"The satellite is going to be studying the effects of space plasma."
I find this aspect of the article a lot more interesting than who is launching it and from where. WTF is "space plasma"? From the sun or intergalactic space? I've heard of plasma, but I thought it was only near the surface of stars and other bright burning objects, not hanging out or going past earth.
Secondly, we've had satellites, space stations, and an assortment of space probes out in space for over 40 years, so why are they only sending one up now? Wouldn't the "effects" of this space plasma already have made itself obvious with it's impact on military satellites already in existence? So what are they really testing, hmm?
Obviously I have a lot of questions, but something seems out of place with this mission. Shouldn't they have done this before they sent up human beings to the moon?
I'm obviously totally uninformed or totally paranoid. Maybe both!
LOL - you must be new to slashdot. Anyone that even mentions terms "1984" or "Orwell" is automatically modded a troll here. Happens everytime, regardless of the validity of the reference. I think it makes people feel smarter, to deny that gentle slope we find the US sliding towards. It's bizarre really, that unless your name is ACTUALLY Winston Smith, you work for the Ministry of Truth, and the country you live in is called Oceania, you are forbidden to use 1984 as an allegorical reference. Oh sweet irony.
I got your point - as do millions of other Americans capable of abstract thinking. (yeah, that's a jab at the/.pc modder of the GP)
"What's your definition of getting pretty fucking close?"
(The leader likes conquering nations, but he is not yet a dictator). 1 out of 2, that's what I consider getting pretty close. If there is a major attack on US soil using WMD, then Martial Law will be declared (as has been officially discussed), the Constitution will be suspended (as is part of the SOP), and all past discussions of permanently implacing the current President as Commander-in-Chief indefinitely or until the "war" is over will occur(which could take decades depending on how they decide to define "war").
"As far as I know no elections were cancelled in the US"
If you were satisfied with how the elections went in 2000 & 2004, then you obviously have much lower standards than I concerning political manipulations preventing large blocks of voters from voting & electronic security of central tabulators. So, "as far as I know" is what they wanted you to "know".
"...and I recall that some were actually added to the world of politics in those so-called conquered nations."
You are cherry picking the good news. Not only have the legitmacy of the those elections been severly put into question by international monitors, the "elections" you speak of are pointless. Attempting to set up a fledgling democracy in a country that Bush as simultaneously made an effort to be a "magnet" for the war on terror is schizophrenic at best. If that meets your standard for a legitimate democracy, then your evaluation of elections in America is also completely disfunctional.
"...but my thumb of rule is that in a country where 49% cries fascism and walks freely, there is very little of it."
Well, the same could have been said by a patriotic citizen in 1933 Germany. But we all know how the rest of that story went...so what's your point?
"Can you imagine Wilbur Wright saying "Well Orville, now that we know how to fly, I guess we can tell everyone to stop going to church"
Au Contraire!
Can you imagine the Church saying "The Bible doesn't say ANYTHING about the Orville's flying a plane. There is no prophecy for such an occurrence. Therefore, flying is just a theory, NOT a fact."
No, that would be pretty ridiculous, right? So, why, despite the fact that we live in an age of genetic engineering, continuously evolving diseases, libraries of fossil evidence of evolutionary changes, proven human influence over animal breeding (artificial selection), does the Church still attempt to claim that Evolution is just a "Theory", not a "fact"? (Which is a peculiar argument anyway, because a "Theory" is set of interwoven facts. You must be trying to say that it's only a "hypothesis"?)
It is just as ridiculous - the only difference, seeing someone fly is more cognitively accessible than the intellectually challenging concept of billions of years of Evolution. In-other-words, the power and authority of the Church has an easier time brainwashing their flock into believing a reality fundamental to the powerbase the Church must maintain in order to survive.
Well, my friend, survival of the smartest will eventually "deselect" the inferior explanation of creationism. It. Is. Inevitable.
Well, if we in the USA end up with a dictator with a taste for conquering nations (we're getting pretty fucking close), the EU will owe the American citizens a return favor (for WWII) and get over here and dismantle our government. By the time our nation is in a Military Police State, the good Americans will be powerless (and probably imprisoned). We'll need the EU's help to topple the new American fascists. Keep that in mind.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what Google Analytics is. You have to see it for yourself.
