Default should be no sharing, and apps that crash or won't launch without those permissions should be banned from the store unless the permissions are vital to the primary functionality of the app.
Your brain is 'plastic' - it alters in response to use. It strengthens and prunes connections over time. Bits of it can atrophy.
So yes, if you habitually perform some task, it's going to show up as a change in sufficiently accurate before and after fMRIs. This isn't news, it's been studied before.
Whenever someone says 'blockchain', they're almost certainly leading into selling you an inefficient solution that doesn't apply to the problem they think it does.
>Having an magnetic shield is suoer simple, no idea why you think 'we don't have it'.
Well... first because I didn't say 'magnetic shield' (though we don't have those for spacecraft yet, either). I said, 'magnetically confined plasma shield'. There's an extra couple of words in there, and they are important. The plasma is used to absorb what the magnetic field can't deflect.
The concept was seriously proposed in the 1990s, and last I heard some kind of lab proof of concept was planned about a decade ago, but that it was anticipated a real-world deployment would require a room temperature superconducting wire (which we don't have and may not be possible).
>As far as mining and industry are concerned - what exactly do you think the early colonists are there to do?
Survive; there has to be enough infrastructure to give a reasonable chance of survival. I would assume the colonists will do a better job than the robots, but having the initial site built before anyone gets there is important unless you think they should depend entirely on the rocket they arrive in (which may not be the worst plan in the world, but I don't think it's the best, either).
>Living in zero gravity for as long as a year is a solved problem.
Not by a long shot; it causes a temporary severe reduction in health with a smaller permanent reduction, and the deterioration only stops when you return to Earth.
>As for what 0.38 gravity does to a person, is there really any reason at all to suspect serious negative side effects?
ABSOLUTELY! The human body is a collection of 'hacks' blindly put together by evolution. Our fundamental environment has been constant throughout our evolution, which means there's potential for any number of problems to arise when those constants are changed.
We already know about body fluids migrating towards the head, vision issues, immune system impairment, and bone density loss. I would expect those items all apply in anything less than 1g... but I have no idea to what degree.
Maybe Mars will have enough gravity to keep our bodies working well, but maybe it won't. We absolutely have no idea, because we have no way to test fractional g other than lying in bed with our feet raised above our head, and that method is only used because we have nothing better.
AI will require motivation. We know roughly how that works from the example evolution created in us - emotions. There are also more basic motivations in the form of instincts. Any AI without a similar motivation system will be a glorified calculator.
Maybe we create them with the singular motivation of 'please the master', but I'm betting it'll be more complex than that, and afterwards we will try and bolt on some variant of Asimov's Laws of Robotics as instinct.
A lot of Asimov's robot stories were about how complex systems fail in unexpected ways despite safety precautions. I'm not afraid of malicious AI (anything military will have a strong leash on it and thus be not much more dangerous than a military force already is), but I am somewhat concerned I might live to see some interesting accidents caused by AI design flaws.
>Some people do think it's important to kill as many other people as possible.
I'm patient. Even if they eliminate me and everyone like me from the gene pool... 700 million years and the planet is sterile. I'm just trying to have some fun during my ~80 years of potential life, and trying to avoid unduly impairing others' ability to do the same while I do so.
> I'd put some money on that they were infiltrated by the FSB without their knowledge - again, not a good look for a security company
When a major state intelligence agency (it's not just Russia!) wants your data badly enough... they're going to get your data. After that, it's a matter of if people find out and what the state does to prevent that from happening.
The story of 'user had files, user had infection, user used our software which scanned for, found, and uploaded the infected files to us as designed' seems extremely reasonable to me. That same sequence of events could play out with any other AV vendor, since that's how AV software works.
Covering up that it had happened? Perhaps that's understandable when you're realize you're up against the state security apparatus, but it's not acceptable regardless. And we should not forget that they DID try to cover it up and pretend it never happened.
Everybody dies. The only reason I care about my genes is because my children have them and I am emotionally attached to my children.
But what if instead of having children, I raised an AI in a humanoid body as a surrogate child? Ultimately we care about the emotional attachment and passing on our hopes, dreams, and knowledge to get some vicarious joy through our children's accomplishments, not genes.
So maybe one day people will start building children instead of growing them. They will be our descendants in a very real way, only far more robust and adaptable than any produced through natural reproduction.
>Not so much need for fancy shielding for one man, just fly solo in the middle of a densely packed cargo ship, you only need the equivalent of a few meters of rock to get the approximate shielding benefit of Earth's atmosphere, and I think it's only like a meter or so necessary to absorb most of the cosmic ray particle cascade.
