Nice headline but since the fossil record is an incomplete record, not just because we haven't found all the fossils out there but also because not all animals that have existed became fossils. So when looking at the tree of life it's perfectly fine to call any fossil we dig up a missing link. But then again it's also safe to say the missing link is still yet to be dug up and in fact never will be dug up. So it's a meaningless term. All this talk of the "missing link" is just rhetoric that keeps people studying and enjoying what is actually being discovered.
I'm going to put away my cynic hat and say gosh darn it the future is going to be awesome. With Mores law happening across many industries, from computers to biotech, it's just impossible to dream how far we'll go. I have high hopes that in my life time neuroscience might have it's first working theory for how the mind works. This may be the Star Trek talking, but humanities best years are still way ahead of us.
Sure there are big problems to tackle, but I don't think the overly cynical attitudes will do anything to motivate us to make things better. Which is the problem with the book of Revelations; it leaves people with a cynical attitude towards the future.
RFID is has it's problems and should be resisted where needs dictate. But there is no way you can stop technology from taking away more and more of your privacy, there are just too many ways to figure out what you are doing. What you need do is to fight for control of your government. If you were actually in control of your government you wouldn't have to be constantly doing these acts of civil disobedience in the first place. So fight to raise the speed limit and legalize pot or whatever else it is that you do that they could get you for if they found out.
Never mind, the whole thing is a crock of shit and I give up.
I'm sure all of us at slashdot are quick readers and after finishing each page of the forbes artical you quickly hit the next button without noticeing that a bit of javascript on the page would advance the page automaticaly after a set amount of time. Which is ok if you don't happen to be multitasking or drinking. But as many of us, inclooding myself, are infacty doing both thoose things...
No you are not spinning... the room is...
Plainly you can see that this is an annoying use of javascript and I hope I don't see more of it on the internet.
Man I wish the catholic college I went to didn't teach me philosophy. I might still be catholic otherwise. But as a side effect I just get so pissed when I see someone spouting off nonsence, oversimplifying here, assuming that which is not certain there. Philosophers like to build these towers of logic. But mosly they end up building casles in the sky
Which is why systems that don't deal compleetly in logic are so interesting to the AI feild. With logic you need to know something certain to build off of. But that is NOT the way the real world works and that's not how humans navigate the world. Humans are full of logical contradictions. It dosn't bother us.
It's not about being perfect. It's about working well enough.
Some of these philosophical arguments are kinda worthless if you think about it. Choose the right axioms(unproven asumptions that may or maynot be true) and you can prove practicaly anything you set out to prove. Philosophy is a dark art. When it comes down to it philosophy is not about truth but about convinsing people.
Anywho the problem with the Chineis room argument is it seperates the man in the room from the rule book. The argument than becomes equivalient to. Suppose you have a man with a neuron in him(equivalent to the man in the box in the original argument) and the neuron uses the rest of the neurons in the mans brain(the translation book) to translate Chineis charicters to english. Now no one would say that a simple neuron understands Chineis.
Suffice it to say that AI as it stands today is not intelligent. A chess program can play chess, but that's all it can do.
I don't see how a chess program that can beat almost any chess player on the planet isn't being intelligent in some way. Human intelligence seams to be not one thing but a collection of processes that by them selfs are intelligent in a particular task but not intelligent in general. If we took a bit of your brain away you might loose the ability to perform a specific task but we'd still say that the rest of you has intelligence. If we disabled all of the functions of your brain except those needed for playing chess would there still be some manner in which we could call you intelligent?
We all know people that are intelligent in some areas, but inept in other areas (like speling and, grammar). Why isn't a chess program intelligent at playing chess but inept at doing anything else?
Yeah yeah, you want something that walks and talks like you before you call it intelligent I can understand that. But sit down and try to define intelligence and I think you'll find it hard to include everyone you meet on the street or in an asylum as having intelligence but still exclude all chess programs or chat bots has having no intelligence what so ever. Unless of cource you cheat and include that in your definition (witch seems to be what a lot of people are doing).
Yes, I suppose you could look at it that way. And in the same vain you could say that about any body we would call an artist. He who paints is not the artist but all those who came before that gave him the idea to paint in the first place. After all if it were 5 million years ago the "artist" would not have been able to paint that painting. Not only would the styles not been around for him to emulate, but even the very idea of painting would not have been present. So by himself he could not possibly be the artist. Only someone who has been programed by culture to paint will paint.
So sure it's art - and culture is the artist.
