How about mapping every neuron and conduit in the human brain and then translating it to some silicon-based format?
If you could have this done to you, would you want it? The "computer" would think it's you. This relates back to the old sci-fi question of, when someone teleports, has the "old person" been destroyed and transparently replaced with a "new person" who thinks he/she is the old person?
What I'd like to know is when... computers will have the same level of consciousness as we do.
At that point, they will be empowered to invent and innovate creatively without the biological encumbrances we have. Imagine a human-like mind that can, while thinking, remember every fact with equal clarity. And imagine the scope of that knowledge base to include all discovered facts. Every theoretical mathematical conjecture could be instantly evaluated and computed (no more tedious sessions working with Mathematica). Sci-fi writer Vernor Vinge has stated that this point in history will be so revolutionary that we are entirely incapable of seeing what lies after it -- a horizon "singularity".
For $100, you can join my club. The main benefit is that for each person you recruit to join (with them paying the $100 entry fee), you get to keep $50. And if any of your recruitees enlist someone, you get to keep $25. And if any of THEM enlist someone, you get to keep $10 of the cost.
Now, if you can recruit 3 people, who in turn recruit 3 people, who in turn recruit 3 people, you will make 27*10+9*25+3*50 = $7,150.
Got that? You can make of SEVEN GRAND for only $100 and the simple effort of recruiting three people. And note that for each additional three dependable people you recruit, you make an additional $7,150. If you could just recruit 10 groups of three, you'd pocket $71,500 -- all for your original cost of $100.
(And this reasoning is the foundation of many of the gimmick pyramid schemes out there...):-(
This is good news for those working certain defense contracts. The process for integrating a software product is much simplified if the product is supported by an established entity. It was frustrating to downgrade the browser capability doing Netscape 7.1 (in essence, Mozilla 1.4) when more recent versions are out at the time.
Inmate 2: "I was the CEO of a large media conglomerate. I masterminded a scandal which cheated millions of people out of their retirement servings. So I've gotta serve three years here in the slammer. And you?"
Inmate 1: "My little brother used my computer to download Crossroads. He's always had a crush on Britney Spears. Of course it was my application of eMule and I had no way to prove it wasn't me. The judge was having a bad day and nailed me with three years.
I've always had a gut feeling there had be an EASIER way to get tonnage to space -- it's just a matter of time and innovation.
> which docks to a helium-inflated two-mile-long station at the edge of space, over 20 miles up.
I thought the edge of space is generally considered to be at 70 miles up (i.e., if you could turn your car upwards, you'd be there in an hour)
> two-mile-long station
Damn that's big. "That's no space station..."
> At payload costs around a dollar a ton to LEO.
Oh dear... my poor friends over on the Atlas program. But I wonder if this methodology is extendable to reach higher orbits. It's a long ways to get from 350 miles up to 19,000 miles up.
> And that's my point. Why do you care about influencing popular taste (or the way people express their taste) if it has no influence on your enjoyment?
Because privately enjoying a movie and seeking to discourage group-think are two separate entities.
One thing I can't help wondering is if many people form a final opinion about the movies that is based on the loud public sentiment. My reaction to Star Wars 1 and 2 is that I loved them. The sci-fi backgrounds and effects were impressive, the action scenes intense, and the storyline was palatable. And I found several scenes to be quite memorable -- to name a few: the Obi-Wan/Darth Maul fight, the Yoda fight, and the huge jedi battle.
So yeah, I'm committing the unimaginable sin -- I liked Star Wars 1 and 2. Am I a stupid person? My career achievements would speak otherwise. Is my taste inferior? Perhaps, although the only thing I give a damn about is whether or not *I* enjoyed it. Am I unable to recognize poor-acting and plot-holes? No, I was cognizant of it all. Anakan and Amidala were cheesy (although I still love to say "you're making fun of me" in that cheesy tone to my wife to which she replies in an reciprocally cheesy tone: "I'd be much to frightened..."). However, I also juxtapose the shortcomings against the composite package of the movie. And in the case of Star Wars 1 and 2, the positive elements outweighed the negative ones to provide me a viewing experience which surpassed that of most movies.
And here's my main gripe -- I think there are others like me, who honestly enjoyed the movies when they were sitting in the theatre seats. But then, the popular and intellectually respectable position came to be that you were "absolutely miserable" during the movies. I mean, only a complete idiot could actually enjoy those movies, right?
