expense of untold numbers of oppressed people) were the primary status symbols that allowed them to be ranked as a near-equal to the USA.
It's still around. It's still going, like the Energizer bunny. And while it's number of active players is probably around 10-20k, with an average number online at any time of perhaps 100-200, it's still showing no signs of stopping. Personally, I've deposited $75, and my accounts are worth about $1500-2000+
The very point of these writers is that such a perspective is itself doomed. Roddenbury's quote is to be, by their guess, more true than it was before. Because writing on perspectives of human nature will no longer have any application if human nature has revised itself dramatically. Given the choice between writing about something (classic SF) that is expected to become obsolete soon, or writing about the expected beginning of a new era, these writers are chosing the latter over the former.
The basic point I suspect the article is trying to make is thus: the field of speculative science fiction is no longer what it once was. Look back at the middle of the century, and you'll see that the predictive writings of science fiction authors all contained major assumptions about the social and cultural settings of the future. Even the ones that realized that fact, and tried to compensate, still failed for a lack of ability to predict. Absolutely no one in 1950 had an inkling of what the computer would do to society in fifty years. Looking at the history of science fiction, you see that while on occasion a few skilled authors make an accurate prediction or two, the vast majority of speculative sci fi fails dramatically to come close to reality. In the last two or three decades, it is generally considered that this situation has been growing steadily worse. Cultural changes are effectively impossible to predict long-term, because of their very nature (many small meme introductions over a long period of time), but now it becomes increasingly difficult to predict scientific and social changes. If the WWW had such an incredible impact on global economy within a span of nine or ten years, how can anyone hope to guess what will happen in eighty or ninety years?
72, actually. However, while some may be motivated by the desire of an afterlife, many may well not be. Did the Japanese kamikazis expect half a gross of virgins when they blew up a ship? There are undoubtedly times when people feel that the actions of a suicide bomber are a logical necessity.
This is bad for the consumer..how? I for one would love to see the day when all the necessary electronics one uses in everyday life may be compacted into a single small gadget to be carried and used anywhere and everywhere. Perhaps, out of stupidity, the companies have started us down that road.
If used for cargo, it's going to be far less efficient than to just use a locomotive, because of the savings in doing things in quantity.
If used for passengers...wait, why WOULD you want to use it for passengers? It's a bus, that can go on railroad tracks. If you're going long-distance, you could just go on the highway instead, and go faster! For short distances, why would you not use a normal bus (at a fraction of the cost) or a car?
Completely, and totally, pointless. Like those plans for strapping wings onto small cars.
Perhaps you didn't quite understand it when you RTFA. If the military adopts this, it's going to be producing them in quantity. At scales that large, the price for civilian use is likely to also go down dramatically. Virtually all of the problems plaguing 3rd world countries can be fixed with sufficient money. Reducing the costs associated with fixing those problems means more people can be helped for less. At the very least it should help those who recieve them in the form of humanitarian aid.
Of a technology developed for combat that could be an enormous benefit to humanitarian efforts around the world. If cheap and reliable enough, this could save hundreds of thousands of lives.
You're basing your entire belief in the legality of using mod chips on the absence of a single comma in a quote from a newspaper quoting the actual law. Would you really want to risk facing the law based on the existence of a comma?
What are ethics? Why is stealing considered "wrong"? The short answer is, it's harmful to others. If the act is not harmful, but still stealing, is it unethical? Why would it be? Loan sharks are unethical, but a bank offering a loan to you is ethical. The difference being that one is harmful and the other not. Yes, this is simplified, but it's also basically true. "Stealing" is not inherently unethical in all contexts.
Those are all 3rd or 4th generation aircraft. Considering that the SR-71 was classified for decades before its existence was admitted to, it's nearly certain we have something even more impressive. How many other countries have developed stealth technology? None. How many other countries have achieved Mach 3+ flight in combat aircraft? None. How many other countries have developed drone stealth aircraft? None. I could go on and on. There exists at the present time no one in the world who can match our aircraft industry. The Europeans are a joke, China is playing catch-up, and Russia got out of the arms race a decade ago.
The US didnt win the gulf war.. I dont know where you get that idea from
If you knew ANYTHING of recent history, of the Gulf War, you would know how incredibly idiotic your statement is. We utterly decimated Saddam's armies with minimal losses. Most of the friendly soldiers lost were killed in friendly-fire accidents. Saddam's communications, power, and transportation infrastructures were all wiped out within a matter of hours by F-117 bombers. His air force never even existed as a threat because of the utter destruction our Air Force wrought on his hangers, runways, and aircraft. We slaughtered the Iraqi army and let the survivors run home. Then we left, our mission accomplished: driving Saddam out of Kuwait, severely damaging the ability of Iraq to wage war, and showing that we were willing to intercede in the Middle East. All goals were accomplished, and we DEFINITELY left victorious.