It really comes down to what you find to be the origin of a thing. You could just as easily go the other way and say that the paintbrush is the artist. But what's the point?
Here we have an algorythm for generating a somewhat pleasing picture from a small amount of user input. Is it the mona lisa? Nope. But does it prove that a computer can make something on the scale of the mona lisa. Not really, but it doesn't yet say that it's imposible for such a program to exist. It might indicate that such a program would be extreemly dificult to write. Really, the only way we'll ever be able to fully answer a question like that is to actualy build a manchine that can make pictures as good as the mona lisa. Untill then this is all philsophical balony.
I think people get into these arguments because they can't really see what inteligence is. A quick look into abnormal psycology will tell you that intelligence is not one entity. But rather intelligence has meny peaces that don't necisarly have to all be present for there to be intelligence.
Computers will become good at this style of art or that style and many people won't think much of it. More and more styles of art will be programed in until most people will consider computers to be artistic. Then people will move to consider art as nothing more then a computational process like chess and move on to complaining about whatever else a computer can't do yet.
The randomly generated pictures created by typogenerator are just that - random. There is no engagment of artist and/or observer, there is no attempt to generate an emotional response, there is no meaning, no soul.
I think it's more a matter of "not much" rather then "no" soul, meaning, etc. typogenerator only "paints" a certain style of painting. It's very limited in what it can do. You might only think only a little bit less of an artist who is good at painting but who wasn't also good at sclupting. Well with Typogenerator you might think alot less of it. But can you discount it as compleetly unartistic?
Asking if it has soul is pritty usless as there is no good way of telling if a thing has a soul in it. Ask yourself if say a being infront of you is a natural human with a soul or a cleverly constructed robot from an advanced alian civilization. It's not clear with our current state of knowlege that you will be able to tell the difference. Not to mention that there is no guarenty that the gods can't put a soul into a robot or any other thing such as typogenerator.
As for the rest of it. I don't know. I see some meaning in it. To me typogenerator art asks the question "what is art?" and evokes defencive emotions as the viewer tries to secure his thought of place at the top of all nature in the face of this upstart machine trying to encroch on his domain.
From climateprediction.net Introduction to climate modelling
The equations are tweaked, within reasonable boundaries, so that the model does as well as possible at producing past and current climates (compared to archived observations).
I really can't beleave you give them so little credit as to think they would overlook something so bleading obvious as to test the model before using it. Do you discount everyone you disagree with this easily.
I think it will be cheaper to make new people and let the old ones die than it will be to maintain everyone.
Maybe, but it would be worth more to maintain people. Young people are stupid, uneducated, and frankly insain by adult standards. I think socity would benifit far more then the cost of maintaining the older geniration. For one the proportion stupid, uneducated, and insain people would be much less.
Woundn't a possible solution to this be using a P2P application to serve up torrent files. Or perhaps a torrent file that gets you todays active torrents. You could still have sites that monitor torrents right? If you can report on crime you can report on torrent file usage.
If we need to create artifitial inteligence by evolving it then the question of when we will have human level AI will most certainly be determined by clock cycles. It took nature billions of generations using populations of billions of trillions to evalve human level inteligence. Your computer symulation would have to be absurdly more efficent then nature work in a resonable amount of time with todays computers.
Clock cycles are just one facter in the equation of what is needed.
SO yes the human brain can probably be symulated in 10^15 or 10^17 tflops/sec. And yes that kind of power is 30 years off. But inorder to have a symulation of a human brain you need to know how the brain works. And with advances in brain imaging technology. Well who knows. We might have a good model for an artifitial brain in er... er... 30 years.
I'm listening to it now and I'm not very impressed. Does anyone have an example of better or atleast more intresting computer generated music
I was the turkey all along
Ya, but do you want life to forever be a choice between positive reinforcement and starving to death. Capitalism still works by force, it just does it in a more natural way.
So what happens when we have robots and crap that can do all the driving, sewer work, and coal mining?
How about a hybrid between Capitalism and Communism? Something were you get a barely livable wage automatically and the choice to peruse more wealth if you so desire. Wouldn't you see an explosion of open source (fill in the blank) and still get the unappealing jobs done?
I thought the parent post described a key reason why open source is important and one of the reasons open source is so appealing to me.
Working sucks. Who wouldn't like society to become a utopia. But we're told that it would not work because of "human nature" (whatever that is), and based on a small number of countries (who had no prior history of democracy) failed to achieve it and even became more totalitarian then they were before under monarchy.