All I ask is for you to consider this: at the time of your viewing -- were you enjoying the movie? If you were miserable, fine -- then the movies didn't jive with your refined taste. But if your hatred for the movies didn't develop until you read the comments on three dozen slashdot articles, then consider whether or not you are speaking your own opinions. Be honest enough to admit you enjoy what you enjoy. If you like Enterprise, great. If Farscape and FireFly raised your standards high enough that you can no longer enjoy Star Trek, then that's fine too. If the Matrix 3 plot resolution left a foul taste in your mouth (as it did for me), then live it. Just live your own opinions. I'm sure many critics out there genuinely hated the movies -- but I also believe there are many more who initially did not.
A very interesting discovery. In addition to potential breakthroughs in medical research, I wonder if these discoveries might shed some light on the evolution of the first procaryotes...
However, the observable universe, consisting of all locations that could have affected us since the Big Bang given the finite speed of light, is certainly finite. The edge of the cosmic light horizon is 13.7 billion light years distant. The present distance (comoving distance) to the edge of the observable universe is larger, since the universe has been expanding; it is estimated to be about 50 billion light years
The reason for this provide in the sibling response.
Recall that Hubble's law is v=H*D where v is the velocity a given galaxy is moving away from us and D is its distance from us (and H is Hubble's constant). So closer galaxies are moving more SLOWLY away from us than distant galaxies. And hence, closer galaxies may be moving away slower than c while more distant galaxies may be moving away faster than c.
I watched the first two seasons of Enterprise and enjoyed reading the well-written reviews by Gisele La Roche. Interestingly, he's given Season 3 some pretty good marks. Already, he's given:
A+ (5 episodes) A (4 episodes)
Compare this with Season 1:
A+ (0 episodes) A (2 episodes)
And Season 2:
A+ (0 episodes) A (2 episodes)
I enjoyed the 4 "A" episodes in the first two seasons, so I'm eager to see the season 3 episodes which prompted the "A+" ratings.
Announcing plans is certainly easier than carrying them out. Cancellations (and cost overruns) have plagued every space program developed in our short "space age".
As an employee for a large aerospace corporation, I'm beginning to recognize why space is so difficult. On the parts level, parts must be "space-qualified", which limits selection to a few choice vendors who, in applying rigorous mil-spec requirements to parts testing and screening, mark-up the price 15x. The only alternative is privately "up-screen" the part according to program requirements, which is also a lengthy and time-consuming process. When dealing with space, so many new concerns must be addressed. Radiation effects, outgassing, vibration impact from launch, severe thermal excursions, redundancies, etc. Each hi-tech subcomponent has to be built twice -- one for flight and one for intense qual unit testing. Close scrutiny of reported industry design flaws must be adhered to. There's been quite a stir relating to some flawed algorithms in Actel FPGAs.
Anyway, my point is that space is difficult and costly -- as evidenced once again by this cancellation. My primary fear is that the USA lacks the monetary dedication to see such a large and bold endeavor as the moon/mars mission through to fruition. As for me, I'm just hoping the TPF and JWST survive.
"For instance, this year, total pet-related sales in the United States are projected to be $31 billion - the double, almost to the cent, of the $15.47 billion NASA budget. An estimated $5 billion worth of holiday season gifts were offered - not to the poor - but to the roving family pets - six times more than NASA spent on its own roving Martian explorers, Spirit and Opportunity, who cost the American taxpayer $820 million both."
"Instead of betting on the future, Americans spend $586.5 billion a year on gambling. It is perhaps immoral to criticize one's personal choice, so instead of kicking the habit and feeding the poor with this money, one should stop instead the enormous waste in space who stands at a scandalous amount of 40 times less than gaming tokens."
"Speaking about personal choice, $31 billion go annually in the US on tobacco products - twice the NASA budget -, and $58 billion is spent on alcohol consumption -almost four times the NASA budget. Forget space spin-offs - here are genuine tangible benefits: $250 billion are spent annually in the US on the medical treatment of tobacco- and alcohol-related diseases - only sixteen times more than on space exploration."
