OK, but . . . we've been trying to create "AI" since the mechanical man that plays chess. And in fiction long before that. And, though in 100+ (1000+?) years we haven't achieved true AI at all. But we're jumping to the illogical extreme that . . . once successful, we'll be WILDLY over the moon successful, FAR outstripping human capabilities in an instant. Its like saying "Dude, I know we haven't even invented the wheel yet, but can't we even talk theoretically about the specs and floor-plan for the base on Mars?"
And point two . . . we already have Hitlers, and Dahmers, and a plethora of "plenty ordinary" villains. It may take us a few tries, but . . . eventually we find and deal with them. To our future Robotic Overloads I say . . . "Line for the evil villains starts back there. Take a number, we'll be with you in a minute."
Yeah, I'm lost on what they're talking about . . . pretty much every county / municipality around here has "water treatment plants" . . . which take human waste, process it, and return it to the river supply. So yes, I'm drinking recycled waste from someone upstream . . . but lots of people downstream are drinking mine too. Maybe its that in the "lap of 1st world luxury" we don't realize the 3rd world doesn't have this filtration/reprocessing on a widespread basis.
Just wait till he starts pushing the Soylent Green Crackers . . .
Exactly. "I" that is rapidly and mechanically (electronically) repeatable, not "AI" . . . in some half intelligence.
Autonomy (with its goals and value systems) will likely be a core precept for "true" repeatable intelligence.
Would anyone want a robotic doctor (Emergency Medical Hologram) that's little more then a "calculator"??? If no live-human doctor was available, I'd certainly prefer the substitute be autonomous, and goal oriented.
Therein lies the twin issue. Aside from the danger of a singularity taking over . . . if "that thing" is intelligent enough to dream and reason and have goals and values, enough to complete difficult tasks . . . is it right for us to enslave it?
(Hard to tell clearly from the two articles but) these seem to use feed horns of a specific design and configuration (microwave transmissions usually do), that must be POINTED AT the receiver feed horn, so . . . if anyone is planning on "just plopping down the laptop" in any old orientation . . . it won't line up the transmission signals. Sure, for a trunk line between sites (buildings/planets) where critical alignment can be achieved . . . it'll work fine.
And some of the comments below seem confused . . . its not "faster" . . . its a "bigger pipeline". If it takes (on average, depending on planet position) 12.5 minutes for a signal to "reach mars" . . . it will still take 12.5 minutes. The signal won't "go faster" to get there in 6 minutes. When they say "faster" they mean . . . once the signal crosses the 12.5 minute distance . . . you can pump a higher bandwidth of data on that signal. But we won't be using this for "live control" of something like a Mars Rover. That's not the "faster" they mean.
Also, in terms of the "don't need USB cables any more, just put them close to the computer" . . . so, next time I enter the datacenter, I won't have to actually sneak in a USB thumb drive to tap the servers and steal data . . . I can just "walk nearby" and tap in? Sounds like a path ripe for exploitation. I know, its not that simple, and theoretically we can "tap into" keystroke/mouse streams that are RF now . . . but a USB "tap" seems more capable of nefarious activity than just a keyboard sniffer.
And I'd agree with the one point . . . (just like regular WiFi) other factors come into play and the high rate will drop off fast with distance . . . still. Always good to push the envelope . . . congratz all around to the dev's.
I too pitched the Blue LED Alarm clock. And have the windows blacked out, but to your other point . ..
Yes, a spinning wheel for artificially created gravity solves one problem, but leaving LEO and the protection inside the Van Allen Belts for geostationary orbit . . . I fear you'd sleep better, but you'd be sleeping in a microwave, having given up lots of your radiation shielding.
Water shielding or "building inside an asteroid" . . . are both currently unfeasible for lift-weight or maneuverability.
Exactly the same reasoning I used to wear a helmet riding a Motorcycle. I know I can't survive the 70+ mile per hour head on with a one ton car . . . but that bump from behind at 5 mph at a stop-light, that tosses me head-first into the curb, that one I could walk away from unharmed with a helmet.
So . . . police won't be able to use the Restroom for an entire shift . . . since they can't turn off the camera and, while they may be willing, can't require others in the Restroom to permit filming them ???
Seems like we still have a few loopholes to work through.
