Do you understand that this just blocks accounts from doing certain "spam tasks" until the account has spent FIVE FUCKING DOLLARS? Five is not a lot of dollars. It's not five dollars a week, a month, or a year. It's over the life of the account.
Because Steam accounts can be made in an automated fashion, this will greatly ramp up the effort needed by spammers- they'll have to steal cards or spend money.
This is to shut down spammers. Do you seriously mean to tell me you've been using Steam and have never spent five dollars, ever?
Man, I disagree. Kinetic weapons are great, but a good blaster or plasma weapon is the coolest thing to nail someone with in multiplayer in pretty much any game that does service to the scifi weapon types.
"What next - would you argue that bank robbers shouldn't be punished because the video of the robbery isn't necessarily representative of their day-to-day behavior, or the rapist caught on camera because he probably doesn't go around raping people on a daily basis?"
Explicitly not. My post states:
"This background assumption is based on what USED to be the truth, and the same logic that the legal system uses to dole out large punishments for minor violations- that cameras (observing agents in general) were so rare that if someone got caught ranting on camera (or speeding on some empty highway) that it serves as a *representation of that person in general*."
So in my example: if you speed moderately, and get pulled over, you can be fined (roughly) a hundred dollars, and then you will pay (roughly) a thousand dollars in insurance crap. The damage you are doing, and the risk you are taking, is worth nowhere NEAR that much- especially given that almost everyone speeds every day, at all times, forever. However, it is precisely because it is rare for someone to be caught speeding that the penalties are so grossly out of proportion- while the letter of the law is just for that one speeding incident (as that's what is being proved in court), the OBVIOUS comparison is if everyone was fined for every moment that they sped.
The laws against speeding (and many other minor violations) assume all of these things:
1)- That these things, on average, hurt society. 2)- That people who engage in these things usually don't get caught. Yielding a conclusion of "we need a stronger penalty for speeding than it would normally entail, as a speeder would normally NOT get caught".
Since the ACTUAL DAMAGE done by a single incident of speeding is almost always zero, with a few fantastically bad results, the average is what is being targeted- but that average is still hella low. Since the proportion of enforcement to bad action is so bad.
The actions you bring up (and I think that we need a Godwin-type rule for going from speeding to rap) are entirely unrelated. *Because they are intrisic acts of harm, not some small statistical bullshit). Rapists aren't punished because they "finally got caught", they are punished for that incident. But note well! Those who believe that there's an endemic of rape, or that most rapes go unpunished, are almost always the ones who are in favor of even harsher punishments- using a similar logic.
Robbery follows the same logic. The proportion of robberies reported over total robberies is not a tiny number. Robbery has victims and leaves evidence, and causes harm directly. Speeding has no victims (usually) and leaves no evidence (usually), and causes harm statistically. So we have direct punishments based around the actual harm caused for the former, and statistical punishments vastly out of proportion to the trivial cost to society in the second case.
Which brings me right back to my point- people assume that video tapes are "robberies", when in fact they are "speedings".
The example brought up- the ludicrous cuntly behavior of Britt going off on some poor schmuckette- is gratifying because she's "getting hers". But, lets consider a few things:
1- Britt had no reason to suspect she was being recorded (beyond the general assumption that any building or person in America *could* be "taping" you now). She acted based on assumptions that weren't true. 2- Britt has a job where public relations are extremely important, and is a celebrity (not "was", I'm certainly a lot more interested in someone who openly shits on tow companies, notoriously sketchy organizations that damage vehicles and will tow legal vehicles if they can claim that the little whatever that lets you park legally could be argued to not be perfectly visible, or if can be dislodged in towing- so if she pops up and rants about stuff, hey, I'll watch) 3- Who controls the cameras is the big deal. What if, in addition to the rant delivered by her, we saw EVERYTHING that happened in that business, from the cabs of the tow trucks to the office politics in the back to their normal customer relations? By selecting just what your foes do at a specific time, you obviously gain a great deal of control, because your shit is flushed and theirs is on youtube forever.
The medium benefits of cameras seem to be what we see in Russia from dash cams- inability of insurance companies to welch on payments, and greater evidence of actually criminal dealings on the road. The biggest benefits of cameras will be their effect on law enforcement, and if we want to actually reap those benefits (instead of just making people who can have a short temper unemployable in even more jobs than they already are), we'll need protections for the numerous police who routinely order people to stop filming (this should not ever be something a policeman can say), attack people legally and extralegally for putting up their crimes, and actually hold them accountable for the absurd beatings that they suddenly started dealing out to poor people and anyone who wouldn't normally be believed in court- beatings that seemingly began the moment that everyone got cameras. Probably those two related, hrm, what's that correlation...
