I happen to agree with you on this, although I doubt the people pushing it will settle for Philosophy classes. Ultimately, I think they're in it to preach to kids who just have to sit there and listen. Besides, in the public school I went to, we didn't have any Philosophy classes.
But I do take exception to your "If you can't accept that..." tone. While I might accept it, no one is under any obligation to accept your opinions about what should be included in humanity's list of honest questions. There is bound to be disagreements about such things and they will ultimately be based on opinions. No one person's opinion should be the final word on it.
I mean, who died and made you... um.. the dominant combination of alleles in the gene pool?
Hey, let's not forget that was how Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt caught that whacked out Kevin Spacey in Seven.
And that dude was seriously messed up. I mean cutting the skin off your fingers to avoid leaving fingerprints... ugh, man just wear gloves, already. Plus, he killed a bunch of people. And then he made that Bobby Darrin movie, too.
Scientific American had an article in Feb, 2004 about Microelectricalmechanical systems (MEMS) that talked about an innovation of cell phone speakers using technology to make things not quite so small as nanotech but still way better than the current technology. It sounded like the technology would make better cell phone speakers in a year or so, but I haven't heard anything about it since.
Here's the link. article
If that link doesn't work (it has some session stuff in it that might break outside of my browser) just search Scientific American for cell phone speakers. It is the highest relevant link from the search.
Is anyone else skeptical of the claim "Built with nanotechnology"? I mean I know there are some nanotech applications out there, but they don't brag much about it in their press release. Isn't it pretty rare for a company to actually incorporate nanotech level stuff in a commercial device? Wouldn't that warrant more chest thumping on their part?
That's really assuming just because someone (like Microsoft or the government, etc.) knows something that they want to do, that they have the ability to do it. It seems to me that plenty of revolutions have seen the status quo get run over by a perfectly predictable yet unstoppable change. Off the top of my head, the only example that comes to mind is stagecoaches and railroads. I'm sure the stagecoach manufacturers would have loved to crush the railroad system as it was developing, but had no means to do it.
Perhaps someone can think of a better more relevant tech example that either supports or refutes this arguement.
I think there is a danger in thinking that because he has a different viewpoint, that he must be working for Microsoft. I mean, his argument may not be strong and may be biased, but it might be a genuine opinion and not influenced by money. Barring information to prove he's some kind of MS toady, I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he really believes what he wrote. There are plenty of smart techie people who think MS gets a bad rap for a lot of things. And that no other company would do things any differently. I don't share that view, but they have every right to that opinion.
I thought his article was kind of thought provoking... until I read her article. Good Lord! I mean publishing the address and phone number aside, it doesn't really make any sense. I really don't know how he got "she creates a powerful argument" out of what I read, although I only read the part that was posted here and not the original.
I once had a job where I became a sort of wannabe journalist (I was producing for a TV news show, but never had any journalism experience). It is easy to get carried away and botch a story that you think is big. Even so, you need to be coherent and persuasive. If you aren't coherent in your point and persuasive in your arguments, it is hard for anyone to get past that to judge your accuracy (did she back up anything with a verifiable fact?) or your ethical standards (she printed personal info with little regard to its impact or even acknowledging that it is a drastic step).
I don't know if IBM is employing someone that is supposed to be independent or if they use trickery to hide their control in the Open Source world. It wouldn't be that different from MS paying for surveys that show highly favorable results using MS products. It would be news. If there is any truth to it, she did a real disservice to herself and her readers by doing such a hack job of trying to report it.
I'm guessing that if possible this thing would be marketed as a separate power source for anything, including but not limited to laptops. Just like your surge protector, only it would NOT have to be plugged in, but you could plug stuff into it. Then, you wouldn't care if you got a new laptop or iPod or 2008 HDTV Smell-a-vision or whatever.
If I'm wrong, then I guess compatibility will be a big issue for these things. Of course compatibility is a big problem for all sorts of tech right now, but most of it goes obsolete as you pointed out. So by that time you don't care about the battery life anymore.