I found a cure for Cancer . . . but its only effective against 55% of the cancers out there, so it hardly seems worth immunizing the public since its not 100% effective.
As long as the overhead of trapping/blocking the 55% of computer virus attacks is unobtrusive to me . . . Thanks, I'll gladly take what protection I can get.
I used punch cards in College and had to wait hours to get my turn.
For work . . . we started a Machine Monitoring System for the factory floor around 1985. Back then a "compile everything" on the older Motorola Versados computers took five and a half hours.
Now on the PC-Linux its running on, that same "compile everything" takes . . . 3 minutes 23 seconds.
Makes sense to me . . .
1. I pay for Netflix (content charge) and can watch movies without commercials.
2. I watch Broadcast TV with commercials, and should pay only for xyz's cable system infrastructure (lines, repeaters, dvr boxes . ..) to get me clear picture/sound.
3. Or I pay no one and watch OTA broadcasts (and pay by watching commercials.)
Paying for BOTH #2 and #3 AND paying a content charge on top . . . is double or triple dipping of fees for the same viewing.
Yes, I understand Netflix in #1 has "servers and infrastructure" and I'm paying for both content and infrastructure, but that's my point, if they're telling me I must pay for both content and infrastructure on the cable system . . . why should I also suffer watching commercials too?
Its all inconsistent billing as its setup currently.
With omniscience . . . you don't need omnipotence. With omniscience you don't need ANY power because you know how to create (from nothing) or seize control, of any power, in any time frame, to achieve any effect.
Having omnipotence without omniscience . . . you can really only blow $hit up.
From the standpoint of being able to be "on par" with the government, so it remains such that "we" rule the government, and not the other way around . . . then nuclear weapons and such may be justified.
My father always tried to wiggle out of the right to bear arms with the "So do you want explosives too?" argument.
I fell back on the "line of sight" justification. If its important enough (protecting my family from a burglar in our home in the middle of the night) that I'm willing to stand within his "line of sight" and risk my life from his pistol/rifle . . . then I ought to have every bit the same amount of firepower to protect myself and my family in direct response.
That of course does NOT justify . . . planting an IED and being "safe and secure" 100 miles away . . . while others die at my remote hands. (And so, since I can be "far away" and out of danger . . . it does not justify the nuclear/biological or other weapons.)
Its hard for citizens or the government to justify taking away my right to defend myself when I'm in "line of sight" (imminent) danger/threat.
That brings up another point . . . "vigilante". We're missing a word in the English/American language . . . and end up constantly substituting "vigilante" for this missing word.
If a man is robbing my store, and police arrest him, and handcuff him, and take him to jail, and I gather my friends and torches and pitchforks and seize that thief from custody and try and lynch him . . . THAT is being a vigilante."
The alternate case is where we need the missing word.
If the robber is ACTIVELY SHOOTING AT ME, and the Police have arrived but I'm STILL IN imminent danger . . . I have no constitutional, legal, moral, or ethical responsibility to throw down my gun and "hope the police can protect me". At that point, I'm NOT being a vigilante, I'm . . . simply fighting for my life. A right which can never be abdicated or be taken away.
As soon as the police have the robber disarmed, and in custody . . . if I continue to fire, NOW I've converted to vigilante.
As an American (maybe a world) society, we've developed this delusional view, that "since we live in a civilized society" . . . I threw away my right to fight to live and have to hope the police get here in time and can save me.
And . . . it just isn't so.
(That's more than just a response to your point . . . just something that needed to be said.)
I took it to say . . . "breaking orbit" so it wouldn't fall back into the earth, would just mean it follows (or leads) the earth, in roughly the same orbit. That to get it headed into the sun . . . took a much greater effort on top of "leaving orbit".
And with chemical rockets (current technology) . . . its not cost effective. Even with something like a "space elevator" . . . I think the article was saying . . . "you can't just "fling it off" at the top . . . and have it travel on into the sun."
Read for yourself (I can't get to it directly from here at the moment.)
I started with that question after reading the article . . . Quantum Fluctuations "of what", caused by what, in what? . . .
All the article seems to accomplish, is put one level (of turtle) below the big bang, and say QF in nothing caused the big bang.
We still need descriptions of the level below the "QF in nothing".