So it doesn't matter that some hot tempered cutie with a media job went off on some random people. That's not really helping society that she can't keep her ESPN job.
The workaround for (1) is that people will act like they are being recorded, which naively means that they will switch from aggression to bating and passive aggression. If they ALSO have cameras (and hidden cameras are cheap, and will become moreso), then the goal becomes to bait the other party to either committing a crime (easier in some situations than others) or crucifying themselves in the court of public opinion. We can laugh at the people who haven't adapted to this new ruleset fast enough, but it's STILL a game, and it will still be won by the same sociopaths that always are good at these games.
(2) is an issue because more and more jobs will fall into this category, resulting in minor altercations yielding a harsh streak of unemployment into a society already hellbent on assuming that ability is immediately rewarded with steady employment. While celebrities have a huge amount of support systems to fall back on ("celebrity does a heel-turn" is not a death knell by any means to their public life), many people do not. The natural assumption of the video seems to be that if someone is caught doing something on tape, that this is representative of their entire life, a brief 30 second temper tantrum serving as a summary of their entire life. This background assumption is based on what USED to be the truth, and the same logic that the legal system uses to dole out large punishments for minor violations- that cameras (observing agents in general) were so rare that if someone got caught ranting on camera (or speeding on some empty highway) that it serves as a *representation of tha
Animals have a really hard time understanding and remembering words to begin with, this is just messing with them. That you had cats smart enough to recognize a group word AND were willing to come when called is already a triumph, messing with them is just mean.
My immediate thought would be that hard math in this field doesn't tow the groupthink by revealing too much that they want to be able to argue around, so their solution is to try to eliminate the math.
I don't know that this is the case or anything: it's just the only real motivation that would lead to this. Like, the studies show stuff that no one wants to talk about or the math prevents people from coming to a conclusion opposite reality.
I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the limits of future tech.
If you assume that it's possibly reasonable to freeze a whole brain based on the possibility of a vastly advanced future tech (and future denizens willing to employ it to your benefit, as you intend now), then within THAT space the odds that enough is preserved in that "half a brain" to reconstruct a person is pretty good.
Also, remember that what we DO know does involve some redundancy to memories, and a combined structural, electrical, and chemical consistency to many elements of mind. So that's probably not your big stopping point- it's the odds that this is something that happens in the future in the first place.
Presumably at some distant point in that future, those would be trivial problems. I suspect that is the position of the cryo community, certainly the neuropreseverationists.
No thanks on the bridge, but perhaps you should consider rereading this part, and remembering how logical OR works:
" it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:
1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea. 2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be. 3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech."
If you dispute that this is a super good guess, then you are claiming that the logical opposite of this is likely. The logical opposite is that "Today's cryo patients are forever dead, BUT patients who die and are incinerated or buried normally are revivable".
Is that your belief? If you believe that cryo makes someone LESS likely to be revived than turning them into dust and sprinking the dust in a forest, at least link me some good high level druid spells, k?
Note: If you merely believe that the odds of cryo patients being revived are the same as standard methods of treating the dead (burying or incineration), and that those odds are ZERO, then you are saying that my "super good guess" is without doubt true, based on the first term.
Nothing in my post claims that cryo produces revivable patients. But it does dispute the above post, that cryo makes people LESS revivable. That should be trivially bullshit.
I mean, doesn't everyone know this? The entire idea is predicated on, not the future having good "thaw tech", but upon the entire set of techs that could be curative in some fashion, along with a desire to resurrect people to begin with. Many of those who are frozen are essentially saying "at some point you'll have some machines that can read what I am from my frozen cells and make a copy of me". I mean, most cryo patients are just a frozen head at this point, so clearly "can thaw and somehow repair cellular damage" is secondary to "...also entire body missing".
There's no way to make any sense out of a fully decomposed corpse. There's understood ways to make some sense out of frozen cells.
For your assertion to be correct, we have to assume that the damage done to cells during the vitrification process is somehow much worse and irreversible than the wholesale consumption of those cells by microorganisms and/or the complete decomposition of the majority of organic compounds, and that the structural preservation brought about by vitrification is not helpful in any way.