I don't think it was totally done on the fly. He had big plot ideas about the movies, but left the details to work out when he got to that part of the story. I think many excellent writers work that way. I'm a big Patrick O'Brian fan and he apparently sketched out several books in advance. Unfortunately, I don't think Lucas is an excellent writer. Certainly, not a pimple on P'OB's behind.
Also, he intentionally tried in ANH to create a new mythology. The mythology he created, left a lot of people filling in the blanks, which I guess is a part of the appeal of mythology. But by doing this, Lucas was doomed to alot of criticism. By the time these latest prequels came out, hard core fans had years to develop widely divergent expectations.
Still though, I'm not here to apologize for some of the stupid choices he's made. I mean how hard would it have been to stage a better struggle between Luke and Boba Fett on the skiff thing. Show his armor deflecting a glancing saber hit... I don't know but something better than the screaming nose dive.
And if Leia was going to be Luke's sister all along, then that kiss in ESB is pretty creepy.
Too late. In a minute from now, my future self will send a time machine back to the current me. I will then use it to go back and file a time machine patent two minutes before you posted your message.
By the time you read this, you may already be embroiled in a lawsuit.
Well, yes but you could also kill yourself quite easily with one slip-up using power tools available at any Home Depot, right now. I don't remember Home Depot requiring any legal waivers when you buy them. But then again I take your point on the fine level of control required with something so intimate a part of your daily life.
Also, I do appreciate any reference to the sharks with the freakin laser beams on their heads.:-)
I don't think that qualifies as "control". It is communication to be sure, but the brain still decides what to do about it. From a post further up this thread, it sounds like sending complex impulses to the brain (from an outside source) can cause seizures.
I can see that we may be able to artificially send brain like signals to limbs/robotic devices and that could be very useful. Also, I can imagine that finding ways to use "real" signals from the brain to control things could be even more useful. But neither of those circumstances imply control over the brain itself as I believe several parents in this thread are implying.
It is kind of like saying that now that we know how to lead a horse to water, we will soon have them drinking as much as we want.
Yeah, I can see how that would be fun. There was an old arcade game that my brother and I used to play. Space Wars. It was only a two player game, I don't think there was an AI opponent option. But, I'd love to see that done online multiplayer. On MAME, I can't figure out how the various function key options set the gravity well settings of the star in the center. Now that I think of it, I think there was an Atari 2600 version, but it was a good bit lamer than the Vector graphics original.
The way I see it, by trying to create a new mythology but only revealing it in stages over several years, Lucas was doomed to this sort of criticism. Look a little further up in this thread and you see two people criticizing EP1 for exactly the opposite reasons. The mythology he created in EP4, left a lot of people filling in the blanks, which I guess is a part of what mythology is all about. By the time these latest prequels came out, hard core fans had years to develop widely divergent expectations. Given that, I can't say I think Lucas "hates" his fans or is "bitter". I just think he feels he can't make them all happy, so he'll do what he wants with the thing that he feels he created and owns. You might argue that he could have tried to be in touch with the majority of fans, but he doesn't seem to have done that, so that's that.
By the way, I think the novel analogy is a perfect analogy for this discussion. Not so much because I think artists should take that approach, but because I know Lucas takes that approach. He as much as said so with his "house painting" analogy on 60 minutes the other night.
Scientific American just had an article on similar research in their January issue. Although that research seemed more tailored to keep the computer system focused on letting you do your tasks. Like not kicking off the screen saver while you are looking at the screen, without typing. One comment from a researcher was that it is ridiculous that a public toilet knows I am standing in front of it, but my high-end laptop doesn't know I am sitting in front of it.
I'm paraphrasing that from memory so I might have a detail or two wrong. Anyway, it was an interesting article.
Maybe where you are, this is true. But where I live it's the opposite. Bush republicans have been very vocal of their support and Democrats stay quiet if they want to avoid workplace arguments. Its hard to get a sense of the full view from as isolated a place as our own places of employment. Clearly though, there are just more Bush supporters than Kerry supporters. It may not have been true for Bush/Gore, but this time the evidence seems pretty clear.