But what do a few case studies prove? A little yes, but they in no way prove their point with great certainty. What if a few variables were tweaked? What then? What if a seasoned democracy were to slowly move towards the goal of utopia? After all isn't the "dictatorship of the proletariat" just another term for democratic control of the means of production. Despite that the USSR was called communist, I was of the impression that communism implied democracy.
I have struggled to put my thoughts on the subject as well as the parent post. So mod it up please.
And taking them out of the basket before you have a place to put them is another.
While manned space missions is defiantly an ultimate goal, it just doesn't make economic sense right now. Unmanned missions are discovering far more then our manned missions and at a fraction of the cost. Right now, even if we had humans in orbit, on the moon, or on mars at the time of a cataclysmic event wiping out everyone on the earth, those who survived in space would not continue to survive without assistance from earth.
If we stopped wasting resources in our current manned space programs we would sooner be able to return to space in style. Imagine if instead of 80 billion dollars going into the space station we were to put 80 billion dollars into the space elevator.
Humans are too weak to go into space, but that will change in the next 50 or 100 years.
The human brain has 1x10^11 neurons that in turn connect to on average 1000 other neurons and operate at a frequency of 1000 operations per second for a maximum theoretical computing power of 10^17 operations per second. The best super computer operates at 3.5x10^13 operations per second. 17 to 23 years of Moore's law gives us a 3000 times improvement in computing power, which gives us a super computer able to simulate a human brain at around 2024. Since advancements in neurology also seem to be coming at an exponential rate, it's not unreasonable to assume that in the next 25 to 50 years we will have a useful model of the human brain to run on our super computer. Add to that advancements in nanotechnology are happening at such a pace that it is not entirely unreasonable to think that in 50 years we will have nanobots able to attach themselves to each of our neurons and learn the pattern which each neuron fires and then replace each neuron until the entire brain is completely artificial. Since now we have a digital brain of a human, we can now upload that brain into a computer and send the computer into space, thus eliminating the need for food, water, and oxygen. And since an artificial brain can be turned off, deep space flights to other starts could be accomplished over 10s of thousands of years without need for life support and with the additional benefit to the traveler that the journey would seem to take but an instant. It also seams possible with advances in robotics to build a device that could be launched to a distant moon with the proper geology such that this device could mine the moon and manufacture more copies of itself, copying the artificial brain in the process. Finally an army of these devices could blast off of this moon in different directions and to distant moons to continue repeating this process until the entire galaxy is populated with these devices virtually ensuring the survival of the human psyche for however long the universe should last.
>I can respect these guys for wanting to patent their engine
Ya, but woundn't it be a great world if they didn't need to patent it. If they could just give it to us and let the benifit that this product has to socity be their reward. If this were an 'open sourced' idea and we were free to use it, we could bring it to fruition much sooner then this small company posibly could.
I wonder what would happen to society when these two devices mature and perhaps merge. Of course I refer to the replicators of star trek fame.
One thing that struck me is that this work was being done on modified ink-jet printers. So it seems vary likely that we will be able to use the information from these studies to modify our own ink jet printers into our own replicators. If you think hack your Xbox is cool, wait till you see the articles on how to hack your Epson. The common man will have the manufacturing capacity of both 3 billion years of evolution and the last 200 years of the industrial revolution.
Naturally there will be businesses who will try to capitalize on these types of manufacturing. And there will be patent problems what we will have to deal with. Taking a que from the internet, where to gain a patent all one has to do is add an 'e' to a preexisting idea (ie, eauctions, ebussness). So I use the letter 'r' for replicator and add write a perl script to add 'r' to the beginning of a massive word list. Now I own the ideas for the rauctions, rebussness, resex (witch I will need a lot of to continue, nevermind).
One the replictor becomes reality it will be heavily regulated or for the free use of individuals. Because these devices will be easy to make, heavy regulation by businesses and or governments can only keep these devices from a large portion of society at first. There will still be groups of hacker biologists who will be able to create these machines using their own skills. And so long as the internet remains there will be a repository of products that can be printed out.
