I suppose my basic point is that all these things can be (at least eventually) theoretically be simulated, even down to the whiff of smoke if need be. Though by that point, that could make it cost an order of magnitude more than a real gun which, sigh, okay, would defeat the purpose I guess.
I suppose out of those, the recoil is going to be the most difficult to simulate. One would need something heavy inside and at the back of the gun which could move forwards to the front (but not outside) upon firing.
Simulating gravity, sound, and a slower projectile speed (why would that be desirable?) should be fairly trivial though, given advanced enough electronics.
Just to play devil's advocate here, in this day and age, isn't it possible to use a harmless weak laser burst instead, and the target can detect the wavelength? It would seem easier to set up, more accurate, and probably a boat load of other advantages. Kinda makes guns seem a bit pointless after all.
Actually, I've got a better idea. Would it be too much to have a summary-like statement as a quote in the article, or is that too much to ask? You never see largish-quotes like this, but it's such an obvious idea. And it can be geared to any level, layman or pro alike.
What is red? That's meaningful, too, if you're referring to the light spectrum.
But giving the exact wavelength won't help, because it may turn out that a completely different wavelength may be required for a different creature to see the same red colour. I think science will never be able to define 'red' completely, at least not its most important essence.
I'm pretty much against all paranormal/mystical stuff, but Qualia would potentially be the closest to that realm whilst still being at least somewhat respected by academia.
The whole idea is that science theoretically can't touch aspects of this stuff, because it's locked inside the subjective experience. Like you implied, red can't be defined with mere words or numbers alone, but that doesn't mean it can't exist in a very real way. And no, that doesn't mean it's a language game, since I bet that what I see as red is what you also see as red (though we can't be 100% sure).
Changing the terminology to be more consistent, even in engineering, may be bad in the short term, but is obviously going to be a benefit in the long (or very long) term.
What a shame they're wrong then eh? It reminds me of the supposedly 'correct' way of putting a comma inside the closing quotation mark, when logically it would make far more sense to have the comma *after* the closing quote.
We should try to improve, and unify concepts and ideas, not stick to backward ways of thinking.
Yes, base 2/8/16 is nice (as is base 12), but then lets switch the entire number system over to it, rather than have incompatible and confusing standards.
It always surprises me how many say they instinctively prefer working with other bases, when that can't possibly be the case for so many everyday examples.
(This coming from a person who wishes the world would switch to base 8, 12 or 16, but I like consistency even more).
For the sake of consistency, can we please just to stick to one base.
Like you, I prefer base 16 or 12, but a better goal is to change the number system to match your preferred base, rather than stick with a preferred base which is inconsistent with the rest of the world.
Interesting. Can you give a source which states that disabling the colour cones like that gives the colours you've claimed? I've always thought the same, but have never been able to back it up. If so, it would seem the three primary colours as red, green, and blue runs deeper than a lot of people think.
Interesting post and thanks. One query though, you say they see yellow and blue. Woudln't they instead perceive two of either: red, green and blue, which correspond to the three colour cones? Perhaps that yellow is really a green? If you can find the source, I'd be most grateful. I've always wanted to know what colours we would perceive if we could disable two of the three cone types (so firstly try types a+b, then types a+c, then types b+c).
By the way, what color do you perceive the part of the world that is directly behind you as being? Light? Dark? Uniform? Blurred? Or do you "simply" perceive nothing? Or the absence of nothing?:)
I have thought about that, and the nearest I can answer is 'nothing'. Details to the extreme periphery of my vision are the borderline between nothing and something, which is also a weird concept in itself.
That can be determined experimentally as well, both by sticking electrodes into brains, and by performing clever experiments.
There's no way we can guarantee that someone's idea of blue isn't someone else's idea of red.
No, it doesn't mean "probably", it means they can actually only see one color.
How do we know that they don't sense colour and light through their other senses to a degree, or even take a brighter shade as being more reddish, and a darker shade as being more bluish? Granted, it's pretty improbable, but there's still a non-zero percent chance. The point is, with Qualia it's impossible to tell.
Just lower the lights until your night vision kicks in. Voila, you have monochromatic vision too.
Again, we still can't say for sure whether they're seeing grey in that situation (like we do in night vision), or some other hue such as red, or blue. You're assuming they see shades of grey like us, but you can't be sure.
To all the people moaning at this change, then I say, rather than change the long-standing SI prefixes to match what you want, instead change the number system itself to match your preferences. Yes, campaign for base 16 (or even base 12, I like both in different ways). It'll take society a long time, but at least you're attacking the root of the problem.
And anyway, I think it would be a nice idea to represent storage in exponential growth form. Either 2^1, 2^2,... 2^20 etc. or powers of 10 instead.
Those items are more like clothes. When we start to envisage visible plastic come out of our faces, that's a big turn off for pretty much most people. Even invisible micro-sized things connected to our neural pathways would creep most people out.
Tell me, do the laser cannons automatically come with the packaged shark/s? I have had problems assembling parts in these kind of situations before, so it would also be nice to know if the shark comes pre-attached to the laser, or if any soldering is required.
I have a feeling that the idea is that over generations, the normalizing could be restricting the full range of vision if we try to 'fix' it. Short term gain, potentially long-term loss. It could be argued that 'natural selection' should take its course instead. Of course, no one could say for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps we should let the government control our banks, or at least get them to set up non-profit companies.
Stories like that make me feel ill.
Impressive stuff. Their next project now can be the infinitely detailed surface of the Mandelbulb:
http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html
Cover them in translucent plastic?
I suppose my basic point is that all these things can be (at least eventually) theoretically be simulated, even down to the whiff of smoke if need be. Though by that point, that could make it cost an order of magnitude more than a real gun which, sigh, okay, would defeat the purpose I guess.