I'd be cool with an x-wing series, as long as one or more of the characters were Jedi, so there could be some saber battles. A Star Wars show without cool light saber battles would be a horrible waste. In fact, I'd prefer some pre-Empire setting, so there could be more Sith or Dark Jedi to have climactic battles with.
I guess the Yuzhang Vong (or however you spell that) had their saber-resistant sticks. But that is a lame saber wannabe. You can't cut someone in half with a stick. I dunno, I stopped reading the New Jedi Order books after the first one, so maybe they were better than sticks.
I hope they don't go with the Timothy Zahn stuff, as I thought they were horribly written. Maybe it was just a style thing for me, since the ideas weren't so bad. I had no problem with the Ysalamiri thing. But how many times did people say things through clenched teeth in those books. I mean seriously, my whole life I've only seen people do that a couple of times. But if I'm remembering the right books, everybody in them has intermittent lockjaw.
What's the deal with Kevin Smith anyway. Has he written any good SF? All I know of has been comedy stuff. Anyone have confidence in his ability to do this?
Man, you really don't know how much of a fanboy you are, until something like this comes along.
Plus, you can do that cool Herb Tarlick (sp?) thing where you smack your hand on one end of the handset and it pops the phone up into your hand. And you say, "Yello..." Not to mention the newer phones don't have the angry hang up potential of those old heavy handsets. You could really slam the phone down in the old days. Now, the best you can do is a furious "bleep" of pressing the "End" button. Not as satisfying, for those of us with rage in their hearts.
I did this too, but I found one weird thing. One of the episodes had a technical problem. Not artifacts or anything, it just didn't have the voice track for Apophis with his Goa' uld growl/voice. It was the episode where they go to the planet with the Nox. Maybe it was called "the Nox"?
I wonder if anyone bought the DVD's, did they notice this too, or was it fixed in later releases?
Anyway the Netflix copy I rented had the problem. I had to wait for Sci-Fi to rerun the episode to learn what Apophis had been saying.
Some biologist help me out here, but I think all living matter is not composed of nanobots that self replicate in the Drexlerian matter.
Living cells are far larger than the scale of nano-particles and machines that have dominated the news about nano-technology recently. My understanding of the self replicating nano danger is that they are as small as is physically possible and capable of tearing up any molecular material around it, and use it for parts in creating more copies of itself. I don't think even virulent viruses and bacteria fall into that category and certainly not specific animal cell structures. Bacteria might tear down larger systems in replicating, but it is limited to specific environments where it can thrive and having raw materials appropriate for its reproduction. Isn't the fear of nano, that it will operate on such a small level that any environment will suit it and it will find enough raw materials in just about anything to continue reproducing?
In any case, I think this whole issue is one where calmness and caution should prevail. Just because a few people get over excited about it, does not mean we should just take the breaks off and try anything any scientist can think of.
There is a lot of hype and concern about GM foods too. GM Proponents have been saying, "Oh these people don't know what they're talking about. This stuff is safe and will save starving children." But the fact is most of these crops spread outside of the control of the farms using them due to pollen drift. There is good reason to be cautious when dealing with something so totally new before releasing it into the wild. Maybe after enough study we can feel confident that some pollen drift won't be enough of a problem to offset the good of giving children critical nutrients in poor communities, but the issue is real and deserves thoughtful consideration. I don't see how nano-technology is going to be any different. We can't afford panicked halting of research, but neither can we afford a reckless gung-ho attitude about something that could conceivably be so dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
I happen to agree with you on this, although I doubt the people pushing it will settle for Philosophy classes. Ultimately, I think they're in it to preach to kids who just have to sit there and listen. Besides, in the public school I went to, we didn't have any Philosophy classes.