True enough, but without a much faster rocket (as opposed to the 'merely' much less expensive one Musk is pushing), a smart traveller is probably going to want some artificial gravity... and I believe the best we can manage now would be a capsule on a counterweighted tether during the unpowered portion of the trip. I'm certainly no spaceship designer, but I think they'd keep as much payload away from that as possible to minimize the counterweight and tether requirements.
Then again, we don't actually HAVE magnetically confined plasma shielding yet, we just know it's possible. And I've no idea how big and heavy that setup would be, either.
>As for closed loop environmental systems - there's already been tons of research done on the subject, and even the very first large scale attempt, Biosphere 2, was impressively successful.
Well... I suppose for certain degrees of 'impressively successful'. A lot of confidence and public interest in the results was certainly lost as they mishandled the atmospheric issues they ran into with the first two major runs.
>one of the things that makes Mars so much more appealing than the Moon is that you don't *need* to be closed system
Water gets you H2 and CO2 gets you... CO2. We need a noble gas for the bulk of our atmosphere, and I'm reasonably confident it'd be easier to recycle what you have rather than constantly mine for more to extract from local minerals. After all, we do know that a greenhouse in an artificial ecosystem is going to cause problems - with an excess of O2, I think (don't quote me!). Anyway, you're probably not going to want to constantly bleed air to fix that.
Maybe a few controlled fires and a good air scrubber? Anyway, if the 'boffins' say it's a problem, I'm going to assume they've given it more thought and investigated far further than I have, and the tech ain't there yet.
> And you'd better believe finding easily harvestable sources of nitrogen and important trace elements is going to be a priority.
Personally, I think we need automated mining, processing, and construction successfully demonstrated on Mars before sending people. And even then, I think it'd be wise to have an automated greenhouse and raise a few generations of lab mice ahead of time too... maybe even something larger. We have no idea what 0.38g does to the long term health of a mammal.
As I believe I've said before... if I were designing the Internet from scratch, I'd have it geopolitically segregated-but-connected. Geography and politics are in most cases very real and practical dividing lines.
Every nation should control its own TLD, every nation should have the ability to control what data crosses their borders. Free nations, of course, should not exercise that control absolutely... but they should still have it.
I would absolutely love a world in which we all get along and national borders become little more than romanticized symbols of the past, but we're not there. A nation that does not control its 'cyberspace' isn't a nation - at least when it comes to network security and the online economy.
It's worth noting that Internet-based propaganda attacks have shown real-world value to nations.
>clearly against the goals of global communication
Not necessarily. We have all sorts of devices and OSes talking to each other over the Internet. There's nothing about having control over your regional infrastructure that automatically precludes connecting to the world. In fact, I'd say it's just as likely to prevent other political entities from interfering with your connectivity.
> Seems more like cover for saying Russia is effectively disconnecting from the internet.
More like a cover for Russia having the capability to filter or disconnect international Internet traffic. It would be economically counter-productive to entirely cut themselves off, and the rich folks who runs things don't like things that cost them even small portions of their wealth.
While the Internet's a beautiful thing overall, the fact that - more or less - it operates at the whim of the USA is not a great feature for anyone but the USA.
Every nation should have its own DNS infrastructure, total control over wired connections that cross their borders, and dedicated state heavily-encrypted VPN tunnels to allied states (especially whenever the connections are accessible to American subs).
Sure, those are the same things you'd expect from a totalitarian regime trying to control the flow of information to aide in oppressing their own population, but they're ALSO what you should expect of a nation acting in the best interests of its population.
>because he wants to cut pollution and save the planet
He wants to go to Mars.
Space-X gets him there, Tesla powers the planet, Boring Company builds living space and connective tunnels, Hyperloops gives him transport (and easier, since Mars' low pressure means you probably don't even bother evacuating the tubes).
If Musk next starts in on magnetically confined plasma shielding technology and closed-loop environmental systems... you'll know for sure. He will want to get to Mars without the elevated cancer risk and survive there without constant resupply from Earth.
GPS is pretty weak, and it doesn't take much to block it. You can PROBABLY even find a happy medium of just enough interference to block GPS without blocking cellular, if you're careful enough and do some experimenting. Or you can open your phone, identify the GPS antenna, and damage it.
No matter what, though, you can't hide your general area as that can be triangulated from the cell towers you're hitting.
If you really don't want your whereabouts known... don't carry a cell phone that can be associated with you.
> It answered your question as to why feminism is necessary to achieve egalitarianism
No, it explained why YOU thought so. There's nothing about treating everyone properly that requires you to first focus on treating women properly.
>I guess because you have no counter-argument you just ignored it.
