some species of humanity will end up in a war with what're essentially machines.
When it happens, I suspect that both sides will be essentially machines. All this is, of course, fantasy (well, SF). But if someone's going to make predictions about the next billion years you can guarantee that the predictions will be wrong in ways that we can't even begin to imagine.
Can you imagine humanity restrained enough that over the next few million years of history, with a population of trillions spread over many planets with a multitude if different cultures, they never unleash self-reproducing machines on the universe? The question is moot anyway - the distinction between machine and organism will become pretty blurred over the next few millennia.
You're right, this guy hasn't thought things through. He rejects self-replicating probes because they'd compete with the original explorers. I think that's a lame argument, but let's accept it. Even human colonies spreading out from Earth, and moving onto new stars every generation or two (and sending out some non-self-repicating probes while they're at it), would explore the galaxy far faster than these probes. If humans survive the next century or two I'm sure they'll explore the galaxy in person far faster than this unambitious probe idea.
Re:freaking me out
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Let's take this apart:
*sigh* Stolen elections, terrorist conspiracies.
Well that's a nice rhetorical move. Dump election fraud in with other conspiracies without a shred of reason for doing so.
...but he's not Adolph Hilter.
Few people claim he is. But by denying the straw man you make a nice segue to your next point which is debatable:
Heck, he's not even Richard Nixon.
All this talk about how he engineers fake elections and terrorist attacks -- all from a guy who everyone ridicules as been a moron... I think people need a reality check.
You really need to get a grip on the English language and how it is used. There is no contradiction between thinking Bush is a moron and thinking his administration are cunning. People use Bush to stand for "Bush and his administration". It's called metonymy (Wikipedia even give a similar example.). Even children get metonymy, though they don't know it by name.
America voted Bush in.
So you say. If anyone disagrees, just lump it in with fake terrorism.
The first time because he was a friendly likable guy and the Lewinsky scandal scoured them on Clinton/Gore.
This may be true.
He won the second time because they felt he was protecting them from danger and wanted to give him a chance to win the war.
You're not arguing any point. You're just making an assertion based on ignoring the original story.
Bush won. Both times. Get over it.
In 2008 you'll have a shot at the White House again, and it'll be be your election to lose.
More assertions and some patronising insults.
Do you have anything to say that isn't ignorant, dishonest or plain insulting?
What do you think they do when they knock on a terrorist's door?
Surround the building, cover all exits, try to evacuate innocent people, charge the door, shout a lot and point guns at people's heads. (I don't know the details, I've never had the training, though I've watched SWAT teams practice.) Do you have some kind of problem with that? The sarcasm might be funny if you thought I was suggesting there was an alternative way that governments might handle knocking on terrorists' doors but I never said any such thing.
No, really. Some kid who was apparently kidnapped has his picture online. The only possible reason I can imagine is that there is an 'online' aspect to this story. But seeing as everyone and their granny is online these days I don't see why this story is interesting. Look on youtube, you'll see plenty of more interesting pictures than a picture of a kid who wasn't kidnapped.
Because no one but the government will knock down your door and put a gun to your head after checking your credit report.
Now there's a sensational looking statement. Let's turn it around to the logically equivalent "if someone puts a gun to your head after reading your credit report they must be (an agent of) a government". Hmmm...I doubt that's true. And even if it is, it really isn't very interesting. You figured out how to say something completely vacuous and get it modded up by reordering the words to make it seem sensational. Your statement really says nothing, but it conjures up images of violence perpetrated by government as a direct consequence of them having access to financial records. Nice work! Have you considered a career in journalism?
When you're a member of a fringe political party the onus is on you to communicate your policies. You have made no attempt to do so or even any attempt to correct anything I have said. As far as I can tell, [Ll]ibertarians are largely geek male teenagers who don't like being told what to do. You're doing a good job of reinforcing that image. You can't even think for yourself, you just recycled my use of the word 'slogan'.
I can see I've touched a nerve with [Ll]ibertarians. Must remember that. Never present one with a contradiction in his or her belief system. Just like never discussing evolution with a fundamentalist - you can't discuss anything with people who have given up their minds to dogma.
Of course if you had anything to say other than slogans you'd tell us all exactly how we wouldn't be sold into corporate slavery rather than just respond "I know more than you, na na na na na".
Only Libertarians truly stand for constitutionally protected freedoms!
Of course you forget to mention that if Libertarians had their way then government would be entirely replaced by corporations at which point the Constitution, which serves to limit the powers of government, would become completely irrelevant and we'd no longer have any "constitutionally protected freedoms", just a lot of useless product warranties.
i've been scoffed at for a few years now for my layperson's mistrust of the Copenhagen Interpretation
I'll let you in on a little secret. Many physicists these days consider the Copenhagen Interpretation as nothing other than a pedagogical device to save them having to lecture about decoherence to undergraduates. Note that the default response of physicists who don't think much about foundations is to claim that they subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation simply because that was what they themselves were taught, but they would better be classified as not having any interpretation other than Dirac's "Shut up and calculate!".
What if the government made 'Posting to Slashdot under the alias Kazzahdrane' illegal tomorrow
Why not go all the way and simply say "What if the government made breathing illegal?". Oh, I see why. If you did then it'd become even more obvious that your argument has no merit.
Irrelevant. Anyone who thinks that court cases are won because something does or does not satisfy certain conditions laid down in legal statutes is very naive. All that matters is how much each party has to spend on lawyers to convince a judge. Once convinced, the judge will then write up his or her decision with a post hoc rationalization to make it appear that the decision followed from rules. And so it goes.
So when contact with the lander, which was designed to last one month, was lost after three months, ground controllers were not sure what became of Sojourner.