(Even if its not "nothing" . . . where then, did the "not nothing" come from?)
Nothing wrong with that (knowing what we know as the model now, and seeking to add a lower level). As another poster said . . . at one point "atom" meant the smallest indivisible thing. Now . . . we know there are 2? 3? levels below that.
We live with the model we have . . . until we can see the next lower level down.
To my simple mind . . . God is at the lowest level. Each discovery of "another turtle" . . . just pushes God one more down.
Though, I'm not offended by the attempt of some other posters to "beam energy into free space and bring particles into existence". They're trying to answer the "where is the bottom?" by saying there isn't one. Its a circular loop. I'm still stuck with the problem . . . who/what started the loop?
If I discover the cure for Liver Cancer in 5 years, and time travel back to now and hand myself the answer, then in 5 years when time travel is available I send the same answer back . . . who did the hard research/testing work to discover the cure? It seems to paradoxically fall in the same class as "perpetual motion machines" were I got something (the cure for Liver Cancer) for nothing (no research effort, just time travel).
That's what I find problematic with the attempt to "loop" the universe and displace religion/God . . . it seems to be evading the question, not attempting to answer it. But, I understand, many disagree (like Mr. Hawking apparently) and are happy to live with the "self creating loop from nowhere".
You make an excellent point (I thought).
Plus . . . no Cable Modems in my parents house area, so DSL comes in over POTS. And no, some places in RedNeck KY don't have 4GL, heck, we're lucky to have cellular service. So going "full wireless" for everything (Security links/Medical/mmorpg . . . wireless just doesn't always cut it.)
One of the most important points everyone leaves out . . . Cellular Services had no sense of PRIORITY. Little Timmy calling Grandma after the "big wind" came through, to make sure Gamma's OK . . . ties up Cellular Channels, just like Tina calling 911 to say her husband is having a massive heart attack.
Every time a little wind/lightning/thunderstorm/... comes through, everyone jams the Cellular lines with trivial traffic. (Here at least.) Heck, it can even be hard to get a line on Friday afternoon as work is letting off and everyone is gearing up for the weekend. (In total honesty this is 1000% better than it was 4 years ago.) Cellular capacity seems to be built for the AVERAGE load, not to sustain the PEAK load. And its a darn shame, when 911 calls can't make it through, because hundreds-thousands of people are making trivial calls. In my experience, the switched network nature of hard line switching circuitry does a better job of getting 911 calls through, even when Cellular networks are flooded. So yes, even though its burning a hole in my wallet, I'll have a wired phone in every house/apartment I have . . . for as long as they're available.
Tried that on the old IBM Series/1 EDX boxes we had . . . the "other side" worked . . . but, LOL, the read/write heads were so powerful . . . it would erase side 1 when you used side 2.
So . . . it let us get "another life" out of the disk when side 1 went bad . . . but we could never use two sides at once.
(Of course, these were the same computers that had belt driven Hard Drives, that had to have speeds set with a tachometer.)
Ahhh, the good ole days . . .
(I don't have any but . ..) What is the advantage of putting all my Bitcoins in a Bitcoin bank?
I can see (for a few milliseconds while passing through) converting real works $$$'s to/from either a credit card or REAL bank account . . . into Bitcoins, then I KEEP the Bitcoins.
I thought that was part of the purpose/advantage of Bitcoins, they're Peer-to-Peer and need no bank.
It seems to me the only purpose of putting Bitcoins in a Bitcoin Bank . . . is to lose them when it goes under.
Physical assets (tangible cash, or jewelry in a safety deposit box) . . . sure, in a real bank.
Other than having a place to risk losing it all. What is the advantage of having a Bitcoin bank? When I can perform all my necessary transactions Peer-to-Peer, and only need have ANY funds "in" a bank . . . for the brief sub-second time it takes to convert it to/from some other currency.
And I'm not asking that they do the currency conversion for free . . . charge a fee.
But why do people "deposit" Bitcoins? I've searched, and read . . . I'm just missing something obvious I guess.
I do that too, but I'm pretty clear now that's "chemical pathways". You think "so hard" about the wrong answer, and reinforce the neural/chemical pathways to the wrong answer, that you need time to allow that to dissipate and suddenly the circuit flips to the right answer on the next try. (I am not a brain scientist, I don't even play one on TV, but I think its a safe bet that's what's happening.)
