Just out of interest, what made you go without 9 days? The most I've ever been without sleep is 3 or 4. Programming, and particularly composing music really 'helps' to last out.
I think a more realistic vision of utopia would involve better battery technology (to allow for less noisy and cheaper running engines), nuclear power, and solar panel tech (someone mentioned those in a recent story actually). And OLED screens to allow for GIANT screens. Solve those four, and the sky's the limit.
Speaking of which, it would help if standard urban and residential surroundings were built like holiday resorts (with a focus towards zero maintenence). Also 'multiple levels' such as ziggurats, multi-tier *towns* (not just buildings), and things like grass which doesn't grow more than 2cm would help.
Er, don't know much background here, but to avoid legal issues, couldn't they have just sold the music online anyway to begin with? Why did it *have* to go on a CD?
Oh good grief. Machines and technology in general are the only reason any of us have a "decent living" in the first place.
And not only that, but the less jobs done by people in general, the better, so that we can concentrate on more interesting things - science, art, creativity, recreation and socializing. Sorry, had to get that in.
Make each entry cost $5-10 or whatever to enter. That would encourage only the cream to surface, whilst also giving Google incentive to actually finish the project.
Yet still, it's so popular, and visited by the billions. As someone said earlier, micropayments would be very apt, and maybe a tipping service where you pay the uploader, and Google gets a 25% cut of the profits.
In the end (even if it takes 20 years), there WILL be a site where the uploader gets paid, however little, as long as they are the creator of the video.
Wowzers! I clicked the link and bang, there was the page.
If browsers rendered the text before anything else (or at least rendered the top bit, without having to download *everything* first), then this would be less of an issue.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
Well the simple solution then is to install a cold fusion reactor inside all our bodies:)
Seriously, for as far as what you say is true, I would agree then. I can't help thinking we can be more efficient and have our cake and eat it, but maybe there has to be compromise like you say.
Do you think there's a chance that although extra energy will be needed in the first place to come up with the right cocktail to defeat (say) mouth bacteria, once those defences are there for a few generations, the energy required to maintain them may be minimal?
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
I certainly agree that it would be nice to work less by sharing the workload with everyone. That's if they're skilled enough.
But even better would be to work less because the rest of the work is automated. Be lovely to work 3 hours less per day, which is how I reckon things will be in around 300-3000 years time.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
Look, I'm all for 'cheating'. But I just think we may be cheating ourselves if we have to spend say 30 minutes in the morning getting ready every day, instead of using evolution to grow out of it.
Even if it takes 10,000 years, our successors may thank us.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
I may be wrong, but the right mix of chemicals which combat say tooth decay would - once up and running - require little in the way of energy expenditure. Perhaps we can have the best of both worlds.
Some people will think it is unfair
It's not so much unfair as unwise for everyone involved, if we can save that time in the future, by not having to create and consume said pills in the first place.
It would be tedious for everyone involved if the rigmarole of getting ready in the morning required everything we do now, plus popping pills, plus a boatload of other 'stuff'.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
We develop new ways to treat the sick because that, too, is how we are wired by evolution.
I think I'm talking about what would be best, rather than how things actually are. Obviously, anyone could be wrong about what's best, but in any case, I bet our choices/evolution generally tends to correlate well with it.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
Where did this idea that "evolution" was ever "on our side" or was helping us become better *individuals* come from? Folks, evolution doesn't give a *damn* about us as individuals,
We progress not just because of blind evolution forces, but also (of course) because everyone selects who to have children with. Obviously, people wants to with 'better' people, whatever that may entail. Whether you want to class that under 'evolution forces' is a matter of semantics.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
That's interesting.
Perhaps with out 'latest diet' though, I would argue that evolution could take place again. We've managed okay in the past because our diet was different then.
I imagine that it may be possible to overcome all the bacteria inside our mouth if our body's defences are sophisticated enough.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
I'm not convinced it would take 'hundreds of thousands' of years. Maybe even 1000 years tops would be enough. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this kind of thing could step in.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
[quote]IS playing video games natural?? or inventing computers? What about programming?[/quote] I enjoy doing those things. I don't enjoy 'wasting' time brushing my teeth for the 5723rd time.
As for the sick, well that's going to be a touchy subject, but one has to try and balance the advantage to evolution with the degree of pain suffered by said person and family related to them. I can't discount the possibility that most/much health treatment would be a thing of the past in 500-5000 years though if nobody was ever treated.
Slashdot Mirror
That post got 4 insightful before 5 funny :)
Just out of interest, what made you go without 9 days? The most I've ever been without sleep is 3 or 4. Programming, and particularly composing music really 'helps' to last out.
Nonsense of course. All my research proves the contrary.
Everyone who's wise knows sleep is really an addictive illness that needs to be overcome.