I suppose out of those, the recoil is going to be the most difficult to simulate. One would need something heavy inside and at the back of the gun which could move forwards to the front (but not outside) upon firing.
Simulating gravity, sound, and a slower projectile speed (why would that be desirable?) should be fairly trivial though, given advanced enough electronics.
Just to play devil's advocate here, in this day and age, isn't it possible to use a harmless weak laser burst instead, and the target can detect the wavelength? It would seem easier to set up, more accurate, and probably a boat load of other advantages. Kinda makes guns seem a bit pointless after all.
So what is the longest we can currently slow down light for at room temperature?
I wonder if he has a paper online.
Actually, I've got a better idea. Would it be too much to have a summary-like statement as a quote in the article, or is that too much to ask? You never see largish-quotes like this, but it's such an obvious idea. And it can be geared to any level, layman or pro alike.
What is red? That's meaningful, too, if you're referring to the light spectrum.
But giving the exact wavelength won't help, because it may turn out that a completely different wavelength may be required for a different creature to see the same red colour. I think science will never be able to define 'red' completely, at least not its most important essence.
I'm pretty much against all paranormal/mystical stuff, but Qualia would potentially be the closest to that realm whilst still being at least somewhat respected by academia.
The whole idea is that science theoretically can't touch aspects of this stuff, because it's locked inside the subjective experience. Like you implied, red can't be defined with mere words or numbers alone, but that doesn't mean it can't exist in a very real way. And no, that doesn't mean it's a language game, since I bet that what I see as red is what you also see as red (though we can't be 100% sure).
So when you see a file size that is 2,700,126,552 bytes, how many gigabytes do you think that is?
(hint: it's not around 2.7)
A broken system needs to be be mended, sorry.
Changing the terminology to be more consistent, even in engineering, may be bad in the short term, but is obviously going to be a benefit in the long (or very long) term.
What a shame they're wrong then eh? It reminds me of the supposedly 'correct' way of putting a comma inside the closing quotation mark, when logically it would make far more sense to have the comma *after* the closing quote.
We should try to improve, and unify concepts and ideas, not stick to backward ways of thinking.
Yes, base 2/8/16 is nice (as is base 12), but then lets switch the entire number system over to it, rather than have incompatible and confusing standards.
Exactly.
It always surprises me how many say they instinctively prefer working with other bases, when that can't possibly be the case for so many everyday examples.
(This coming from a person who wishes the world would switch to base 8, 12 or 16, but I like consistency even more).
For the sake of consistency, can we please just to stick to one base.
Like you, I prefer base 16 or 12, but a better goal is to change the number system to match your preferred base, rather than stick with a preferred base which is inconsistent with the rest of the world.
Yes, I know that it'll take society a while.
Interesting. Can you give a source which states that disabling the colour cones like that gives the colours you've claimed? I've always thought the same, but have never been able to back it up. If so, it would seem the three primary colours as red, green, and blue runs deeper than a lot of people think.
Some creature's idea of red, could be some other creature's idea of blue. That's the point.
Interesting post and thanks. One query though, you say they see yellow and blue. Woudln't they instead perceive two of either: red, green and blue, which correspond to the three colour cones? Perhaps that yellow is really a green? If you can find the source, I'd be most grateful. I've always wanted to know what colours we would perceive if we could disable two of the three cone types (so firstly try types a+b, then types a+c, then types b+c).
By the way, what color do you perceive the part of the world that is directly behind you as being? Light? Dark? Uniform? Blurred? Or do you "simply" perceive nothing? Or the absence of nothing? :)
I have thought about that, and the nearest I can answer is 'nothing'. Details to the extreme periphery of my vision are the borderline between nothing and something, which is also a weird concept in itself.
That can be determined experimentally as well, both by sticking electrodes into brains, and by performing clever experiments.
There's no way we can guarantee that someone's idea of blue isn't someone else's idea of red.
No, it doesn't mean "probably", it means they can actually only see one color.
How do we know that they don't sense colour and light through their other senses to a degree, or even take a brighter shade as being more reddish, and a darker shade as being more bluish? Granted, it's pretty improbable, but there's still a non-zero percent chance. The point is, with Qualia it's impossible to tell.
Just lower the lights until your night vision kicks in. Voila, you have monochromatic vision too.
Again, we still can't say for sure whether they're seeing grey in that situation (like we do in night vision), or some other hue such as red, or blue. You're assuming they see shades of grey like us, but you can't be sure.
To all the people moaning at this change, then I say, rather than change the long-standing SI prefixes to match what you want, instead change the number system itself to match your preferences. Yes, campaign for base 16 (or even base 12, I like both in different ways). It'll take society a long time, but at least you're attacking the root of the problem.
And anyway, I think it would be a nice idea to represent storage in exponential growth form. Either 2^1, 2^2,... 2^20 etc. or powers of 10 instead.
Those items are more like clothes. When we start to envisage visible plastic come out of our faces, that's a big turn off for pretty much most people. Even invisible micro-sized things connected to our neural pathways would creep most people out.
It *was* extremely important.
Now it matters a lot more if everyone's happy, and can live in an aesthetically and socially pleasing enviroment.
Awesome, then we can all look like borg.
Borg for one, and one for borg.
Hell, yeah!
I am an interested customer.
Tell me, do the laser cannons automatically come with the packaged shark/s? I have had problems assembling parts in these kind of situations before, so it would also be nice to know if the shark comes pre-attached to the laser, or if any soldering is required.
I have a feeling that the idea is that over generations, the normalizing could be restricting the full range of vision if we try to 'fix' it. Short term gain, potentially long-term loss. It could be argued that 'natural selection' should take its course instead. Of course, no one could say for sure.