But I do take exception to your "If you can't accept that..." tone. While I might accept it, no one is under any obligation to accept your opinions about what should be included in humanity's list of honest questions. There is bound to be disagreements about such things and they will ultimately be based on opinions. No one person's opinion should be the final word on it.
I mean, who died and made you... um.. the dominant combination of alleles in the gene pool?
Hey, let's not forget that was how Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt caught that whacked out Kevin Spacey in Seven .
And that dude was seriously messed up. I mean cutting the skin off your fingers to avoid leaving fingerprints... ugh, man just wear gloves, already.
Plus, he killed a bunch of people. And then he made that Bobby Darrin movie, too.
Where do you want to be forced to go today?
Scientific American had an article in Feb, 2004 about Microelectricalmechanical systems (MEMS) that talked about an innovation of cell phone speakers using technology to make things not quite so small as nanotech but still way better than the current technology. It sounded like the technology would make better cell phone speakers in a year or so, but I haven't heard anything about it since.
Here's the link. article If that link doesn't work (it has some session stuff in it that might break outside of my browser) just search Scientific American for cell phone speakers. It is the highest relevant link from the search.
Is anyone else skeptical of the claim "Built with nanotechnology"? I mean I know there are some nanotech applications out there, but they don't brag much about it in their press release. Isn't it pretty rare for a company to actually incorporate nanotech level stuff in a commercial device? Wouldn't that warrant more chest thumping on their part?
Am I wrong?
I had always supposed that this helped them mask their scent when hunting prey that might otherwise smell them coming.
I don't know if that is correct, but it least it makes some sense.
That's really assuming just because someone (like Microsoft or the government, etc.) knows something that they want to do, that they have the ability to do it.
It seems to me that plenty of revolutions have seen the status quo get run over by a perfectly predictable yet unstoppable change.
Off the top of my head, the only example that comes to mind is stagecoaches and railroads. I'm sure the stagecoach manufacturers would have loved to crush the railroad system as it was developing, but had no means to do it.
Perhaps someone can think of a better more relevant tech example that either supports or refutes this arguement.
I think there is a danger in thinking that because he has a different viewpoint, that he must be working for Microsoft. I mean, his argument may not be strong and may be biased, but it might be a genuine opinion and not influenced by money. Barring information to prove he's some kind of MS toady, I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he really believes what he wrote. There are plenty of smart techie people who think MS gets a bad rap for a lot of things. And that no other company would do things any differently. I don't share that view, but they have every right to that opinion.
I thought his article was kind of thought provoking... until I read her article. Good Lord! I mean publishing the address and phone number aside, it doesn't really make any sense. I really don't know how he got "she creates a powerful argument" out of what I read, although I only read the part that was posted here and not the original.
I once had a job where I became a sort of wannabe journalist (I was producing for a TV news show, but never had any journalism experience). It is easy to get carried away and botch a story that you think is big. Even so, you need to be coherent and persuasive. If you aren't coherent in your point and persuasive in your arguments, it is hard for anyone to get past that to judge your accuracy (did she back up anything with a verifiable fact?) or your ethical standards (she printed personal info with little regard to its impact or even acknowledging that it is a drastic step).
I don't know if IBM is employing someone that is supposed to be independent or if they use trickery to hide their control in the Open Source world. It wouldn't be that different from MS paying for surveys that show highly favorable results using MS products. It would be news. If there is any truth to it, she did a real disservice to herself and her readers by doing such a hack job of trying to report it.
I'm guessing that if possible this thing would be marketed as a separate power source for anything, including but not limited to laptops. Just like your surge protector, only it would NOT have to be plugged in, but you could plug stuff into it. Then, you wouldn't care if you got a new laptop or iPod or 2008 HDTV Smell-a-vision or whatever.
If I'm wrong, then I guess compatibility will be a big issue for these things. Of course compatibility is a big problem for all sorts of tech right now, but most of it goes obsolete as you pointed out. So by that time you don't care about the battery life anymore.