Granted, we don't know future tech. But it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:
1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea. 2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be. 3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech.
The case where "Those who decay can be revived, but cryo patients cannot" seems EXTREMELY unlikely- less likely than (2) and (3), both of which are pinned on thin hopes to begin with.
I mean, lets be real here. IBM had meetings, and emails, and long engineering nights for Deep Blue to do that. They studied the HELL out him. He played a committee.
I'm not really interested in whether the players have an amazing bladder capacity or not. Bathroom breaks are fine. Probably want to ensure that there's no cheat methods in those bathrooms, though.
MOD UP, Jesus. This is the day I don't have mod points?
Of course it's great that they caught this guy, and obviously they'll have to investigate whether he's really a grandmaster at all, in addition to all the other penalties. But the point that what he did was essentially cyborg (in a competition where that isn't allowed) is a good one. What would a chess league where everyone does this look like? Gary Kasparov may have eventually lost to IBM, some cutting edge hardware, and a huge team of software engineers and chess experts doing everything they could to beat him, but what would Gary Kasparov plus extra analytical hardware/software look like?
That's what I'm interested in. Magnus Carlsen plus a supercomputer versus just Deep Blue wouldn't resolve in favor of the raw silicon. "Cyborg" league gogo!
If the lottery is made by computer, why would anyone trust that?
It's not rocket science. You don't need a jilliflops of processing to make a few random numbers each WEEK. How about those nice machines with the balls that zip around? Or honestly, even dice thrown down a staircase. There's so many better ways to make random numbers. Computers are TERRIBLE at random numbers, requiring special hardware to not just be pseudorandom, and a bunch of people to certify that it is, in fact, random. The only reason ANYONE should generate random numbers from a computer EVER is if:
1- You need it for software and they don't need to be that random (so you by definition already have a computer, and a pseudorandom thing will work) 2- You need a WHOLE LOT of random numbers, more than could be created physically for similar cost
Terrible design. A computer is the worst possible way to solve this problem.
This is News for Nerds... but it shouldn't be. Lotteries should NEVER use computers to generate numbers. They are discrete procedural machines, and can't make randomness without special hardware, then every step along the way from hardware generation to presentation has to not be corrupted.
If it works as expected, it will be as possible in males as females, which is to say, thinly.
While the "anomaly" type of colorblindness (specifically, the green anomaly one) do feature a different spectral point that can be used to discern colors, it's pretty subtle. In a trichromat, all your reds are, say, 6, all your greens are 5, and all your blues are 4. In a green anomaly, all your reds are 6, all your greens are 5.8, and all your blues are 4. This makes it hard to distinguish colors.
The tetrachromats have all their reds 6, half of their greens 5, half of their greens 5.8, and all of their blues 4. But all the greens- be they 5 or 5.8 on the scale- are wired similar internally. You don't get an "orange" thing in the visual cortex to go along with your cool hardware. So while some extra colors can be distinguished in that range (specifically, you can match a few wavelengths exactly instead of "close enough"), it isn't very easy compared to telling yellow from blue.
If you look at the response curve of all the opsins, it really just means you parse it as a different kind of white (it triggers all of them). More importantly, however, the UV damages them.
It's still cool, but it's of very limited use until we can either get another cone dedicated to UV or make the amount of UV very sparse, or in one eye. And that's if you're fully dedicated to risky mods that can cost you your vision.
So what you need to do, is get truecrypt, cyphpershed, or veracrypt. Make a file big enough to hold your stuff, and put it in there.
Then back THAT file up to the cloud.
Without the password, they have a bunch of random data. You never give them the password, only using them as a remote storage device for a bunch of random 1s and 0s. If and when you want your data back, you bring back the big file, and then mount it- good to go.
Now, there are reasons to keep your stuff local, but you don't seem to have any of them.
For your list of concerns: a DVD backup is not going to have issues with water, but hot enough will destroy anything. I would personally consider a backup external hard drive, one local, one remote, encrypted as above if needed. If you are concerned about water, simply place the hard drive in something waterproof.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you understand that this just blocks accounts from doing certain "spam tasks" until the account has spent FIVE FUCKING DOLLARS? Five is not a lot of dollars. It's not five dollars a week, a month, or a year. It's over the life of the account.
Because Steam accounts can be made in an automated fashion, this will greatly ramp up the effort needed by spammers- they'll have to steal cards or spend money.
This is to shut down spammers. Do you seriously mean to tell me you've been using Steam and have never spent five dollars, ever?