Take the Blue Pill, you go to sleep, and believe whatever you want to believe. Take the Red Pill, and I'll show you just how deep the Google Analytics hole goes.
Redundant? This is the first post in this thread making this joke. If the modder would be so kind as to linking to anywhere on slashdot this exact joke has been made, I'd be interested to see it.
Point being...everyone here thinks this $20,000 dollar criminal should go to jail.
But President Bush, the nitwit that led our nation to war under false pretenses costing $200 billion is chillin' in the White House, figuring out a way to lead us into another costly bullshit war with Iran.
Wow. Interesting how the hyenas attack the weak in large numbers, but scurry away with their tails between their legs when the Alpha male exerts his misguided authority.
Since you put it that way, this article isn't that suprising. If early humans let their little children waddle around an open field in predatory bird territory, nature will take it's course.
But if the early adult humans were the size of modern 4 year old children, no wonder they were getting picked off by predatory birds...and any other hungry beast in that environment.
...because I don't think there is any bird alive today that doesn't fly away the minute we get anywhere near them, no matter how large. (okay, maybe an ostrich will fight us, but that is a BIG bird...)
How do we know that the holes in the heads didn't come from other proto-humans that fastened a bird talon to the end of some spear and then battled one another? That would seem to make a pretty lethal weapon.
Well, you certainly sparked the conversation by all the replies. I'd like to comment on:
"If Google AI made 50,000 edits it would overwhelm Wikipedia's normal editors, but whichever edits were checked by humans would certainly be confirmed as correct."
That seems like a very naive assumption, doesn't it? You are aware that humans have a whole conflicting spectrum of motivations to confirm/deny all kinds of factual/false information, right?
Take politics for instance. Or the Abortion issue. What is the "right" answer? How the hell could Google AI come to an answer that is agreed upon by humans?
Look at "2001 A Space Odyssey" or "I,Robot" - both A.I. systems that are supposedly "logically perfect" reach some logical conclusions that are VERY disagreeable to the human end users (The AIs in both those stories decide to impose some serious harm on the humans - because humans are not logical - and pose a threat to either themselves or some ultimate goal).
The scariest idea behind the goal of an AI passing the Turing Test is that it must lie to you in order to trick you. If you ask it, "Are you a human being?", then it must lie in order to convince you it is human.
That is scary. Once it can do that, what limits does it place on itself for being dishonest? It would have to fabricate some false past if you asked it questions about it's life. That would require some very strange technology to pull that off. In fact, it would have to make sure it wasn't perfect (typos, grammatical errors, human mistakes), what kind of imperfections would it choose to have and why? Would those inconsistencies be random or carefully selected?
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind - I guess "space plasma" is another word for solar winds colliding with the ionosphere. *removes tinfoil hat*
Secondly, we've had satellites, space stations, and an assortment of space probes out in space for over 40 years, so why are they only sending one up now? Wouldn't the "effects" of this space plasma already have made itself obvious with it's impact on military satellites already in existence? So what are they really testing, hmm?
Obviously I have a lot of questions, but something seems out of place with this mission. Shouldn't they have done this before they sent up human beings to the moon? I'm obviously totally uninformed or totally paranoid. Maybe both!
...isn't this the kind of threat that forced the government to put SkyNet online?
*tinfoil head dress*, "ON!!".
LOL - you must be new to slashdot. Anyone that even mentions terms "1984" or "Orwell" is automatically modded a troll here. Happens everytime, regardless of the validity of the reference. I think it makes people feel smarter, to deny that gentle slope we find the US sliding towards. It's bizarre really, that unless your name is ACTUALLY Winston Smith, you work for the Ministry of Truth, and the country you live in is called Oceania, you are forbidden to use 1984 as an allegorical reference. Oh sweet irony.
/.pc modder of the GP)
I got your point - as do millions of other Americans capable of abstract thinking. (yeah, that's a jab at the
That should read: "Ameri©a"
You wouldn't happen to be wearing a Brown Shirt, wouldcha?