I don't think it was totally done on the fly. He had big plot ideas about the movies, but left the details to work out when he got to that part of the story. I think many excellent writers work that way. I'm a big Patrick O'Brian fan and he apparently sketched out several books in advance. Unfortunately, I don't think Lucas is an excellent writer. Certainly, not a pimple on P'OB's behind.
Also, he intentionally tried in ANH to create a new mythology. The mythology he created, left a lot of people filling in the blanks, which I guess is a part of the appeal of mythology. But by doing this, Lucas was doomed to alot of criticism. By the time these latest prequels came out, hard core fans had years to develop widely divergent expectations.
Still though, I'm not here to apologize for some of the stupid choices he's made. I mean how hard would it have been to stage a better struggle between Luke and Boba Fett on the skiff thing. Show his armor deflecting a glancing saber hit... I don't know but something better than the screaming nose dive.
And if Leia was going to be Luke's sister all along, then that kiss in ESB is pretty creepy.
Too late. In a minute from now, my future self will send a time machine back to the current me. I will then use it to go back and file a time machine patent two minutes before you posted your message.
By the time you read this, you may already be embroiled in a lawsuit.
Well, yes but you could also kill yourself quite easily with one slip-up using power tools available at any Home Depot, right now. I don't remember Home Depot requiring any legal waivers when you buy them. But then again I take your point on the fine level of control required with something so intimate a part of your daily life.
:-)
Also, I do appreciate any reference to the sharks with the freakin laser beams on their heads.
I don't think that qualifies as "control". It is communication to be sure, but the brain still decides what to do about it. From a post further up this thread, it sounds like sending complex impulses to the brain (from an outside source) can cause seizures.
I can see that we may be able to artificially send brain like signals to limbs/robotic devices and that could be very useful. Also, I can imagine that finding ways to use "real" signals from the brain to control things could be even more useful. But neither of those circumstances imply control over the brain itself as I believe several parents in this thread are implying.
It is kind of like saying that now that we know how to lead a horse to water, we will soon have them drinking as much as we want.
Yeah, I can see how that would be fun. There was an old arcade game that my brother and I used to play. Space Wars. It was only a two player game, I don't think there was an AI opponent option. But, I'd love to see that done online multiplayer. On MAME, I can't figure out how the various function key options set the gravity well settings of the star in the center. Now that I think of it, I think there was an Atari 2600 version, but it was a good bit lamer than the Vector graphics original.
The way I see it, by trying to create a new mythology but only revealing it in stages over several years, Lucas was doomed to this sort of criticism. Look a little further up in this thread and you see two people criticizing EP1 for exactly the opposite reasons. The mythology he created in EP4, left a lot of people filling in the blanks, which I guess is a part of what mythology is all about. By the time these latest prequels came out, hard core fans had years to develop widely divergent expectations.
Given that, I can't say I think Lucas "hates" his fans or is "bitter". I just think he feels he can't make them all happy, so he'll do what he wants with the thing that he feels he created and owns. You might argue that he could have tried to be in touch with the majority of fans, but he doesn't seem to have done that, so that's that.
By the way, I think the novel analogy is a perfect analogy for this discussion. Not so much because I think artists should take that approach, but because I know Lucas takes that approach. He as much as said so with his "house painting" analogy on 60 minutes the other night.
Scientific American just had an article on similar research in their January issue. Although that research seemed more tailored to keep the computer system focused on letting you do your tasks. Like not kicking off the screen saver while you are looking at the screen, without typing. One comment from a researcher was that it is ridiculous that a public toilet knows I am standing in front of it, but my high-end laptop doesn't know I am sitting in front of it.
I'm paraphrasing that from memory so I might have a detail or two wrong. Anyway, it was an interesting article.
Well, that eliminates my family from participating.
Maybe where you are, this is true. But where I live it's the opposite. Bush republicans have been very vocal of their support and Democrats stay quiet if they want to avoid workplace arguments. Its hard to get a sense of the full view from as isolated a place as our own places of employment.