Meesa thought you would say that...
Man, I disagree. Kinetic weapons are great, but a good blaster or plasma weapon is the coolest thing to nail someone with in multiplayer in pretty much any game that does service to the scifi weapon types.
"What next - would you argue that bank robbers shouldn't be punished because the video of the robbery isn't necessarily representative of their day-to-day behavior, or the rapist caught on camera because he probably doesn't go around raping people on a daily basis?"
Explicitly not. My post states:
"This background assumption is based on what USED to be the truth, and the same logic that the legal system uses to dole out large punishments for minor violations- that cameras (observing agents in general) were so rare that if someone got caught ranting on camera (or speeding on some empty highway) that it serves as a *representation of that person in general*."
So in my example: if you speed moderately, and get pulled over, you can be fined (roughly) a hundred dollars, and then you will pay (roughly) a thousand dollars in insurance crap. The damage you are doing, and the risk you are taking, is worth nowhere NEAR that much- especially given that almost everyone speeds every day, at all times, forever. However, it is precisely because it is rare for someone to be caught speeding that the penalties are so grossly out of proportion- while the letter of the law is just for that one speeding incident (as that's what is being proved in court), the OBVIOUS comparison is if everyone was fined for every moment that they sped.
The laws against speeding (and many other minor violations) assume all of these things:
1)- That these things, on average, hurt society.
2)- That people who engage in these things usually don't get caught.
Yielding a conclusion of "we need a stronger penalty for speeding than it would normally entail, as a speeder would normally NOT get caught".
Since the ACTUAL DAMAGE done by a single incident of speeding is almost always zero, with a few fantastically bad results, the average is what is being targeted- but that average is still hella low. Since the proportion of enforcement to bad action is so bad.
The actions you bring up (and I think that we need a Godwin-type rule for going from speeding to rap) are entirely unrelated. *Because they are intrisic acts of harm, not some small statistical bullshit). Rapists aren't punished because they "finally got caught", they are punished for that incident. But note well! Those who believe that there's an endemic of rape, or that most rapes go unpunished, are almost always the ones who are in favor of even harsher punishments- using a similar logic.
Robbery follows the same logic. The proportion of robberies reported over total robberies is not a tiny number. Robbery has victims and leaves evidence, and causes harm directly. Speeding has no victims (usually) and leaves no evidence (usually), and causes harm statistically. So we have direct punishments based around the actual harm caused for the former, and statistical punishments vastly out of proportion to the trivial cost to society in the second case.
Which brings me right back to my point- people assume that video tapes are "robberies", when in fact they are "speedings".
It's nowhere close to as nice as OP portrays.
The example brought up- the ludicrous cuntly behavior of Britt going off on some poor schmuckette- is gratifying because she's "getting hers". But, lets consider a few things:
1- Britt had no reason to suspect she was being recorded (beyond the general assumption that any building or person in America *could* be "taping" you now). She acted based on assumptions that weren't true.
2- Britt has a job where public relations are extremely important, and is a celebrity (not "was", I'm certainly a lot more interested in someone who openly shits on tow companies, notoriously sketchy organizations that damage vehicles and will tow legal vehicles if they can claim that the little whatever that lets you park legally could be argued to not be perfectly visible, or if can be dislodged in towing- so if she pops up and rants about stuff, hey, I'll watch)
3- Who controls the cameras is the big deal. What if, in addition to the rant delivered by her, we saw EVERYTHING that happened in that business, from the cabs of the tow trucks to the office politics in the back to their normal customer relations? By selecting just what your foes do at a specific time, you obviously gain a great deal of control, because your shit is flushed and theirs is on youtube forever.
The medium benefits of cameras seem to be what we see in Russia from dash cams- inability of insurance companies to welch on payments, and greater evidence of actually criminal dealings on the road.
The biggest benefits of cameras will be their effect on law enforcement, and if we want to actually reap those benefits (instead of just making people who can have a short temper unemployable in even more jobs than they already are), we'll need protections for the numerous police who routinely order people to stop filming (this should not ever be something a policeman can say), attack people legally and extralegally for putting up their crimes, and actually hold them accountable for the absurd beatings that they suddenly started dealing out to poor people and anyone who wouldn't normally be believed in court- beatings that seemingly began the moment that everyone got cameras. Probably those two related, hrm, what's that correlation...