These figures represent how, as a society, how lowly we value space exploration. If we spent 50% as much on space exploration as we spent on Hollywood entertainment, Orbitz would selling weekend passes to the most popular lunar resorts.
> God's ultimate standard for good is himself. He acts in ways that most manifest his goodness.
No offense, but this seems a bit like a cop-out. You've tossed out every notion of modern morality and love and defined goodness as "whatever God does". Hence, if God wants to torture billions for eternity, it's "good". If Hitler was divine, we could argue he was good by this logic. His ultimate standard for good was himself. He acted in ways that most manifested his "goodness". My point is, these arbitrary designations strip "goodness" of all meaning.
I'm curious... the article mentions that TPF-i will be a corroborative effort with the ESA. ESA, however, has been planning a similar endeavor named Darwin, which was to be a flotilla of eight infrared telescopes. So is the ESA folding their Darwin effort into TPF-i? If so, what will be the final name? If they settle on "Darwin", I imagine there might be an outcry by the American fundamentalist camp.
In some ways, the new stuff is scripted to appeal to the modern mindset. Who wants a anthropomorphic god that demands particular moral actions under the threat of retribution? Or who wants to follow the five pillars? Who wants to bother with Hail Mary's and the attendence of mass to ensure the slate stays clean? Much more appealing is to believe that we've already had exciting past lives, that we can acquire knowledge through lucid dreaming, and that the stars show us what we need to do.
But regardless, I agree, people generally are not concerned with making objective investigations regarding their beliefs. It's amazing to hear well-educated engineers at my workplace testify to veracity of astrology.
When you consider the emotional ride these engineers and scientists have been on, a period of adjustment to post-mission life is certainly understandable. From living on a Martian schedule, to the torture of anticipation endured during touch-down, to the milestone discoveries, all of this must be amazing to experience first-hand. Think of all the data analyzed, the nights lying in bed pondering improvements to the software code -- projects such as these become easily become one's life. I just hope the JPL have more interesting projects to look forward to in the future (i.e., propulsion drives, space telescope flotillas, Europa ice-drillers...).
In terms of human discovery, it's a great time to be alive!
Slashdot Mirror
> Reuters is reporting that the dimmest galaxy has been found
Yeah, I always that galaxy wasn't too bright...
How about mapping every neuron and conduit in the human brain and then translating it to some silicon-based format?
If you could have this done to you, would you want it? The "computer" would think it's you. This relates back to the old sci-fi question of, when someone teleports, has the "old person" been destroyed and transparently replaced with a "new person" who thinks he/she is the old person?
What I'd like to know is when... computers will have the same level of consciousness as we do.
At that point, they will be empowered to invent and innovate creatively without the biological encumbrances we have. Imagine a human-like mind that can, while thinking, remember every fact with equal clarity. And imagine the scope of that knowledge base to include all discovered facts. Every theoretical mathematical conjecture could be instantly evaluated and computed (no more tedious sessions working with Mathematica). Sci-fi writer Vernor Vinge has stated that this point in history will be so revolutionary that we are entirely incapable of seeing what lies after it -- a horizon "singularity".
If you could travel .9c with a time dilation factor of 7, you would only age 60 years. 420 years would pass on Earth however.
For $100, you can join my club. The main benefit is that for each person you recruit to join (with them paying the $100 entry fee), you get to keep $50. And if any of your recruitees enlist someone, you get to keep $25. And if any of THEM enlist someone, you get to keep $10 of the cost.
:-(
Now, if you can recruit 3 people, who in turn recruit 3 people, who in turn recruit 3 people, you will make 27*10+9*25+3*50 = $7,150.
Got that? You can make of SEVEN GRAND for only $100 and the simple effort of recruiting three people. And note that for each additional three dependable people you recruit, you make an additional $7,150. If you could just recruit 10 groups of three, you'd pocket $71,500 -- all for your original cost of $100.
(And this reasoning is the foundation of many of the gimmick pyramid schemes out there...)
Now, if only more geeks could get rich. We'd have more SETI telescopes, sci-fi museums, space project funding....
This is good news for those working certain defense contracts. The process for integrating a software product is much simplified if the product is supported by an established entity. It was frustrating to downgrade the browser capability doing Netscape 7.1 (in essence, Mozilla 1.4) when more recent versions are out at the time.
(overheard outside a jail-cell)
Inmate 1: "So what are you in here for?"
