Re:It's fine that the source is closed, for them..
on
Spore Hands-On Preview
·
· Score: 1
Spore is coming to all the consoles, including the xbox360 and the ps3, as well as the wii. You don't even need to own a computer to play spore. You might have wait a little bit longer is all, depending on where they are in development for the console versions. I'm guessing they are shooting for a close to simultaneous release.
I'm sorry but according to your logic we should still be stuck back at pre BCE technology. If technological innovation is stagnant then we should never have had the massive burst of technological development we have had over the past 100 years. Arguing that there won't be a technological singularity is to completely ignore the vast amount of data that strongly suggests that scientific discoveries, technology, and information are all growing along with computer power. Unless something comes along to stop it we will see massive amounts of technological development and scientific discovery on a level never reached before.
If you haven't read Kruzweils book "The Singularity is Near" I really think you should. I might make you rethink your narrow view of progress.
The singularity is inevitable, unless we destroy ourselves first. Unless something drastic occurs to halt technological progress we will continue to improve our computing power, as well as our ability to fully understand and simulate the brain on a computer, until we are able to actually simulate a human brain and all its connections in a computer. The key to everything is to be able to fully understand how the human brain works. Given enough time, money, and advances in technology we will understand it all.
I'm sorry but he doesn't know what he is talking about. For a science fiction writer he is sorely lacking in imagination. He seems to think that future "humans" will never overcome vast distances with exotic technology that we cannot even comprehend. You think that humans in 4000 BC could even comprehend the technology that we take for granted today? To argue that we won't even be able to reach 50% of the speed of light or bend space or travel through wormholes is just ignorant. Sure those all sound silly today but for the civilizations of the future it's not so silly. I have a hard time believing that a million or billion years from now whatever humanity has become will be stuck in this solar system.
If you are to believe proponents of the Technological Singularity we will see a vastly different world in the next 100 years let alone 1000 or 1,000,000. If it is within the realm of possibility then we will eventually do it. We are within reach of unlocking the secrets of our DNA. Once we figure out how our bodies work we can design a better one. One that can survive for as long as we want and allow us to survive in environments that we wish to go to. This doesn't require technology that appears to be magic, it is technology that will be available to us in the next 100 years.
This author should stick to writing crappy science fiction novels instead of making stupid absolute statements like we will never colonize the galaxy.
There was a case of a woman who lost the ability to have REM sleep for over a year. It was thought for years that a person needed to enter this period of sleep but it turns out you don't, because she didn't suffer any serious effects. I don't doubt that in 50 years we will have a complete understanding of the human brain and how it works. At that point we can manipulate our genetics through drugs or gene therapy to eliminate the need for sleep. I know personally that I hate sleeping and would gladly do away with it if I could.
From the article.
"The study also backs up reports of patients who lost both their dreams and their REM sleep for up to a year after taking certain antidepressant drugs. "These people don't go mad," says Horne. They are completely normal and have no memory problems."
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet. But this was seen as a response to many futurist and Transhumanist (such as Ray Kurzweil who have applied the idea of moores law and accelerated returns for technology in general.
The site they have selected in the pacific is known for its lack of storms including lightning storms. It's a calm area in the ocean. Placing it in a hurricane prone area would be pure stupidity, they aren't that stupid.
Better safe than sorry. Don't try to prevent other people just because of your personal beliefs in an afterlife. If you are right then good for you, if you are wrong you are condeming everyone else along with you. Me thinks that most religious people would be all too willing to accept an anti aging cure if one came along. It's easy to say no when it doesn't exist.
I'm sorry but nature isn't some intelligent being, it's random chance. Humans left behind nature in terms of evolution a long time ago. We are in charge of our own evolution now and we need to start acting that way, otherwise we might as well go back to living in caves and using rocks and sticks to survive with.
All of those issues are rediculous. They are not an issue when you take into account birth control, decrease in poverty due to future technologies, etc... Why have 10 kids if you are going to live for 1000+ years?
The current human life span is way too short. A person would need 1000 lifetimes to really start to experience everything that life has to offer. The entire idea that people should accept death is nothing more than a rationalization in the face of the lack of ability to halt the aging process and death. If we have the technology to end aging, which we seem to be working towards even if it isn't supported outwardly by most people, then I say we must do it.
Life is good death is bad, it doesn't get any simpler than that. All it is going to take is one research group making a mouse live double its normal lifespan for people to take a serious look at the possibility of extending the human lifespan indefinitely. The sooner we do this the better off humanity will be.
Imagine if people actually lived for 1000 years. Instead of dying off they would have to live with the effects of their lifestyle choices on the world. I like to think that people would become far less likely to allow pollution to occure, far less likely to go to war, far less likely to be ignoran given the centuries of experience they would have. I can only see positives in terms of extending peoples lives. Any negatives are problems that we will solve in the future. Overpopulation? Move off the planet, engineer better crops. Grow meat rather than raise it on farms, the list goes on.
Anyone who is against this technology is not thinking of the future, they are stuck in the past in a dogma of death and ignorance.
PC gamers drive the video card industry, it's the reason we have geforce 6800's and anti x800's vs the original geforce card or voodoo cards. If people won't buy those new cards why put research into them? I suppose that the video card companies could just focus on consoles every 5 years and create some new business model, but I doubt that would even work. Much of their research into video cards for high end pc's ends up in consoles, so how is that going to work when they aren't designing cards for high end pc's? We wouldn't see the same rate of progress in terms of video card technology.
All those console lovers better hope and pray that computer gaming stays around for a long time to come.
Who's going to take the nukes away from China? Having had them for quit a long time now the US is in no position to dictate what they can and cannot have.