I don't know about you, but if I didn't have to worry about food and shelter I would not be working where I do. These replicators will provide all the material wealth that we can download off the internet. We will no longer be coerced into working for our material wealth. We'd grow it from easy to acquire substances such as "Hamster Ovaries", as the article mentions. Without the need to spend all our time working for someone else, we'll be able to educate others to do the same as we do. Given the choice of working for a company or government for food, or sitting on their ass all day, the public will be completely enticed to join our cause. With the public on our side one of two things will happen. They will vote to eliminate restrictions on replicators or will be killed by cyborg terror-minators with Texas accents. (Don't mess with Texas)
Slashdot Mirror
Nice headline but since the fossil record is an incomplete record, not just because we haven't found all the fossils out there but also because not all animals that have existed became fossils. So when looking at the tree of life it's perfectly fine to call any fossil we dig up a missing link. But then again it's also safe to say the missing link is still yet to be dug up and in fact never will be dug up. So it's a meaningless term. All this talk of the "missing link" is just rhetoric that keeps people studying and enjoying what is actually being discovered.
I'm going to put away my cynic hat and say gosh darn it the future is going to be awesome. With Mores law happening across many industries, from computers to biotech, it's just impossible to dream how far we'll go. I have high hopes that in my life time neuroscience might have it's first working theory for how the mind works. This may be the Star Trek talking, but humanities best years are still way ahead of us.
Sure there are big problems to tackle, but I don't think the overly cynical attitudes will do anything to motivate us to make things better. Which is the problem with the book of Revelations; it leaves people with a cynical attitude towards the future.
RFID is has it's problems and should be resisted where needs dictate. But there is no way you can stop technology from taking away more and more of your privacy, there are just too many ways to figure out what you are doing. What you need do is to fight for control of your government. If you were actually in control of your government you wouldn't have to be constantly doing these acts of civil disobedience in the first place. So fight to raise the speed limit and legalize pot or whatever else it is that you do that they could get you for if they found out.
Never mind, the whole thing is a crock of shit and I give up.
No you are not spinning... the room is...
Plainly you can see that this is an annoying use of javascript and I hope I don't see more of it on the internet.
Students might want to consider there own abilities and motivation for success before eagerly taking such advice.
Life, don't talk to me about life.
48V X 500AH = 24kWH capacity battery (which is comparable to the battery in the EV1)
If I wanted to charge that battery in one minute to 80 percent
24kWH X 60Min/Hour X 80percent / 1 Min = 1152 kilowatts
So if I had a 120 volt outlet I would need it to put out
1152k / 120 = 9600Amps
Too bad my house only has a 100 Amp box
So that's what the new name for Longhorn will be.
So how soon before we see a live cd with this on it. Anyone taking bets.
Rights held by the people but not in the constitution are protected.
Everyone goes at least 5mph over the speed limit.
Therefore the people think they have a right to go 5mph over the speed limit.
Therefore the constitution protects the right to go 5mph over the limit.
Nothing fosters more contempt for the law then traffic laws.
b) there's no patch - full install! it's a feature, not a bug
Man I wish the catholic college I went to didn't teach me philosophy. I might still be catholic otherwise. But as a side effect I just get so pissed when I see someone spouting off nonsence, oversimplifying here, assuming that which is not certain there. Philosophers like to build these towers of logic. But mosly they end up building casles in the sky
Which is why systems that don't deal compleetly in logic are so interesting to the AI feild. With logic you need to know something certain to build off of. But that is NOT the way the real world works and that's not how humans navigate the world. Humans are full of logical contradictions. It dosn't bother us.
It's not about being perfect. It's about working well enough.
Anywho the problem with the Chineis room argument is it seperates the man in the room from the rule book. The argument than becomes equivalient to. Suppose you have a man with a neuron in him(equivalent to the man in the box in the original argument) and the neuron uses the rest of the neurons in the mans brain(the translation book) to translate Chineis charicters to english. Now no one would say that a simple neuron understands Chineis.
I don't see how a chess program that can beat almost any chess player on the planet isn't being intelligent in some way. Human intelligence seams to be not one thing but a collection of processes that by them selfs are intelligent in a particular task but not intelligent in general. If we took a bit of your brain away you might loose the ability to perform a specific task but we'd still say that the rest of you has intelligence. If we disabled all of the functions of your brain except those needed for playing chess would there still be some manner in which we could call you intelligent?
We all know people that are intelligent in some areas, but inept in other areas (like speling and, grammar). Why isn't a chess program intelligent at playing chess but inept at doing anything else?
Yeah yeah, you want something that walks and talks like you before you call it intelligent I can understand that. But sit down and try to define intelligence and I think you'll find it hard to include everyone you meet on the street or in an asylum as having intelligence but still exclude all chess programs or chat bots has having no intelligence what so ever. Unless of cource you cheat and include that in your definition (witch seems to be what a lot of people are doing).