I think a more realistic vision of utopia would involve better battery technology (to allow for less noisy and cheaper running engines), nuclear power, and solar panel tech (someone mentioned those in a recent story actually). And OLED screens to allow for GIANT screens. Solve those four, and the sky's the limit.
Speaking of which, it would help if standard urban and residential surroundings were built like holiday resorts (with a focus towards zero maintenence). Also 'multiple levels' such as ziggurats, multi-tier *towns* (not just buildings), and things like grass which doesn't grow more than 2cm would help.
Ah thanks for clearing that up. (you did a better job than the summary to be honest).
Er, don't know much background here, but to avoid legal issues, couldn't they have just sold the music online anyway to begin with? Why did it *have* to go on a CD?
It looks like one would get more consistent results out of the checksum for a picture ;)
Thanks for testing that - not many would have.
Oh good grief. Machines and technology in general are the only reason any of us have a "decent living" in the first place.
And not only that, but the less jobs done by people in general, the better, so that we can concentrate on more interesting things - science, art, creativity, recreation and socializing. Sorry, had to get that in.
I can't believe you got modded zero, whilst the original post got 5.
Have them pay less for the poorer countries.
Well, just have them pay less then.
Make each entry cost $5-10 or whatever to enter. That would encourage only the cream to surface, whilst also giving Google incentive to actually finish the project.
there ain't a damn thing on youtube I'd pay for
Yet still, it's so popular, and visited by the billions. As someone said earlier, micropayments would be very apt, and maybe a tipping service where you pay the uploader, and Google gets a 25% cut of the profits.
In the end (even if it takes 20 years), there WILL be a site where the uploader gets paid, however little, as long as they are the creator of the video.
It would seem that Paypal now offer micropayments of 5% + $0.05 per transaction. That could be worse...
It would be easier for the browsers to fix that simple issue, than to justify reducing adverts/gfx that the market seems to want/need.
So easy, and then web page designers can go crazy if they want.
Wowzers! I clicked the link and bang, there was the page.
If browsers rendered the text before anything else (or at least rendered the top bit, without having to download *everything* first), then this would be less of an issue.
Well the simple solution then is to install a cold fusion reactor inside all our bodies :)
Seriously, for as far as what you say is true, I would agree then. I can't help thinking we can be more efficient and have our cake and eat it, but maybe there has to be compromise like you say.
Do you think there's a chance that although extra energy will be needed in the first place to come up with the right cocktail to defeat (say) mouth bacteria, once those defences are there for a few generations, the energy required to maintain them may be minimal?
I certainly agree that it would be nice to work less by sharing the workload with everyone. That's if they're skilled enough.
But even better would be to work less because the rest of the work is automated. Be lovely to work 3 hours less per day, which is how I reckon things will be in around 300-3000 years time.
Look, I'm all for 'cheating'. But I just think we may be cheating ourselves if we have to spend say 30 minutes in the morning getting ready every day, instead of using evolution to grow out of it.
Even if it takes 10,000 years, our successors may thank us.
I may be wrong, but the right mix of chemicals which combat say tooth decay would - once up and running - require little in the way of energy expenditure. Perhaps we can have the best of both worlds.
Some people will think it is unfair
It's not so much unfair as unwise for everyone involved, if we can save that time in the future, by not having to create and consume said pills in the first place.
It would be tedious for everyone involved if the rigmarole of getting ready in the morning required everything we do now, plus popping pills, plus a boatload of other 'stuff'.
We develop new ways to treat the sick because that, too, is how we are wired by evolution.
I think I'm talking about what would be best, rather than how things actually are. Obviously, anyone could be wrong about what's best, but in any case, I bet our choices/evolution generally tends to correlate well with it.
Where did this idea that "evolution" was ever "on our side" or was helping us become better *individuals* come from? Folks, evolution doesn't give a *damn* about us as individuals,
We progress not just because of blind evolution forces, but also (of course) because everyone selects who to have children with. Obviously, people wants to with 'better' people, whatever that may entail. Whether you want to class that under 'evolution forces' is a matter of semantics.
That's interesting.
Perhaps with out 'latest diet' though, I would argue that evolution could take place again. We've managed okay in the past because our diet was different then.
I imagine that it may be possible to overcome all the bacteria inside our mouth if our body's defences are sophisticated enough.
I'm not convinced it would take 'hundreds of thousands' of years. Maybe even 1000 years tops would be enough. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this kind of thing could step in.
[quote]IS playing video games natural?? or inventing computers? What about programming?[/quote]
I enjoy doing those things. I don't enjoy 'wasting' time brushing my teeth for the 5723rd time.
As for the sick, well that's going to be a touchy subject, but one has to try and balance the advantage to evolution with the degree of pain suffered by said person and family related to them. I can't discount the possibility that most/much health treatment would be a thing of the past in 500-5000 years though if nobody was ever treated.