Slashdot Mirror
Spore is coming to all the consoles, including the xbox360 and the ps3, as well as the wii. You don't even need to own a computer to play spore. You might have wait a little bit longer is all, depending on where they are in development for the console versions. I'm guessing they are shooting for a close to simultaneous release.
Now I can know for sure if I'm going to get an incurable brain degenerative disease...
I'm sorry but according to your logic we should still be stuck back at pre BCE technology. If technological innovation is stagnant then we should never have had the massive burst of technological development we have had over the past 100 years. Arguing that there won't be a technological singularity is to completely ignore the vast amount of data that strongly suggests that scientific discoveries, technology, and information are all growing along with computer power. Unless something comes along to stop it we will see massive amounts of technological development and scientific discovery on a level never reached before. If you haven't read Kruzweils book "The Singularity is Near" I really think you should. I might make you rethink your narrow view of progress.
The singularity is inevitable, unless we destroy ourselves first. Unless something drastic occurs to halt technological progress we will continue to improve our computing power, as well as our ability to fully understand and simulate the brain on a computer, until we are able to actually simulate a human brain and all its connections in a computer. The key to everything is to be able to fully understand how the human brain works. Given enough time, money, and advances in technology we will understand it all.
I'm sorry but he doesn't know what he is talking about. For a science fiction writer he is sorely lacking in imagination. He seems to think that future "humans" will never overcome vast distances with exotic technology that we cannot even comprehend. You think that humans in 4000 BC could even comprehend the technology that we take for granted today? To argue that we won't even be able to reach 50% of the speed of light or bend space or travel through wormholes is just ignorant. Sure those all sound silly today but for the civilizations of the future it's not so silly. I have a hard time believing that a million or billion years from now whatever humanity has become will be stuck in this solar system. If you are to believe proponents of the Technological Singularity we will see a vastly different world in the next 100 years let alone 1000 or 1,000,000. If it is within the realm of possibility then we will eventually do it. We are within reach of unlocking the secrets of our DNA. Once we figure out how our bodies work we can design a better one. One that can survive for as long as we want and allow us to survive in environments that we wish to go to. This doesn't require technology that appears to be magic, it is technology that will be available to us in the next 100 years. This author should stick to writing crappy science fiction novels instead of making stupid absolute statements like we will never colonize the galaxy.
There was a case of a woman who lost the ability to have REM sleep for over a year. It was thought for years that a person needed to enter this period of sleep but it turns out you don't, because she didn't suffer any serious effects. I don't doubt that in 50 years we will have a complete understanding of the human brain and how it works. At that point we can manipulate our genetics through drugs or gene therapy to eliminate the need for sleep. I know personally that I hate sleeping and would gladly do away with it if I could. From the article. "The study also backs up reports of patients who lost both their dreams and their REM sleep for up to a year after taking certain antidepressant drugs. "These people don't go mad," says Horne. They are completely normal and have no memory problems."
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet. But this was seen as a response to many futurist and Transhumanist (such as Ray Kurzweil who have applied the idea of moores law and accelerated returns for technology in general.
The site they have selected in the pacific is known for its lack of storms including lightning storms. It's a calm area in the ocean. Placing it in a hurricane prone area would be pure stupidity, they aren't that stupid.
Better safe than sorry. Don't try to prevent other people just because of your personal beliefs in an afterlife. If you are right then good for you, if you are wrong you are condeming everyone else along with you. Me thinks that most religious people would be all too willing to accept an anti aging cure if one came along. It's easy to say no when it doesn't exist.
I'm sorry but nature isn't some intelligent being, it's random chance. Humans left behind nature in terms of evolution a long time ago. We are in charge of our own evolution now and we need to start acting that way, otherwise we might as well go back to living in caves and using rocks and sticks to survive with.
All of those issues are rediculous. They are not an issue when you take into account birth control, decrease in poverty due to future technologies, etc... Why have 10 kids if you are going to live for 1000+ years? The current human life span is way too short. A person would need 1000 lifetimes to really start to experience everything that life has to offer. The entire idea that people should accept death is nothing more than a rationalization in the face of the lack of ability to halt the aging process and death. If we have the technology to end aging, which we seem to be working towards even if it isn't supported outwardly by most people, then I say we must do it. Life is good death is bad, it doesn't get any simpler than that. All it is going to take is one research group making a mouse live double its normal lifespan for people to take a serious look at the possibility of extending the human lifespan indefinitely. The sooner we do this the better off humanity will be. Imagine if people actually lived for 1000 years. Instead of dying off they would have to live with the effects of their lifestyle choices on the world. I like to think that people would become far less likely to allow pollution to occure, far less likely to go to war, far less likely to be ignoran given the centuries of experience they would have. I can only see positives in terms of extending peoples lives. Any negatives are problems that we will solve in the future. Overpopulation? Move off the planet, engineer better crops. Grow meat rather than raise it on farms, the list goes on. Anyone who is against this technology is not thinking of the future, they are stuck in the past in a dogma of death and ignorance.
PC gamers drive the video card industry, it's the reason we have geforce 6800's and anti x800's vs the original geforce card or voodoo cards. If people won't buy those new cards why put research into them? I suppose that the video card companies could just focus on consoles every 5 years and create some new business model, but I doubt that would even work. Much of their research into video cards for high end pc's ends up in consoles, so how is that going to work when they aren't designing cards for high end pc's? We wouldn't see the same rate of progress in terms of video card technology. All those console lovers better hope and pray that computer gaming stays around for a long time to come.
Who's going to take the nukes away from China? Having had them for quit a long time now the US is in no position to dictate what they can and cannot have.