Yes, I suppose you could look at it that way. And in the same vain you could say that about any body we would call an artist. He who paints is not the artist but all those who came before that gave him the idea to paint in the first place. After all if it were 5 million years ago the "artist" would not have been able to paint that painting. Not only would the styles not been around for him to emulate, but even the very idea of painting would not have been present. So by himself he could not possibly be the artist. Only someone who has been programed by culture to paint will paint.
So sure it's art - and culture is the artist.
It really comes down to what you find to be the origin of a thing. You could just as easily go the other way and say that the paintbrush is the artist. But what's the point?
Here we have an algorythm for generating a somewhat pleasing picture from a small amount of user input. Is it the mona lisa? Nope. But does it prove that a computer can make something on the scale of the mona lisa. Not really, but it doesn't yet say that it's imposible for such a program to exist. It might indicate that such a program would be extreemly dificult to write. Really, the only way we'll ever be able to fully answer a question like that is to actualy build a manchine that can make pictures as good as the mona lisa. Untill then this is all philsophical balony.
I think people get into these arguments because they can't really see what inteligence is. A quick look into abnormal psycology will tell you that intelligence is not one entity. But rather intelligence has meny peaces that don't necisarly have to all be present for there to be intelligence.
Computers will become good at this style of art or that style and many people won't think much of it. More and more styles of art will be programed in until most people will consider computers to be artistic. Then people will move to consider art as nothing more then a computational process like chess and move on to complaining about whatever else a computer can't do yet.
I think it's more a matter of "not much" rather then "no" soul, meaning, etc. typogenerator only "paints" a certain style of painting. It's very limited in what it can do. You might only think only a little bit less of an artist who is good at painting but who wasn't also good at sclupting. Well with Typogenerator you might think alot less of it. But can you discount it as compleetly unartistic?
Asking if it has soul is pritty usless as there is no good way of telling if a thing has a soul in it. Ask yourself if say a being infront of you is a natural human with a soul or a cleverly constructed robot from an advanced alian civilization. It's not clear with our current state of knowlege that you will be able to tell the difference. Not to mention that there is no guarenty that the gods can't put a soul into a robot or any other thing such as typogenerator.
As for the rest of it. I don't know. I see some meaning in it. To me typogenerator art asks the question "what is art?" and evokes defencive emotions as the viewer tries to secure his thought of place at the top of all nature in the face of this upstart machine trying to encroch on his domain.
The equations are tweaked, within reasonable boundaries, so that the model does as well as possible at producing past and current climates (compared to archived observations).
I really can't beleave you give them so little credit as to think they would overlook something so bleading obvious as to test the model before using it. Do you discount everyone you disagree with this easily.
Maybe, but it would be worth more to maintain people. Young people are stupid, uneducated, and frankly insain by adult standards. I think socity would benifit far more then the cost of maintaining the older geniration. For one the proportion stupid, uneducated, and insain people would be much less.
I was the turkey all along
If we need to create artifitial inteligence by evolving it then the question of when we will have human level AI will most certainly be determined by clock cycles. It took nature billions of generations using populations of billions of trillions to evalve human level inteligence. Your computer symulation would have to be absurdly more efficent then nature work in a resonable amount of time with todays computers.
Clock cycles are just one facter in the equation of what is needed.
SO yes the human brain can probably be symulated in 10^15 or 10^17 tflops/sec. And yes that kind of power is 30 years off. But inorder to have a symulation of a human brain you need to know how the brain works. And with advances in brain imaging technology. Well who knows. We might have a good model for an artifitial brain in er... er... 30 years.
I was the turkey all along
I'm listening to it now and I'm not very impressed. Does anyone have an example of better or atleast more intresting computer generated music I was the turkey all along
seams to be working for me 1 seed 7 peers so far
So what happens when we have robots and crap that can do all the driving, sewer work, and coal mining?
How about a hybrid between Capitalism and Communism? Something were you get a barely livable wage automatically and the choice to peruse more wealth if you so desire. Wouldn't you see an explosion of open source (fill in the blank) and still get the unappealing jobs done?
Working sucks. Who wouldn't like society to become a utopia. But we're told that it would not work because of "human nature" (whatever that is), and based on a small number of countries (who had no prior history of democracy) failed to achieve it and even became more totalitarian then they were before under monarchy.
But what do a few case studies prove? A little yes, but they in no way prove their point with great certainty. What if a few variables were tweaked? What then? What if a seasoned democracy were to slowly move towards the goal of utopia? After all isn't the "dictatorship of the proletariat" just another term for democratic control of the means of production. Despite that the USSR was called communist, I was of the impression that communism implied democracy.