Children aren't adults. They can't reason like adults.
They're unfinished adults in training.
Swatting an adult on the butt because they started to dart out into traffic . . . would offend most people.
Swatting a child on the butt because they did the same . . . might just keep them alive long enough to be an adult one day themselves. Because you won't always be there to save them.
You may be right . . . swatting the child on the butt to enforce a lesson may very well be "Immoral" . . . it may also be "necessary" to train the child to not do dangerous things that can kill them.
(Unmarried with no children so of course I'm an expert. But . . . ) I'd prefer to have a live offended child . . . than an emotionally well adjusted casket filler.
Sorry if that sounds brutal . . . I don't intend to offend. Its just unreasonable to assume you can "teach" a child, in the same way you "teach" an adult.
I wouldn't "reason" with a two year old why drinking drain cleaner is a bad idea . . . I'd just lock it out of their reach. Yes, they have rights and emotions, and we want them to be non-traumatized and emotionally sound adults . . . but they must LIVE to achieve that.
Q had it right . ..
When you don't like how the current theory is going . . . just change the gravitational constant of the universe . ..
Seriously . . . there are few absolutes in Science . . . just models. And perhaps this (todays) model . . . is improved over yesterdays. He's at least willing to fling something down and see if it sticks . . . that's how progress is made.
Yes I can . . . an override is a perfectly acceptable solution. (Even including tickets and losing my license.)
As for the previous response . . . its seldom presented as if we're "given warning". Its typically presented as if . . . RIGHT NOW . . . the autonomous device that knows better than you, is shutting it off NOW, and you're screwed.
I can remember when (mostly for emissions testing) cars had to have annual inspection stickers even in the backwoods here in Kentucky. (Heck,they probably still do in California). If you want annual inspections where I have some warning that the car's unsafe to drive . . . that's fine. But its almost always presented (and was in several of the preceding comments) as if the "autonomous car knows best" and can stop you RIGHT NOW. Even when RIGHT NOW might kill someone.
Yes to override (with accepted responsibility.)
Having said that . . . I stand by my "I'll never accept autonomous cars, until they can stop for a ball rolling out in the road, knowing a child is sure to follow." (And no, "the car can react faster" doesn't obviate the stopping distance required of a one ton car, no matter how much faster a cars reaction time is to begin to press the brake petal.)
I want the autonomous car (in restricted lanes, on restricted highways) but . . . we're still 50-100 years away from a safe one.
". . . then just lock the car from starting once those lifespans have been reached."
So I, Little Timmy and Betty Sue drive out into the desert for a quick photo op . . . only to find out as we arrive, the car as deemed itself "unfit for further use, due to a maintenance issue", stranding us to die in the desert.
REAL LIFE example . . . friend of mine and his wife had had a baby the week before. They were driving back from somewhere (only two in the car) and she develops "internal problems" and . . . begins to bleed out RAPIDLY. I wouldn't want to be the mechanical engineer that "speed limited" his car to "sensible speeds". The Doctors said if he'd been even a minute later getting her to the hospital . . . she'd have died.
The standard rebuttal at this point is "but you people driving like maniacs to the hospital are endangering others and might kill someone."
I'm 51 years old . . . its purely apocryphal and anecdotal but, in my entire life, I've never heard of anyone hitting another car on the way to the hospital when it was so serious, they couldn't wait for an ambulance. I HAVE heard of at least half a dozen cases where people drove to the hospital (speeding the entire way) and had the Doctors tell them . . . "you got them here just in time . ..".
Even if the standard rebuttal is right . . .
Given the two scenarios: My father (in another car) is killed when struck by someone speeding to the hospital, trying to save a family member . . . Or: my mother is killed because someone decided "to protect everyone" to limit the speed my car could travel while I was trying to take her to the hospital . . . I'd find it a lot easier to live with the first scenario, than the second. And I suspect most other people would as well.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but . . . we've been trying to create "AI" since the mechanical man that plays chess. And in fiction long before that. And, though in 100+ (1000+?) years we haven't achieved true AI at all. But we're jumping to the illogical extreme that . . . once successful, we'll be WILDLY over the moon successful, FAR outstripping human capabilities in an instant. Its like saying "Dude, I know we haven't even invented the wheel yet, but can't we even talk theoretically about the specs and floor-plan for the base on Mars?"