I see how this discussion's going to go; insult instead of debate.
>Even the argument that you do make, that some people have a bad impression of feminism, is extremely weak.
If you don't understand that language ultimately is as it's used and not how you want it to be, then by all means, keep saying 'feminist' and getting upset when people attach meaning to it other than your idealized one.
> You are saying that they can't move past that word and mod as -1 troll without even considering the message.
Surely as a mod you understand I can't post AND mod you in the same discussion. Perhaps not.
But please, DON'T try again. If you don't realize you're preaching and not discussing, that's your problem and it'd be nice if you didn't share. But if you insist on preaching and pretending you're discussing, you can expect to get some negative responses as others pick up on it.
>Feminism started out as the study of why women were not equal. It grew into the study of how systems negatively affect both men and women.
And in most of the cases that come to the public's attention, it's altered into a political ideology of 'men are evil, time to put them down'... which is why mentioning 'feminism' in a post is a pretty good way to ensure a polarized shouting match instead of a debate.
It's also the reason why you're going to get a negative reaction if you identify yourself as a 'male feminist'. The common conceptions of modern feminism and egalitarianism ARE incompatible and at odds. One is about women attempting to relegate men to a socially inferior status by stereotyping them all as violent misogynists, the other is about treating everyone using the same standards.
And honestly, if you believe they ARE the same... there's no need to use the word 'feminist', is there?
>So Bitcoin mining involves running a special computer whose sole purpose is to waste electricity.
Ridiculous amounts of it, though slightly less per unit of economic value now that Bitcoin's exchange value is so high.
Of course, Bitcoin has a fix for that... the increase in price has made mining more economically viable, so more people will get involved with more ASIC farms, and Bitcoin will respond with an increase in difficulty. The level of waste will be maintained.
Slashdot Mirror
>default should be no sharing.
Default should be no sharing, and apps that crash or won't launch without those permissions should be banned from the store unless the permissions are vital to the primary functionality of the app.
Why would you bother to write all that and start with a blatant falsehood?
Bitcoin is horrible in terms of ease of use, transaction time, and transaction cost.
Your brain is 'plastic' - it alters in response to use. It strengthens and prunes connections over time. Bits of it can atrophy.
So yes, if you habitually perform some task, it's going to show up as a change in sufficiently accurate before and after fMRIs. This isn't news, it's been studied before.
Whenever someone says 'blockchain', they're almost certainly leading into selling you an inefficient solution that doesn't apply to the problem they think it does.
Just say 'no' to blockchains.
Three choices:
1 - English isn't your first language.
2 - You're deliberately misunderstanding me.
3 - You're an idiot.
I really don't care which, I only care that the end result is there will be no meaningful discussion with you.
>Having an magnetic shield is suoer simple, no idea why you think 'we don't have it'.
Well... first because I didn't say 'magnetic shield' (though we don't have those for spacecraft yet, either). I said, 'magnetically confined plasma shield'. There's an extra couple of words in there, and they are important. The plasma is used to absorb what the magnetic field can't deflect.
The concept was seriously proposed in the 1990s, and last I heard some kind of lab proof of concept was planned about a decade ago, but that it was anticipated a real-world deployment would require a room temperature superconducting wire (which we don't have and may not be possible).
>As far as mining and industry are concerned - what exactly do you think the early colonists are there to do?
Survive; there has to be enough infrastructure to give a reasonable chance of survival. I would assume the colonists will do a better job than the robots, but having the initial site built before anyone gets there is important unless you think they should depend entirely on the rocket they arrive in (which may not be the worst plan in the world, but I don't think it's the best, either).
The CAPABILITY to be North Korea. Or perhaps simply not to be at the mercy of another nation when it comes to your Internet infrastructure.
Are you equally upset that other nations have their own militaries?
>Living in zero gravity for as long as a year is a solved problem.
Not by a long shot; it causes a temporary severe reduction in health with a smaller permanent reduction, and the deterioration only stops when you return to Earth.
>As for what 0.38 gravity does to a person, is there really any reason at all to suspect serious negative side effects?
ABSOLUTELY! The human body is a collection of 'hacks' blindly put together by evolution. Our fundamental environment has been constant throughout our evolution, which means there's potential for any number of problems to arise when those constants are changed.
We already know about body fluids migrating towards the head, vision issues, immune system impairment, and bone density loss. I would expect those items all apply in anything less than 1g... but I have no idea to what degree.
Maybe Mars will have enough gravity to keep our bodies working well, but maybe it won't. We absolutely have no idea, because we have no way to test fractional g other than lying in bed with our feet raised above our head, and that method is only used because we have nothing better.