Inmate 2: "I was the CEO of a large media conglomerate. I masterminded a scandal which cheated millions of people out of their retirement servings. So I've gotta serve three years here in the slammer. And you?"
Inmate 1: "My little brother used my computer to download Crossroads. He's always had a crush on Britney Spears. Of course it was my application of eMule and I had no way to prove it wasn't me. The judge was having a bad day and nailed me with three years.
Inmate 2: "Damn...."
I thought the edge of space is generally considered to be at 70 miles up (i.e., if you could turn your car upwards, you'd be there in an hour)
Damn that's big. "That's no space station..."
Oh dear... my poor friends over on the Atlas program. But I wonder if this methodology is extendable to reach higher orbits. It's a long ways to get from 350 miles up to 19,000 miles up.
> And that's my point. Why do you care about influencing popular taste (or the way people express their taste) if it has no influence on your enjoyment?
Because privately enjoying a movie and seeking to discourage group-think are two separate entities.
>> "the only thing I give a damn about is whether or not *I* enjoyed it."
> Then why make an entire post defending your viewpoint?
The context of the quote you spliced out was the irrelevance of "popular taste" with respect to personal enjoyment.
One thing I can't help wondering is if many people form a final opinion about the movies that is based on the loud public sentiment. My reaction to Star Wars 1 and 2 is that I loved them. The sci-fi backgrounds and effects were impressive, the action scenes intense, and the storyline was palatable. And I found several scenes to be quite memorable -- to name a few: the Obi-Wan/Darth Maul fight, the Yoda fight, and the huge jedi battle.
So yeah, I'm committing the unimaginable sin -- I liked Star Wars 1 and 2. Am I a stupid person? My career achievements would speak otherwise. Is my taste inferior? Perhaps, although the only thing I give a damn about is whether or not *I* enjoyed it. Am I unable to recognize poor-acting and plot-holes? No, I was cognizant of it all. Anakan and Amidala were cheesy (although I still love to say "you're making fun of me" in that cheesy tone to my wife to which she replies in an reciprocally cheesy tone: "I'd be much to frightened..."). However, I also juxtapose the shortcomings against the composite package of the movie. And in the case of Star Wars 1 and 2, the positive elements outweighed the negative ones to provide me a viewing experience which surpassed that of most movies.
And here's my main gripe -- I think there are others like me, who honestly enjoyed the movies when they were sitting in the theatre seats. But then, the popular and intellectually respectable position came to be that you were "absolutely miserable" during the movies. I mean, only a complete idiot could actually enjoy those movies, right?
All I ask is for you to consider this: at the time of your viewing -- were you enjoying the movie? If you were miserable, fine -- then the movies didn't jive with your refined taste. But if your hatred for the movies didn't develop until you read the comments on three dozen slashdot articles, then consider whether or not you are speaking your own opinions. Be honest enough to admit you enjoy what you enjoy. If you like Enterprise, great. If Farscape and FireFly raised your standards high enough that you can no longer enjoy Star Trek, then that's fine too. If the Matrix 3 plot resolution left a foul taste in your mouth (as it did for me), then live it. Just live your own opinions. I'm sure many critics out there genuinely hated the movies -- but I also believe there are many more who initially did not.
A very interesting discovery. In addition to potential breakthroughs in medical research, I wonder if these discoveries might shed some light on the evolution of the first procaryotes...
The reason for this provide in the sibling response.
Recall that Hubble's law is v=H*D where v is the velocity a given galaxy is moving away from us and D is its distance from us (and H is Hubble's constant). So closer galaxies are moving more SLOWLY away from us than distant galaxies. And hence, closer galaxies may be moving away slower than c while more distant galaxies may be moving away faster than c.
I watched the first two seasons of Enterprise and enjoyed reading the well-written reviews by Gisele La Roche. Interestingly, he's given Season 3 some pretty good marks. Already, he's given:
A+ (5 episodes)
A (4 episodes)
Compare this with Season 1:
A+ (0 episodes)
A (2 episodes)
And Season 2:
A+ (0 episodes)
A (2 episodes)
I enjoyed the 4 "A" episodes in the first two seasons, so I'm eager to see the season 3 episodes which prompted the "A+" ratings.