And point two . . . we already have Hitlers, and Dahmers, and a plethora of "plenty ordinary" villains. It may take us a few tries, but . . . eventually we find and deal with them. To our future Robotic Overloads I say . . . "Line for the evil villains starts back there. Take a number, we'll be with you in a minute."
Yeah, I'm lost on what they're talking about . . . pretty much every county / municipality around here has "water treatment plants" . . . which take human waste, process it, and return it to the river supply. So yes, I'm drinking recycled waste from someone upstream . . . but lots of people downstream are drinking mine too. Maybe its that in the "lap of 1st world luxury" we don't realize the 3rd world doesn't have this filtration/reprocessing on a widespread basis.
Just wait till he starts pushing the Soylent Green Crackers . . .
Exactly. "I" that is rapidly and mechanically (electronically) repeatable, not "AI" . . . in some half intelligence.
Autonomy (with its goals and value systems) will likely be a core precept for "true" repeatable intelligence.
Would anyone want a robotic doctor (Emergency Medical Hologram) that's little more then a "calculator"??? If no live-human doctor was available, I'd certainly prefer the substitute be autonomous, and goal oriented.
Therein lies the twin issue. Aside from the danger of a singularity taking over . . . if "that thing" is intelligent enough to dream and reason and have goals and values, enough to complete difficult tasks . . . is it right for us to enslave it?
Interesting and a good start but . . .
(Hard to tell clearly from the two articles but) these seem to use feed horns of a specific design and configuration (microwave transmissions usually do), that must be POINTED AT the receiver feed horn, so . . . if anyone is planning on "just plopping down the laptop" in any old orientation . . . it won't line up the transmission signals. Sure, for a trunk line between sites (buildings/planets) where critical alignment can be achieved . . . it'll work fine.
And some of the comments below seem confused . . . its not "faster" . . . its a "bigger pipeline". If it takes (on average, depending on planet position) 12.5 minutes for a signal to "reach mars" . . . it will still take 12.5 minutes. The signal won't "go faster" to get there in 6 minutes. When they say "faster" they mean . . . once the signal crosses the 12.5 minute distance . . . you can pump a higher bandwidth of data on that signal. But we won't be using this for "live control" of something like a Mars Rover. That's not the "faster" they mean.
Also, in terms of the "don't need USB cables any more, just put them close to the computer" . . . so, next time I enter the datacenter, I won't have to actually sneak in a USB thumb drive to tap the servers and steal data . . . I can just "walk nearby" and tap in? Sounds like a path ripe for exploitation. I know, its not that simple, and theoretically we can "tap into" keystroke/mouse streams that are RF now . . . but a USB "tap" seems more capable of nefarious activity than just a keyboard sniffer.
And I'd agree with the one point . . . (just like regular WiFi) other factors come into play and the high rate will drop off fast with distance . . . still. Always good to push the envelope . . . congratz all around to the dev's.
I too pitched the Blue LED Alarm clock. And have the windows blacked out, but to your other point . . .
Yes, a spinning wheel for artificially created gravity solves one problem, but leaving LEO and the protection inside the Van Allen Belts for geostationary orbit . . . I fear you'd sleep better, but you'd be sleeping in a microwave, having given up lots of your radiation shielding.
Water shielding or "building inside an asteroid" . . . are both currently unfeasible for lift-weight or maneuverability.
So, its a win-lose situation for the moment.
Exactly the same reasoning I used to wear a helmet riding a Motorcycle. I know I can't survive the 70+ mile per hour head on with a one ton car . . . but that bump from behind at 5 mph at a stop-light, that tosses me head-first into the curb, that one I could walk away from unharmed with a helmet.
So . . . police won't be able to use the Restroom for an entire shift . . . since they can't turn off the camera and, while they may be willing, can't require others in the Restroom to permit filming them ???
Seems like we still have a few loopholes to work through.
I found a cure for Cancer . . . but its only effective against 55% of the cancers out there, so it hardly seems worth immunizing the public since its not 100% effective.