Clearly though, there are just more Bush supporters than Kerry supporters. It may not have been true for Bush/Gore, but this time the evidence seems pretty clear.
I'd be cool with an x-wing series, as long as one or more of the characters were Jedi, so there could be some saber battles. A Star Wars show without cool light saber battles would be a horrible waste. In fact, I'd prefer some pre-Empire setting, so there could be more Sith or Dark Jedi to have climactic battles with.
I guess the Yuzhang Vong (or however you spell that) had their saber-resistant sticks. But that is a lame saber wannabe. You can't cut someone in half with a stick. I dunno, I stopped reading the New Jedi Order books after the first one, so maybe they were better than sticks.
I hope they don't go with the Timothy Zahn stuff, as I thought they were horribly written. Maybe it was just a style thing for me, since the ideas weren't so bad. I had no problem with the Ysalamiri thing. But how many times did people say things through clenched teeth in those books. I mean seriously, my whole life I've only seen people do that a couple of times. But if I'm remembering the right books, everybody in them has intermittent lockjaw.
What's the deal with Kevin Smith anyway. Has he written any good SF? All I know of has been comedy stuff. Anyone have confidence in his ability to do this?
Man, you really don't know how much of a fanboy you are, until something like this comes along.
Plus, you can do that cool Herb Tarlick (sp?) thing where you smack your hand on one end of the handset and it pops the phone up into your hand. And you say, "Yello..."
Not to mention the newer phones don't have the angry hang up potential of those old heavy handsets. You could really slam the phone down in the old days. Now, the best you can do is a furious "bleep" of pressing the "End" button. Not as satisfying, for those of us with rage in their hearts.
I did this too, but I found one weird thing. One of the episodes had a technical problem. Not artifacts or anything, it just didn't have the voice track for Apophis with his Goa' uld growl/voice. It was the episode where they go to the planet with the Nox. Maybe it was called "the Nox"?
I wonder if anyone bought the DVD's, did they notice this too, or was it fixed in later releases?
Anyway the Netflix copy I rented had the problem. I had to wait for Sci-Fi to rerun the episode to learn what Apophis had been saying.
Yes, but when they lifted it from freeBSD it was "open". Once they put it in XP, it was "closed". You see? That's what makes it more secure.
So what? You get to eavesdrop on their dirty Instant Messages to the interns?
#1gov: What are you wearing?
senatechick: Not now, I'm working.
#1gov: A pants suit? Mmmmm I'll bet its tight.
Some biologist help me out here, but I think all living matter is not composed of nanobots that self replicate in the Drexlerian matter.
Living cells are far larger than the scale of nano-particles and machines that have dominated the news about nano-technology recently.
My understanding of the self replicating nano danger is that they are as small as is physically possible and capable of tearing up any molecular material around it, and use it for parts in creating more copies of itself. I don't think even virulent viruses and bacteria fall into that category and certainly not specific animal cell structures. Bacteria might tear down larger systems in replicating, but it is limited to specific environments where it can thrive and having raw materials appropriate for its reproduction. Isn't the fear of nano, that it will operate on such a small level that any environment will suit it and it will find enough raw materials in just about anything to continue reproducing?
In any case, I think this whole issue is one where calmness and caution should prevail. Just because a few people get over excited about it, does not mean we should just take the breaks off and try anything any scientist can think of.
There is a lot of hype and concern about GM foods too. GM Proponents have been saying, "Oh these people don't know what they're talking about. This stuff is safe and will save starving children."
But the fact is most of these crops spread outside of the control of the farms using them due to pollen drift. There is good reason to be cautious when dealing with something so totally new before releasing it into the wild. Maybe after enough study we can feel confident that some pollen drift won't be enough of a problem to offset the good of giving children critical nutrients in poor communities, but the issue is real and deserves thoughtful consideration. I don't see how nano-technology is going to be any different. We can't afford panicked halting of research, but neither can we afford a reckless gung-ho attitude about something that could conceivably be so dangerous.