Lockheed produced the SR-71 and U-2. Without those two aircraft, the odds that we might have launched our nuclear weapons during the Cold War would have been astronomically greater. Halliburton =! military aircraft industry.
On the other hand, I've yet to hear of people who have survived an actual nuclear attack, in its target radius.
And what exactly would you define as a "target radius"? Depending on what sort of structure you're within, prevalent winds, warhead size, terrain features, detonation altitude, and other conditions, the range of 100% lethality can vary immensely. At a distance of, say, 50 miles, casualty rates will be minimal, if any. At a distance of 10 miles, most people will likely survive the detonation and the shock wave (depending, again, on a host of factors). The point is, a single nuclear blast in the megatonnage range will kill hundreds of thousands in a major city (say, New York or LA), but that's it. Smallpox, spread widely amongst the population, could cause an order of magnitude more deaths.
It'd been idiotic for superpowers to use them; what goes around comes around.
Oh, right, because it would've been so brilliant to launch nuclear weapons instead? Any deployment of WMD would have been idiotic. When you're facing a total retaliatory nuclear holocaust within the next hour, who the FUCK cares about the remote danger of smallpox infection in coming months? During a cold war, weapons developement of all kinds is encouraged. Smallpox is a potential weapon, ergo developement was a natural action.
At least the H-bomb is a nice, quick, relatively painless death if you're near ground zero. If you're further out, you're still likely dead, or about to die within a few hours.
On the other hand, smallpox will let you suffer painfully for a nice long time before you finally croak. A nice, long, long time. Enjoy!
Slashdot Mirror
*I* say that the next person who submits a story with any sort of intentional rhyming should be drawn, quartered, and then slashdotted. And yes, I know what all of those things are.
...with only a tiny bit of help from cannibalizing the remnants of Eastern Europe, and utilizing the technology of other countries to their advantage. The Russians stole the atomic bomb from us, they didn't develope it on their own. That, and their massive manufacturing capability (done at the expense of untold numbers of oppressed people) were the primary status symbols that allowed them to be ranked as a near-equal to the USA.
It's still around. It's still going, like the Energizer bunny. And while it's number of active players is probably around 10-20k, with an average number online at any time of perhaps 100-200, it's still showing no signs of stopping. Personally, I've deposited $75, and my accounts are worth about $1500-2000+
I don't want to get any more papers, thank you very much. How about we have NO papers of this sort, and then you guys can do the same?
Your mistake is in assuming the conditions will remain the same. The entire point of the singularity is that afterwards, it won't be the same.
The very point of these writers is that such a perspective is itself doomed. Roddenbury's quote is to be, by their guess, more true than it was before. Because writing on perspectives of human nature will no longer have any application if human nature has revised itself dramatically. Given the choice between writing about something (classic SF) that is expected to become obsolete soon, or writing about the expected beginning of a new era, these writers are chosing the latter over the former.
The basic point I suspect the article is trying to make is thus: the field of speculative science fiction is no longer what it once was. Look back at the middle of the century, and you'll see that the predictive writings of science fiction authors all contained major assumptions about the social and cultural settings of the future. Even the ones that realized that fact, and tried to compensate, still failed for a lack of ability to predict. Absolutely no one in 1950 had an inkling of what the computer would do to society in fifty years. Looking at the history of science fiction, you see that while on occasion a few skilled authors make an accurate prediction or two, the vast majority of speculative sci fi fails dramatically to come close to reality. In the last two or three decades, it is generally considered that this situation has been growing steadily worse. Cultural changes are effectively impossible to predict long-term, because of their very nature (many small meme introductions over a long period of time), but now it becomes increasingly difficult to predict scientific and social changes. If the WWW had such an incredible impact on global economy within a span of nine or ten years, how can anyone hope to guess what will happen in eighty or ninety years?
72, actually. However, while some may be motivated by the desire of an afterlife, many may well not be. Did the Japanese kamikazis expect half a gross of virgins when they blew up a ship? There are undoubtedly times when people feel that the actions of a suicide bomber are a logical necessity.
Tis more a pity that two of those keys aren't "Alt" and "F4" once in a while (for AOLers).
We're talking about tax money here; the citizens of Alabama deserve better
Are you really sure about that?
Disclaimer: I have nothing against Alabama, this was a joke.
This is bad for the consumer..how? I for one would love to see the day when all the necessary electronics one uses in everyday life may be compacted into a single small gadget to be carried and used anywhere and everywhere. Perhaps, out of stupidity, the companies have started us down that road.