As long as the overhead of trapping/blocking the 55% of computer virus attacks is unobtrusive to me . . . Thanks, I'll gladly take what protection I can get.
I used punch cards in College and had to wait hours to get my turn.
For work . . . we started a Machine Monitoring System for the factory floor around 1985. Back then a "compile everything" on the older Motorola Versados computers took five and a half hours.
Now on the PC-Linux its running on, that same "compile everything" takes . . . 3 minutes 23 seconds.
100 times faster . . . is a nice change.
Makes sense to me . . . .) to get me clear picture/sound.
1. I pay for Netflix (content charge) and can watch movies without commercials.
2. I watch Broadcast TV with commercials, and should pay only for xyz's cable system infrastructure (lines, repeaters, dvr boxes . .
3. Or I pay no one and watch OTA broadcasts (and pay by watching commercials.)
Paying for BOTH #2 and #3 AND paying a content charge on top . . . is double or triple dipping of fees for the same viewing.
Yes, I understand Netflix in #1 has "servers and infrastructure" and I'm paying for both content and infrastructure, but that's my point, if they're telling me I must pay for both content and infrastructure on the cable system . . . why should I also suffer watching commercials too?
Its all inconsistent billing as its setup currently.
Omniscience . . . not omnipotence.
With omniscience . . . you don't need omnipotence. With omniscience you don't need ANY power because you know how to create (from nothing) or seize control, of any power, in any time frame, to achieve any effect.
Having omnipotence without omniscience . . . you can really only blow $hit up.
From the standpoint of being able to be "on par" with the government, so it remains such that "we" rule the government, and not the other way around . . . then nuclear weapons and such may be justified.
My father always tried to wiggle out of the right to bear arms with the "So do you want explosives too?" argument.
I fell back on the "line of sight" justification. If its important enough (protecting my family from a burglar in our home in the middle of the night) that I'm willing to stand within his "line of sight" and risk my life from his pistol/rifle . . . then I ought to have every bit the same amount of firepower to protect myself and my family in direct response.
That of course does NOT justify . . . planting an IED and being "safe and secure" 100 miles away . . . while others die at my remote hands. (And so, since I can be "far away" and out of danger . . . it does not justify the nuclear/biological or other weapons.)
Its hard for citizens or the government to justify taking away my right to defend myself when I'm in "line of sight" (imminent) danger/threat.
That brings up another point . . . "vigilante". We're missing a word in the English/American language . . . and end up constantly substituting "vigilante" for this missing word.
If a man is robbing my store, and police arrest him, and handcuff him, and take him to jail, and I gather my friends and torches and pitchforks and seize that thief from custody and try and lynch him . . . THAT is being a vigilante."
The alternate case is where we need the missing word.
If the robber is ACTIVELY SHOOTING AT ME, and the Police have arrived but I'm STILL IN imminent danger . . . I have no constitutional, legal, moral, or ethical responsibility to throw down my gun and "hope the police can protect me". At that point, I'm NOT being a vigilante, I'm . . . simply fighting for my life. A right which can never be abdicated or be taken away.
As soon as the police have the robber disarmed, and in custody . . . if I continue to fire, NOW I've converted to vigilante.
As an American (maybe a world) society, we've developed this delusional view, that "since we live in a civilized society" . . . I threw away my right to fight to live and have to hope the police get here in time and can save me.
And . . . it just isn't so.
(That's more than just a response to your point . . . just something that needed to be said.)
I'm not sure I believed his explaination . . . but try reading:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
I took it to say . . . "breaking orbit" so it wouldn't fall back into the earth, would just mean it follows (or leads) the earth, in roughly the same orbit. That to get it headed into the sun . . . took a much greater effort on top of "leaving orbit".
And with chemical rockets (current technology) . . . its not cost effective. Even with something like a "space elevator" . . . I think the article was saying . . . "you can't just "fling it off" at the top . . . and have it travel on into the sun."
Read for yourself (I can't get to it directly from here at the moment.)
I started with that question after reading the article . . . Quantum Fluctuations "of what", caused by what, in what? . . .
All the article seems to accomplish, is put one level (of turtle) below the big bang, and say QF in nothing caused the big bang.
We still need descriptions of the level below the "QF in nothing".
(Even if its not "nothing" . . . where then, did the "not nothing" come from?)