I have struggled to put my thoughts on the subject as well as the parent post. So mod it up please.
CHICKAN!!!
And taking them out of the basket before you have a place to put them is another.
While manned space missions is defiantly an ultimate goal, it just doesn't make economic sense right now. Unmanned missions are discovering far more then our manned missions and at a fraction of the cost. Right now, even if we had humans in orbit, on the moon, or on mars at the time of a cataclysmic event wiping out everyone on the earth, those who survived in space would not continue to survive without assistance from earth.
If we stopped wasting resources in our current manned space programs we would sooner be able to return to space in style. Imagine if instead of 80 billion dollars going into the space station we were to put 80 billion dollars into the space elevator.
Humans are too weak to go into space, but that will change in the next 50 or 100 years.
The human brain has 1x10^11 neurons that in turn connect to on average 1000 other neurons and operate at a frequency of 1000 operations per second for a maximum theoretical computing power of 10^17 operations per second. The best super computer operates at 3.5x10^13 operations per second. 17 to 23 years of Moore's law gives us a 3000 times improvement in computing power, which gives us a super computer able to simulate a human brain at around 2024. Since advancements in neurology also seem to be coming at an exponential rate, it's not unreasonable to assume that in the next 25 to 50 years we will have a useful model of the human brain to run on our super computer. Add to that advancements in nanotechnology are happening at such a pace that it is not entirely unreasonable to think that in 50 years we will have nanobots able to attach themselves to each of our neurons and learn the pattern which each neuron fires and then replace each neuron until the entire brain is completely artificial. Since now we have a digital brain of a human, we can now upload that brain into a computer and send the computer into space, thus eliminating the need for food, water, and oxygen. And since an artificial brain can be turned off, deep space flights to other starts could be accomplished over 10s of thousands of years without need for life support and with the additional benefit to the traveler that the journey would seem to take but an instant. It also seams possible with advances in robotics to build a device that could be launched to a distant moon with the proper geology such that this device could mine the moon and manufacture more copies of itself, copying the artificial brain in the process. Finally an army of these devices could blast off of this moon in different directions and to distant moons to continue repeating this process until the entire galaxy is populated with these devices virtually ensuring the survival of the human psyche for however long the universe should last.
>I can respect these guys for wanting to patent their engine Ya, but woundn't it be a great world if they didn't need to patent it. If they could just give it to us and let the benifit that this product has to socity be their reward. If this were an 'open sourced' idea and we were free to use it, we could bring it to fruition much sooner then this small company posibly could.
(Sorry about the formating)
9 99 93238
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns
I wonder what would happen to society when these two devices mature and perhaps merge. Of course I refer to the replicators of star trek fame.
One thing that struck me is that this work was being done on modified ink-jet printers. So it seems vary likely that we will be able to use the information from these studies to modify our own ink jet printers into our own replicators. If you think hack your Xbox is cool, wait till you see the articles on how to hack your Epson. The common man will have the manufacturing capacity of both 3 billion years of evolution and the last 200 years of the industrial revolution.
Naturally there will be businesses who will try to capitalize on these types of manufacturing. And there will be patent problems what we will have to deal with. Taking a que from the internet, where to gain a patent all one has to do is add an 'e' to a preexisting idea (ie, eauctions, ebussness). So I use the letter 'r' for replicator and add write a perl script to add 'r' to the beginning of a massive word list. Now I own the ideas for the rauctions, rebussness, resex (witch I will need a lot of to continue, nevermind).
One the replictor becomes reality it will be heavily regulated or for the free use of individuals. Because these devices will be easy to make, heavy regulation by businesses and or governments can only keep these devices from a large portion of society at first. There will still be groups of hacker biologists who will be able to create these machines using their own skills. And so long as the internet remains there will be a repository of products that can be printed out.
I don't know about you, but if I didn't have to worry about food and shelter I would not be working where I do. These replicators will provide all the material wealth that we can download off the internet. We will no longer be coerced into working for our material wealth. We'd grow it from easy to acquire substances such as "Hamster Ovaries", as the article mentions. Without the need to spend all our time working for someone else, we'll be able to educate others to do the same as we do. Given the choice of working for a company or government for food, or sitting on their ass all day, the public will be completely enticed to join our cause. With the public on our side one of two things will happen. They will vote to eliminate restrictions on replicators or will be killed by cyborg terror-minators with Texas accents. (Don't mess with Texas)
Thank you