If used for cargo, it's going to be far less efficient than to just use a locomotive, because of the savings in doing things in quantity.
If used for passengers...wait, why WOULD you want to use it for passengers? It's a bus, that can go on railroad tracks. If you're going long-distance, you could just go on the highway instead, and go faster! For short distances, why would you not use a normal bus (at a fraction of the cost) or a car?
Completely, and totally, pointless. Like those plans for strapping wings onto small cars.
Perhaps you didn't quite understand it when you RTFA. If the military adopts this, it's going to be producing them in quantity. At scales that large, the price for civilian use is likely to also go down dramatically. Virtually all of the problems plaguing 3rd world countries can be fixed with sufficient money. Reducing the costs associated with fixing those problems means more people can be helped for less. At the very least it should help those who recieve them in the form of humanitarian aid.
Of a technology developed for combat that could be an enormous benefit to humanitarian efforts around the world. If cheap and reliable enough, this could save hundreds of thousands of lives.
You're basing your entire belief in the legality of using mod chips on the absence of a single comma in a quote from a newspaper quoting the actual law. Would you really want to risk facing the law based on the existence of a comma?
I am African Prince.
Give me money
Sorry, you've not quite got the hang of it yet. Further optimization yields the following message:
I'm African. Give money.
As the title says. Why?
What are ethics? Why is stealing considered "wrong"? The short answer is, it's harmful to others. If the act is not harmful, but still stealing, is it unethical? Why would it be? Loan sharks are unethical, but a bank offering a loan to you is ethical. The difference being that one is harmful and the other not. Yes, this is simplified, but it's also basically true. "Stealing" is not inherently unethical in all contexts.
If this is nothing special, why was it submitted? If I understand it correctly, this is just a PR issue, and nothing of scientific interest.
/.
And no, I'm not new to
Then get out. Simple problem, simple solution.
Those are all 3rd or 4th generation aircraft. Considering that the SR-71 was classified for decades before its existence was admitted to, it's nearly certain we have something even more impressive. How many other countries have developed stealth technology? None. How many other countries have achieved Mach 3+ flight in combat aircraft? None. How many other countries have developed drone stealth aircraft? None. I could go on and on. There exists at the present time no one in the world who can match our aircraft industry. The Europeans are a joke, China is playing catch-up, and Russia got out of the arms race a decade ago.
The US didnt win the gulf war.. I dont know where you get that idea from
If you knew ANYTHING of recent history, of the Gulf War, you would know how incredibly idiotic your statement is. We utterly decimated Saddam's armies with minimal losses. Most of the friendly soldiers lost were killed in friendly-fire accidents. Saddam's communications, power, and transportation infrastructures were all wiped out within a matter of hours by F-117 bombers. His air force never even existed as a threat because of the utter destruction our Air Force wrought on his hangers, runways, and aircraft. We slaughtered the Iraqi army and let the survivors run home. Then we left, our mission accomplished: driving Saddam out of Kuwait, severely damaging the ability of Iraq to wage war, and showing that we were willing to intercede in the Middle East. All goals were accomplished, and we DEFINITELY left victorious.
Lockheed produced the SR-71 and U-2. Without those two aircraft, the odds that we might have launched our nuclear weapons during the Cold War would have been astronomically greater. Halliburton =! military aircraft industry.
On the other hand, I've yet to hear of people who have survived an actual nuclear attack, in its target radius.
And what exactly would you define as a "target radius"? Depending on what sort of structure you're within, prevalent winds, warhead size, terrain features, detonation altitude, and other conditions, the range of 100% lethality can vary immensely. At a distance of, say, 50 miles, casualty rates will be minimal, if any. At a distance of 10 miles, most people will likely survive the detonation and the shock wave (depending, again, on a host of factors). The point is, a single nuclear blast in the megatonnage range will kill hundreds of thousands in a major city (say, New York or LA), but that's it. Smallpox, spread widely amongst the population, could cause an order of magnitude more deaths.
It'd been idiotic for superpowers to use them; what goes around comes around.
Oh, right, because it would've been so brilliant to launch nuclear weapons instead? Any deployment of WMD would have been idiotic. When you're facing a total retaliatory nuclear holocaust within the next hour, who the FUCK cares about the remote danger of smallpox infection in coming months? During a cold war, weapons developement of all kinds is encouraged. Smallpox is a potential weapon, ergo developement was a natural action.
At least the H-bomb is a nice, quick, relatively painless death if you're near ground zero. If you're further out, you're still likely dead, or about to die within a few hours.
On the other hand, smallpox will let you suffer painfully for a nice long time before you finally croak. A nice, long, long time. Enjoy!