AI will require motivation. We know roughly how that works from the example evolution created in us - emotions. There are also more basic motivations in the form of instincts. Any AI without a similar motivation system will be a glorified calculator.
Maybe we create them with the singular motivation of 'please the master', but I'm betting it'll be more complex than that, and afterwards we will try and bolt on some variant of Asimov's Laws of Robotics as instinct.
A lot of Asimov's robot stories were about how complex systems fail in unexpected ways despite safety precautions. I'm not afraid of malicious AI (anything military will have a strong leash on it and thus be not much more dangerous than a military force already is), but I am somewhat concerned I might live to see some interesting accidents caused by AI design flaws.
>Some people do think it's important to kill as many other people as possible.
I'm patient. Even if they eliminate me and everyone like me from the gene pool... 700 million years and the planet is sterile. I'm just trying to have some fun during my ~80 years of potential life, and trying to avoid unduly impairing others' ability to do the same while I do so.
> I'd put some money on that they were infiltrated by the FSB without their knowledge - again, not a good look for a security company
When a major state intelligence agency (it's not just Russia!) wants your data badly enough... they're going to get your data. After that, it's a matter of if people find out and what the state does to prevent that from happening.
The story of 'user had files, user had infection, user used our software which scanned for, found, and uploaded the infected files to us as designed' seems extremely reasonable to me. That same sequence of events could play out with any other AV vendor, since that's how AV software works.
Covering up that it had happened? Perhaps that's understandable when you're realize you're up against the state security apparatus, but it's not acceptable regardless. And we should not forget that they DID try to cover it up and pretend it never happened.
Everybody dies. The only reason I care about my genes is because my children have them and I am emotionally attached to my children.
But what if instead of having children, I raised an AI in a humanoid body as a surrogate child? Ultimately we care about the emotional attachment and passing on our hopes, dreams, and knowledge to get some vicarious joy through our children's accomplishments, not genes.
So maybe one day people will start building children instead of growing them. They will be our descendants in a very real way, only far more robust and adaptable than any produced through natural reproduction.
>Not so much need for fancy shielding for one man, just fly solo in the middle of a densely packed cargo ship, you only need the equivalent of a few meters of rock to get the approximate shielding benefit of Earth's atmosphere, and I think it's only like a meter or so necessary to absorb most of the cosmic ray particle cascade.
True enough, but without a much faster rocket (as opposed to the 'merely' much less expensive one Musk is pushing), a smart traveller is probably going to want some artificial gravity... and I believe the best we can manage now would be a capsule on a counterweighted tether during the unpowered portion of the trip. I'm certainly no spaceship designer, but I think they'd keep as much payload away from that as possible to minimize the counterweight and tether requirements.
Then again, we don't actually HAVE magnetically confined plasma shielding yet, we just know it's possible. And I've no idea how big and heavy that setup would be, either.
>As for closed loop environmental systems - there's already been tons of research done on the subject, and even the very first large scale attempt, Biosphere 2, was impressively successful.
Well... I suppose for certain degrees of 'impressively successful'. A lot of confidence and public interest in the results was certainly lost as they mishandled the atmospheric issues they ran into with the first two major runs.
>one of the things that makes Mars so much more appealing than the Moon is that you don't *need* to be closed system
Water gets you H2 and CO2 gets you... CO2. We need a noble gas for the bulk of our atmosphere, and I'm reasonably confident it'd be easier to recycle what you have rather than constantly mine for more to extract from local minerals. After all, we do know that a greenhouse in an artificial ecosystem is going to cause problems - with an excess of O2, I think (don't quote me!). Anyway, you're probably not going to want to constantly bleed air to fix that.
Maybe a few controlled fires and a good air scrubber? Anyway, if the 'boffins' say it's a problem, I'm going to assume they've given it more thought and investigated far further than I have, and the tech ain't there yet.
> And you'd better believe finding easily harvestable sources of nitrogen and important trace elements is going to be a priority.
Personally, I think we need automated mining, processing, and construction successfully demonstrated on Mars before sending people. And even then, I think it'd be wise to have an automated greenhouse and raise a few generations of lab mice ahead of time too... maybe even something larger. We have no idea what 0.38g does to the long term health of a mammal.
As I believe I've said before... if I were designing the Internet from scratch, I'd have it geopolitically segregated-but-connected. Geography and politics are in most cases very real and practical dividing lines.
Every nation should control its own TLD, every nation should have the ability to control what data crosses their borders. Free nations, of course, should not exercise that control absolutely... but they should still have it.