What callous monsters these NASA people are! Poor Sojourner was left to wander around with no means of communicating back home, while dying a slow and lonely death. I had to wipe the tears from my eyes as I read that story.
The most obvious and conspicuous difference is that the former is civil
Now I understand why they have those annoying warnings that you're forced to sit through at the beginning of DVDs. No matter how big the font, or how long you're forced to watch it, there are still people who don't understand what they say.
Doc: Thank you for volunteering for our experiment
Subject: That's fine. What's it about?
Doc: We can't tell you. But could you tell me what part of your menstrual cycle you're in?
Subject: So it's about menstrual cycles?
Doc: No. We ask everyone that quaestion.
Subject: I believe you.
Indeed I think the case can be well made that essentially *all* physical quantities are ultimately/implicitly determined by measuring frame-dependent coordinate differences.
I have no disagreement with you here. And if your choice of frame is clear then you're free to use coordinates in that frame, including talking about events 7,000 light years away.
Prior to relativity the past was the past and the future was the future. There was a sharp divison between past and future and saying that event A had already happened was saying something significant that seemed to extend beyond just a feature of the coordinate frame in popular use. Now it doesn't. It makes complete sense to say that an event is in our future or past in our frame - but this is a completely uninteresting fact. Nothing hinges on this. Whether or not the event in question happens 1000 years in our future or 1000 years in our past is of little consequence, it's outside of our light cones either way. For example, it makes no difference to our ability to go and see the event in question. 200 years ago it appeared that this would have made all the difference. The purpose of this article is to elicit responses like "wow, these things have already vanished" and my claim is that there's no 'wow' about it at all because nothing interesting hinges on this fact. We're no less able to go and see these events close up than if they were to occur 1,000 years in the future (measured in the intertial frame of Greenwich, say).
Except that there's no known method of using entanglement to signal instantaneously and there's no theoretical reason I know of to even suspect that such a thing might be possible. I don't think the crack pipe is doing this to you, but way too much science fiction.
Slashdot Mirror
...and they forgot to load the cameras up with colour film.
Can you imagine humanity restrained enough that over the next few million years of history, with a population of trillions spread over many planets with a multitude if different cultures, they never unleash self-reproducing machines on the universe? The question is moot anyway - the distinction between machine and organism will become pretty blurred over the next few millennia.
You're right, this guy hasn't thought things through. He rejects self-replicating probes because they'd compete with the original explorers. I think that's a lame argument, but let's accept it. Even human colonies spreading out from Earth, and moving onto new stars every generation or two (and sending out some non-self-repicating probes while they're at it), would explore the galaxy far faster than these probes. If humans survive the next century or two I'm sure they'll explore the galaxy in person far faster than this unambitious probe idea.
Do you have anything to say that isn't ignorant, dishonest or plain insulting?
No, really. Some kid who was apparently kidnapped has his picture online. The only possible reason I can imagine is that there is an 'online' aspect to this story. But seeing as everyone and their granny is online these days I don't see why this story is interesting. Look on youtube, you'll see plenty of more interesting pictures than a picture of a kid who wasn't kidnapped.
When you're a member of a fringe political party the onus is on you to communicate your policies. You have made no attempt to do so or even any attempt to correct anything I have said. As far as I can tell, [Ll]ibertarians are largely geek male teenagers who don't like being told what to do. You're doing a good job of reinforcing that image. You can't even think for yourself, you just recycled my use of the word 'slogan'.
...survive at sea by making a raft of bloated bodies like in Rome or Watchmen.
"Shut up and calculate" does sound pretty Feynmanish. But that's an excellent story you linked to!
Wish it was. A truck full of movies would arrive in a lot less time than it takes to bit torrent a truck load...
I can see I've touched a nerve with [Ll]ibertarians. Must remember that. Never present one with a contradiction in his or her belief system. Just like never discussing evolution with a fundamentalist - you can't discuss anything with people who have given up their minds to dogma.
Of course if you had anything to say other than slogans you'd tell us all exactly how we wouldn't be sold into corporate slavery rather than just respond "I know more than you, na na na na na".
Irrelevant. Anyone who thinks that court cases are won because something does or does not satisfy certain conditions laid down in legal statutes is very naive. All that matters is how much each party has to spend on lawyers to convince a judge. Once convinced, the judge will then write up his or her decision with a post hoc rationalization to make it appear that the decision followed from rules. And so it goes.
Doc: Thank you for volunteering for our experiment
Subject: That's fine. What's it about?
Doc: We can't tell you. But could you tell me what part of your menstrual cycle you're in?
Subject: So it's about menstrual cycles?
Doc: No. We ask everyone that quaestion.
Subject: I believe you.
Prior to relativity the past was the past and the future was the future. There was a sharp divison between past and future and saying that event A had already happened was saying something significant that seemed to extend beyond just a feature of the coordinate frame in popular use. Now it doesn't. It makes complete sense to say that an event is in our future or past in our frame - but this is a completely uninteresting fact. Nothing hinges on this. Whether or not the event in question happens 1000 years in our future or 1000 years in our past is of little consequence, it's outside of our light cones either way. For example, it makes no difference to our ability to go and see the event in question. 200 years ago it appeared that this would have made all the difference. The purpose of this article is to elicit responses like "wow, these things have already vanished" and my claim is that there's no 'wow' about it at all because nothing interesting hinges on this fact. We're no less able to go and see these events close up than if they were to occur 1,000 years in the future (measured in the intertial frame of Greenwich, say).
Except that there's no known method of using entanglement to signal instantaneously and there's no theoretical reason I know of to even suspect that such a thing might be possible. I don't think the crack pipe is doing this to you, but way too much science fiction.