So it doesn't matter that some hot tempered cutie with a media job went off on some random people. That's not really helping society that she can't keep her ESPN job.
The workaround for (1) is that people will act like they are being recorded, which naively means that they will switch from aggression to bating and passive aggression. If they ALSO have cameras (and hidden cameras are cheap, and will become moreso), then the goal becomes to bait the other party to either committing a crime (easier in some situations than others) or crucifying themselves in the court of public opinion. We can laugh at the people who haven't adapted to this new ruleset fast enough, but it's STILL a game, and it will still be won by the same sociopaths that always are good at these games.
(2) is an issue because more and more jobs will fall into this category, resulting in minor altercations yielding a harsh streak of unemployment into a society already hellbent on assuming that ability is immediately rewarded with steady employment. While celebrities have a huge amount of support systems to fall back on ("celebrity does a heel-turn" is not a death knell by any means to their public life), many people do not. The natural assumption of the video seems to be that if someone is caught doing something on tape, that this is representative of their entire life, a brief 30 second temper tantrum serving as a summary of their entire life. This background assumption is based on what USED to be the truth, and the same logic that the legal system uses to dole out large punishments for minor violations- that cameras (observing agents in general) were so rare that if someone got caught ranting on camera (or speeding on some empty highway) that it serves as a *representation of tha
He does, and so do the Russians that domesticated foxes. His point is that if foxes domesticate so rapidly, wolves likely do as well.
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Foxes are very close to dogs and wolves.
You're joking, but it really would be nice if dog breeds were bred for stuff like "lives a long healthy life" instead of "skin folds on face".
Animals have a really hard time understanding and remembering words to begin with, this is just messing with them. That you had cats smart enough to recognize a group word AND were willing to come when called is already a triumph, messing with them is just mean.
My immediate thought would be that hard math in this field doesn't tow the groupthink by revealing too much that they want to be able to argue around, so their solution is to try to eliminate the math.
I don't know that this is the case or anything: it's just the only real motivation that would lead to this. Like, the studies show stuff that no one wants to talk about or the math prevents people from coming to a conclusion opposite reality.
I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the limits of future tech.
If you assume that it's possibly reasonable to freeze a whole brain based on the possibility of a vastly advanced future tech (and future denizens willing to employ it to your benefit, as you intend now), then within THAT space the odds that enough is preserved in that "half a brain" to reconstruct a person is pretty good.
Also, remember that what we DO know does involve some redundancy to memories, and a combined structural, electrical, and chemical consistency to many elements of mind. So that's probably not your big stopping point- it's the odds that this is something that happens in the future in the first place.
Presumably at some distant point in that future, those would be trivial problems. I suspect that is the position of the cryo community, certainly the neuropreseverationists.
No thanks on the bridge, but perhaps you should consider rereading this part, and remembering how logical OR works:
" it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:
1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea.
2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be.
3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech."
If you dispute that this is a super good guess, then you are claiming that the logical opposite of this is likely. The logical opposite is that "Today's cryo patients are forever dead, BUT patients who die and are incinerated or buried normally are revivable".
Is that your belief? If you believe that cryo makes someone LESS likely to be revived than turning them into dust and sprinking the dust in a forest, at least link me some good high level druid spells, k?
Note: If you merely believe that the odds of cryo patients being revived are the same as standard methods of treating the dead (burying or incineration), and that those odds are ZERO, then you are saying that my "super good guess" is without doubt true, based on the first term.
Nothing in my post claims that cryo produces revivable patients. But it does dispute the above post, that cryo makes people LESS revivable. That should be trivially bullshit.
I mean, doesn't everyone know this? The entire idea is predicated on, not the future having good "thaw tech", but upon the entire set of techs that could be curative in some fashion, along with a desire to resurrect people to begin with. Many of those who are frozen are essentially saying "at some point you'll have some machines that can read what I am from my frozen cells and make a copy of me". I mean, most cryo patients are just a frozen head at this point, so clearly "can thaw and somehow repair cellular damage" is secondary to "...also entire body missing".
...no?
There's no way to make any sense out of a fully decomposed corpse. There's understood ways to make some sense out of frozen cells.
For your assertion to be correct, we have to assume that the damage done to cells during the vitrification process is somehow much worse and irreversible than the wholesale consumption of those cells by microorganisms and/or the complete decomposition of the majority of organic compounds, and that the structural preservation brought about by vitrification is not helpful in any way.
Granted, we don't know future tech. But it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:
1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea.