Nothing wrong with that (knowing what we know as the model now, and seeking to add a lower level). As another poster said . . . at one point "atom" meant the smallest indivisible thing. Now . . . we know there are 2? 3? levels below that.
We live with the model we have . . . until we can see the next lower level down.
To my simple mind . . . God is at the lowest level. Each discovery of "another turtle" . . . just pushes God one more down.
Though, I'm not offended by the attempt of some other posters to "beam energy into free space and bring particles into existence". They're trying to answer the "where is the bottom?" by saying there isn't one. Its a circular loop. I'm still stuck with the problem . . . who/what started the loop?
If I discover the cure for Liver Cancer in 5 years, and time travel back to now and hand myself the answer, then in 5 years when time travel is available I send the same answer back . . . who did the hard research/testing work to discover the cure? It seems to paradoxically fall in the same class as "perpetual motion machines" were I got something (the cure for Liver Cancer) for nothing (no research effort, just time travel).
That's what I find problematic with the attempt to "loop" the universe and displace religion/God . . . it seems to be evading the question, not attempting to answer it. But, I understand, many disagree (like Mr. Hawking apparently) and are happy to live with the "self creating loop from nowhere".
You make an excellent point (I thought).
Plus . . . no Cable Modems in my parents house area, so DSL comes in over POTS. And no, some places in RedNeck KY don't have 4GL, heck, we're lucky to have cellular service. So going "full wireless" for everything (Security links/Medical/mmorpg . . . wireless just doesn't always cut it.)
One of the most important points everyone leaves out . . . Cellular Services had no sense of PRIORITY. Little Timmy calling Grandma after the "big wind" came through, to make sure Gamma's OK . . . ties up Cellular Channels, just like Tina calling 911 to say her husband is having a massive heart attack.
Every time a little wind/lightning/thunderstorm/... comes through, everyone jams the Cellular lines with trivial traffic. (Here at least.) Heck, it can even be hard to get a line on Friday afternoon as work is letting off and everyone is gearing up for the weekend. (In total honesty this is 1000% better than it was 4 years ago.) Cellular capacity seems to be built for the AVERAGE load, not to sustain the PEAK load. And its a darn shame, when 911 calls can't make it through, because hundreds-thousands of people are making trivial calls. In my experience, the switched network nature of hard line switching circuitry does a better job of getting 911 calls through, even when Cellular networks are flooded. So yes, even though its burning a hole in my wallet, I'll have a wired phone in every house/apartment I have . . . for as long as they're available.
Tried that on the old IBM Series/1 EDX boxes we had . . . the "other side" worked . . . but, LOL, the read/write heads were so powerful . . . it would erase side 1 when you used side 2.
So . . . it let us get "another life" out of the disk when side 1 went bad . . . but we could never use two sides at once.
(Of course, these were the same computers that had belt driven Hard Drives, that had to have speeds set with a tachometer.)
Ahhh, the good ole days . . .
I've tried before, I'll try again . . .
.) What is the advantage of putting all my Bitcoins in a Bitcoin bank?
(I don't have any but . .
I can see (for a few milliseconds while passing through) converting real works $$$'s to/from either a credit card or REAL bank account . . . into Bitcoins, then I KEEP the Bitcoins.
I thought that was part of the purpose/advantage of Bitcoins, they're Peer-to-Peer and need no bank.
It seems to me the only purpose of putting Bitcoins in a Bitcoin Bank . . . is to lose them when it goes under.
Physical assets (tangible cash, or jewelry in a safety deposit box) . . . sure, in a real bank.
Other than having a place to risk losing it all. What is the advantage of having a Bitcoin bank? When I can perform all my necessary transactions Peer-to-Peer, and only need have ANY funds "in" a bank . . . for the brief sub-second time it takes to convert it to/from some other currency.
And I'm not asking that they do the currency conversion for free . . . charge a fee.
But why do people "deposit" Bitcoins? I've searched, and read . . . I'm just missing something obvious I guess.
Why did "remote kill switch" and "built in spying" just pop into my head?
Or we could take the "Blue Thunder" route . . . and just "Erase them all!!!"