Can you imagine the Church saying "The Bible doesn't say ANYTHING about the Orville's flying a plane. There is no prophecy for such an occurrence. Therefore, flying is just a theory, NOT a fact."
No, that would be pretty ridiculous, right? So, why, despite the fact that we live in an age of genetic engineering, continuously evolving diseases, libraries of fossil evidence of evolutionary changes, proven human influence over animal breeding (artificial selection), does the Church still attempt to claim that Evolution is just a "Theory", not a "fact"? (Which is a peculiar argument anyway, because a "Theory" is set of interwoven facts. You must be trying to say that it's only a "hypothesis"?)
It is just as ridiculous - the only difference, seeing someone fly is more cognitively accessible than the intellectually challenging concept of billions of years of Evolution. In-other-words, the power and authority of the Church has an easier time brainwashing their flock into believing a reality fundamental to the powerbase the Church must maintain in order to survive.
Well, my friend, survival of the smartest will eventually "deselect" the inferior explanation of creationism. It. Is. Inevitable.
I want a Troll! I want a Troll! Puuuuuuhleeeeaze?! Troll-a-thon is now in progress.
But again, I ask, what safety issues? Bats dying isn't a safety issue, it could be categorized as a environmental issue, but a "safety issue"?
A safety issue would be like if there is a big storm, the 60 foot blades go flying off into Ma & Pa's house killing both. What safety issues?
I hope you aren't talking about birds. But then again, how would I know what you are talking about, you didn't mention it!
Unfortunately, no one can be told what Google Analytics is. You have to see it for yourself.
Take the Blue Pill, you go to sleep, and believe whatever you want to believe.
Take the Red Pill, and I'll show you just how deep the Google Analytics hole goes.
Redundant? This is the first post in this thread making this joke. If the modder would be so kind as to linking to anywhere on slashdot this exact joke has been made, I'd be interested to see it.
$20k dollars VS. $200 billion
Point being...everyone here thinks this $20,000 dollar criminal should go to jail.
But President Bush, the nitwit that led our nation to war under false pretenses costing $200 billion is chillin' in the White House, figuring out a way to lead us into another costly bullshit war with Iran.
Wow. Interesting how the hyenas attack the weak in large numbers, but scurry away with their tails between their legs when the Alpha male exerts his misguided authority.
...so that's why Apple is switching over to Intel chips.
And now you know the rest...of the story.
Since you put it that way, this article isn't that suprising. If early humans let their little children waddle around an open field in predatory bird territory, nature will take it's course.
But if the early adult humans were the size of modern 4 year old children, no wonder they were getting picked off by predatory birds...and any other hungry beast in that environment.
...because I don't think there is any bird alive today that doesn't fly away the minute we get anywhere near them, no matter how large. (okay, maybe an ostrich will fight us, but that is a BIG bird...)
How do we know that the holes in the heads didn't come from other proto-humans that fastened a bird talon to the end of some spear and then battled one another? That would seem to make a pretty lethal weapon.
Take politics for instance. Or the Abortion issue. What is the "right" answer? How the hell could Google AI come to an answer that is agreed upon by humans?
Look at "2001 A Space Odyssey" or "I,Robot" - both A.I. systems that are supposedly "logically perfect" reach some logical conclusions that are VERY disagreeable to the human end users (The AIs in both those stories decide to impose some serious harm on the humans - because humans are not logical - and pose a threat to either themselves or some ultimate goal).
Just for the sake of discussion....
The scariest idea behind the goal of an AI passing the Turing Test is that it must lie to you in order to trick you. If you ask it, "Are you a human being?", then it must lie in order to convince you it is human.
That is scary. Once it can do that, what limits does it place on itself for being dishonest? It would have to fabricate some false past if you asked it questions about it's life. That would require some very strange technology to pull that off. In fact, it would have to make sure it wasn't perfect (typos, grammatical errors, human mistakes), what kind of imperfections would it choose to have and why? Would those inconsistencies be random or carefully selected?
Cool topic...
That was interesting and quite a visionary leap of imagination on behalf of that writer in 1946. He's pretty much got google figured out, eh!?