2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be.
3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech.
The case where "Those who decay can be revived, but cryo patients cannot" seems EXTREMELY unlikely- less likely than (2) and (3), both of which are pinned on thin hopes to begin with.
Currently you can use classic with this URL:
https://www.google.com/maps?ou...
Since like, no one linked it or mentioned it yet.
> Smart enough to master of chess, but not bright enough to secure his phone.
Chess is some mix of high level strategy, getting in your opponent's head, visualization, and habituation.
Securing a phone is a technical problem. The two fields don't really have overlap.
I mean, lets be real here. IBM had meetings, and emails, and long engineering nights for Deep Blue to do that. They studied the HELL out him. He played a committee.
I'm not really interested in whether the players have an amazing bladder capacity or not. Bathroom breaks are fine. Probably want to ensure that there's no cheat methods in those bathrooms, though.
Whoa, cool! And Kasparov even spawned it? This has been educational, thanks!
MOD UP, Jesus. This is the day I don't have mod points?
Of course it's great that they caught this guy, and obviously they'll have to investigate whether he's really a grandmaster at all, in addition to all the other penalties. But the point that what he did was essentially cyborg (in a competition where that isn't allowed) is a good one. What would a chess league where everyone does this look like? Gary Kasparov may have eventually lost to IBM, some cutting edge hardware, and a huge team of software engineers and chess experts doing everything they could to beat him, but what would Gary Kasparov plus extra analytical hardware/software look like?
That's what I'm interested in. Magnus Carlsen plus a supercomputer versus just Deep Blue wouldn't resolve in favor of the raw silicon. "Cyborg" league gogo!
If the lottery is made by computer, why would anyone trust that?
It's not rocket science. You don't need a jilliflops of processing to make a few random numbers each WEEK. How about those nice machines with the balls that zip around? Or honestly, even dice thrown down a staircase. There's so many better ways to make random numbers. Computers are TERRIBLE at random numbers, requiring special hardware to not just be pseudorandom, and a bunch of people to certify that it is, in fact, random. The only reason ANYONE should generate random numbers from a computer EVER is if:
1- You need it for software and they don't need to be that random (so you by definition already have a computer, and a pseudorandom thing will work)
2- You need a WHOLE LOT of random numbers, more than could be created physically for similar cost
Terrible design. A computer is the worst possible way to solve this problem.
This is News for Nerds... but it shouldn't be. Lotteries should NEVER use computers to generate numbers. They are discrete procedural machines, and can't make randomness without special hardware, then every step along the way from hardware generation to presentation has to not be corrupted.
If it works as expected, it will be as possible in males as females, which is to say, thinly.
While the "anomaly" type of colorblindness (specifically, the green anomaly one) do feature a different spectral point that can be used to discern colors, it's pretty subtle. In a trichromat, all your reds are, say, 6, all your greens are 5, and all your blues are 4. In a green anomaly, all your reds are 6, all your greens are 5.8, and all your blues are 4. This makes it hard to distinguish colors.
The tetrachromats have all their reds 6, half of their greens 5, half of their greens 5.8, and all of their blues 4. But all the greens- be they 5 or 5.8 on the scale- are wired similar internally. You don't get an "orange" thing in the visual cortex to go along with your cool hardware. So while some extra colors can be distinguished in that range (specifically, you can match a few wavelengths exactly instead of "close enough"), it isn't very easy compared to telling yellow from blue.
If you look at the response curve of all the opsins, it really just means you parse it as a different kind of white (it triggers all of them). More importantly, however, the UV damages them.
It's still cool, but it's of very limited use until we can either get another cone dedicated to UV or make the amount of UV very sparse, or in one eye. And that's if you're fully dedicated to risky mods that can cost you your vision.
You've said this is for backup purposes.
So what you need to do, is get truecrypt, cyphpershed, or veracrypt. Make a file big enough to hold your stuff, and put it in there.
Then back THAT file up to the cloud.
Without the password, they have a bunch of random data. You never give them the password, only using them as a remote storage device for a bunch of random 1s and 0s. If and when you want your data back, you bring back the big file, and then mount it- good to go.
Now, there are reasons to keep your stuff local, but you don't seem to have any of them.
For your list of concerns: a DVD backup is not going to have issues with water, but hot enough will destroy anything. I would personally consider a backup external hard drive, one local, one remote, encrypted as above if needed. If you are concerned about water, simply place the hard drive in something waterproof.