I do that too, but I'm pretty clear now that's "chemical pathways". You think "so hard" about the wrong answer, and reinforce the neural/chemical pathways to the wrong answer, that you need time to allow that to dissipate and suddenly the circuit flips to the right answer on the next try. (I am not a brain scientist, I don't even play one on TV, but I think its a safe bet that's what's happening.)
Coercion is immoral WHEN DEALING WITH AN ADULT.
Children aren't adults. They can't reason like adults.
They're unfinished adults in training.
Swatting an adult on the butt because they started to dart out into traffic . . . would offend most people.
Swatting a child on the butt because they did the same . . . might just keep them alive long enough to be an adult one day themselves. Because you won't always be there to save them.
You may be right . . . swatting the child on the butt to enforce a lesson may very well be "Immoral" . . . it may also be "necessary" to train the child to not do dangerous things that can kill them.
(Unmarried with no children so of course I'm an expert. But . . . ) I'd prefer to have a live offended child . . . than an emotionally well adjusted casket filler.
Sorry if that sounds brutal . . . I don't intend to offend. Its just unreasonable to assume you can "teach" a child, in the same way you "teach" an adult.
I wouldn't "reason" with a two year old why drinking drain cleaner is a bad idea . . . I'd just lock it out of their reach. Yes, they have rights and emotions, and we want them to be non-traumatized and emotionally sound adults . . . but they must LIVE to achieve that.
Q had it right . . . .
When you don't like how the current theory is going . . . just change the gravitational constant of the universe . .
Seriously . . . there are few absolutes in Science . . . just models. And perhaps this (todays) model . . . is improved over yesterdays. He's at least willing to fling something down and see if it sticks . . . that's how progress is made.
You mean I could finally have proof that JAVA isn't the salvation of all mankind?
Go Watson Go.
Yes I can . . . an override is a perfectly acceptable solution. (Even including tickets and losing my license.)
As for the previous response . . . its seldom presented as if we're "given warning". Its typically presented as if . . . RIGHT NOW . . . the autonomous device that knows better than you, is shutting it off NOW, and you're screwed.
I can remember when (mostly for emissions testing) cars had to have annual inspection stickers even in the backwoods here in Kentucky. (Heck,they probably still do in California). If you want annual inspections where I have some warning that the car's unsafe to drive . . . that's fine. But its almost always presented (and was in several of the preceding comments) as if the "autonomous car knows best" and can stop you RIGHT NOW. Even when RIGHT NOW might kill someone.
Yes to override (with accepted responsibility.)
Having said that . . . I stand by my "I'll never accept autonomous cars, until they can stop for a ball rolling out in the road, knowing a child is sure to follow." (And no, "the car can react faster" doesn't obviate the stopping distance required of a one ton car, no matter how much faster a cars reaction time is to begin to press the brake petal.)
I want the autonomous car (in restricted lanes, on restricted highways) but . . . we're still 50-100 years away from a safe one.
". . . then just lock the car from starting once those lifespans have been reached."
.".
So I, Little Timmy and Betty Sue drive out into the desert for a quick photo op . . . only to find out as we arrive, the car as deemed itself "unfit for further use, due to a maintenance issue", stranding us to die in the desert.
REAL LIFE example . . . friend of mine and his wife had had a baby the week before. They were driving back from somewhere (only two in the car) and she develops "internal problems" and . . . begins to bleed out RAPIDLY. I wouldn't want to be the mechanical engineer that "speed limited" his car to "sensible speeds". The Doctors said if he'd been even a minute later getting her to the hospital . . . she'd have died.
The standard rebuttal at this point is "but you people driving like maniacs to the hospital are endangering others and might kill someone."
I'm 51 years old . . . its purely apocryphal and anecdotal but, in my entire life, I've never heard of anyone hitting another car on the way to the hospital when it was so serious, they couldn't wait for an ambulance. I HAVE heard of at least half a dozen cases where people drove to the hospital (speeding the entire way) and had the Doctors tell them . . . "you got them here just in time . .
Even if the standard rebuttal is right . . .
Given the two scenarios: My father (in another car) is killed when struck by someone speeding to the hospital, trying to save a family member . . . Or: my mother is killed because someone decided "to protect everyone" to limit the speed my car could travel while I was trying to take her to the hospital . . . I'd find it a lot easier to live with the first scenario, than the second. And I suspect most other people would as well.