Announcing plans is certainly easier than carrying them out. Cancellations (and cost overruns) have plagued every space program developed in our short "space age".
As an employee for a large aerospace corporation, I'm beginning to recognize why space is so difficult. On the parts level, parts must be "space-qualified", which limits selection to a few choice vendors who, in applying rigorous mil-spec requirements to parts testing and screening, mark-up the price 15x. The only alternative is privately "up-screen" the part according to program requirements, which is also a lengthy and time-consuming process. When dealing with space, so many new concerns must be addressed. Radiation effects, outgassing, vibration impact from launch, severe thermal excursions, redundancies, etc. Each hi-tech subcomponent has to be built twice -- one for flight and one for intense qual unit testing. Close scrutiny of reported industry design flaws must be adhered to. There's been quite a stir relating to some flawed algorithms in Actel FPGAs.
Anyway, my point is that space is difficult and costly -- as evidenced once again by this cancellation. My primary fear is that the USA lacks the monetary dedication to see such a large and bold endeavor as the moon/mars mission through to fruition. As for me, I'm just hoping the TPF and JWST survive.
Select quotes from Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?"
"For instance, this year, total pet-related sales in the United States are projected to be $31 billion - the double, almost to the cent, of the $15.47 billion NASA budget. An estimated $5 billion worth of holiday season gifts were offered - not to the poor - but to the roving family pets - six times more than NASA spent on its own roving Martian explorers, Spirit and Opportunity, who cost the American taxpayer $820 million both."
"Instead of betting on the future, Americans spend $586.5 billion a year on gambling. It is perhaps immoral to criticize one's personal choice, so instead of kicking the habit and feeding the poor with this money, one should stop instead the enormous waste in space who stands at a scandalous amount of 40 times less than gaming tokens."
"Speaking about personal choice, $31 billion go annually in the US on tobacco products - twice the NASA budget -, and $58 billion is spent on alcohol consumption -almost four times the NASA budget. Forget space spin-offs - here are genuine tangible benefits: $250 billion are spent annually in the US on the medical treatment of tobacco- and alcohol-related diseases - only sixteen times more than on space exploration."
These figures represent how, as a society, how lowly we value space exploration. If we spent 50% as much on space exploration as we spent on Hollywood entertainment, Orbitz would selling weekend passes to the most popular lunar resorts.
SCO... stupid copying oafs.
> God's ultimate standard for good is himself. He acts in ways that most manifest his goodness.
No offense, but this seems a bit like a cop-out. You've tossed out every notion of modern morality and love and defined goodness as "whatever God does". Hence, if God wants to torture billions for eternity, it's "good". If Hitler was divine, we could argue he was good by this logic. His ultimate standard for good was himself. He acted in ways that most manifested his "goodness". My point is, these arbitrary designations strip "goodness" of all meaning.
I'm curious... the article mentions that TPF-i will be a corroborative effort with the ESA. ESA, however, has been planning a similar endeavor named Darwin, which was to be a flotilla of eight infrared telescopes. So is the ESA folding their Darwin effort into TPF-i? If so, what will be the final name? If they settle on "Darwin", I imagine there might be an outcry by the American fundamentalist camp.
Any sign of intelligent life??
In some ways, the new stuff is scripted to appeal to the modern mindset. Who wants a anthropomorphic god that demands particular moral actions under the threat of retribution? Or who wants to follow the five pillars? Who wants to bother with Hail Mary's and the attendence of mass to ensure the slate stays clean? Much more appealing is to believe that we've already had exciting past lives, that we can acquire knowledge through lucid dreaming, and that the stars show us what we need to do.
But regardless, I agree, people generally are not concerned with making objective investigations regarding their beliefs. It's amazing to hear well-educated engineers at my workplace testify to veracity of astrology.
When you consider the emotional ride these engineers and scientists have been on, a period of adjustment to post-mission life is certainly understandable. From living on a Martian schedule, to the torture of anticipation endured during touch-down, to the milestone discoveries, all of this must be amazing to experience first-hand. Think of all the data analyzed, the nights lying in bed pondering improvements to the software code -- projects such as these become easily become one's life. I just hope the JPL have more interesting projects to look forward to in the future (i.e., propulsion drives, space telescope flotillas, Europa ice-drillers...).
In terms of human discovery, it's a great time to be alive!