I would absolutely love a world in which we all get along and national borders become little more than romanticized symbols of the past, but we're not there. A nation that does not control its 'cyberspace' isn't a nation - at least when it comes to network security and the online economy.
It's worth noting that Internet-based propaganda attacks have shown real-world value to nations.
Elon Musk: 'I'm planning to retire to Mars'
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
>Are only useful if people point their requests to them.
Most people pick up their ISP's settings, which means the ISP's DNS servers are the first point of contact with the greater DNS hierarchy.
It wouldn't be terribly difficult in Russia to mandate that ISPs use the Russian system by default.
>clearly against the goals of global communication
Not necessarily. We have all sorts of devices and OSes talking to each other over the Internet. There's nothing about having control over your regional infrastructure that automatically precludes connecting to the world. In fact, I'd say it's just as likely to prevent other political entities from interfering with your connectivity.
> Seems more like cover for saying Russia is effectively disconnecting from the internet.
More like a cover for Russia having the capability to filter or disconnect international Internet traffic. It would be economically counter-productive to entirely cut themselves off, and the rich folks who runs things don't like things that cost them even small portions of their wealth.
It's about control.
While the Internet's a beautiful thing overall, the fact that - more or less - it operates at the whim of the USA is not a great feature for anyone but the USA.
Every nation should have its own DNS infrastructure, total control over wired connections that cross their borders, and dedicated state heavily-encrypted VPN tunnels to allied states (especially whenever the connections are accessible to American subs).
Sure, those are the same things you'd expect from a totalitarian regime trying to control the flow of information to aide in oppressing their own population, but they're ALSO what you should expect of a nation acting in the best interests of its population.
>because he wants to cut pollution and save the planet
He wants to go to Mars.
Space-X gets him there, Tesla powers the planet, Boring Company builds living space and connective tunnels, Hyperloops gives him transport (and easier, since Mars' low pressure means you probably don't even bother evacuating the tubes).
If Musk next starts in on magnetically confined plasma shielding technology and closed-loop environmental systems... you'll know for sure. He will want to get to Mars without the elevated cancer risk and survive there without constant resupply from Earth.
GPS is pretty weak, and it doesn't take much to block it. You can PROBABLY even find a happy medium of just enough interference to block GPS without blocking cellular, if you're careful enough and do some experimenting. Or you can open your phone, identify the GPS antenna, and damage it.
No matter what, though, you can't hide your general area as that can be triangulated from the cell towers you're hitting.
If you really don't want your whereabouts known... don't carry a cell phone that can be associated with you.
> It answered your question as to why feminism is necessary to achieve egalitarianism
No, it explained why YOU thought so. There's nothing about treating everyone properly that requires you to first focus on treating women properly.
>I guess because you have no counter-argument you just ignored it.
I see how this discussion's going to go; insult instead of debate.
>Even the argument that you do make, that some people have a bad impression of feminism, is extremely weak.
If you don't understand that language ultimately is as it's used and not how you want it to be, then by all means, keep saying 'feminist' and getting upset when people attach meaning to it other than your idealized one.
> You are saying that they can't move past that word and mod as -1 troll without even considering the message.
Surely as a mod you understand I can't post AND mod you in the same discussion. Perhaps not.
But please, DON'T try again. If you don't realize you're preaching and not discussing, that's your problem and it'd be nice if you didn't share. But if you insist on preaching and pretending you're discussing, you can expect to get some negative responses as others pick up on it.
>Feminism started out as the study of why women were not equal. It grew into the study of how systems negatively affect both men and women.
And in most of the cases that come to the public's attention, it's altered into a political ideology of 'men are evil, time to put them down'... which is why mentioning 'feminism' in a post is a pretty good way to ensure a polarized shouting match instead of a debate.
It's also the reason why you're going to get a negative reaction if you identify yourself as a 'male feminist'. The common conceptions of modern feminism and egalitarianism ARE incompatible and at odds. One is about women attempting to relegate men to a socially inferior status by stereotyping them all as violent misogynists, the other is about treating everyone using the same standards.
And honestly, if you believe they ARE the same... there's no need to use the word 'feminist', is there?
Futures make sense (to me) when you're dealing with something that takes time to mature and requires significant capital up front.
Most of what I see is raw gambling, though.
>So Bitcoin mining involves running a special computer whose sole purpose is to waste electricity.
Ridiculous amounts of it, though slightly less per unit of economic value now that Bitcoin's exchange value is so high.
Of course, Bitcoin has a fix for that... the increase in price has made mining more economically viable, so more people will get involved with more ASIC farms, and Bitcoin will respond with an increase in difficulty. The level of waste will be maintained.