Um, we can already create O'Neill colonies
(if we had a LOT of money and time). Artificial
gravity is not the problem; the idea is basic
Newtonian physics -- you spin them up and the
centrifugal force is the gravity. Of course you
shouldn't do this with too small a place; everybody will get really dizzy for one the
spin has to be very fast to reach 1 G. But
with a large station the spin rate should be
slow enough for most people.
I don't know how they made artificial gravity in the movie, though, which may likely have been
all wrong.
It ain't easy Creating an AI isn't easy, creating self-replicating machines isn't easy. It'll be a long long time before any crazy individual could create one, if ever. I'd need some pretty good arguments before I'll believe they're more easy than, say, creating a nuclear bomb. If a random nutter can create a disastrous AI or self-replicator that easily, then the world will already have changed far beyond recognition -- we'll have plenty of other wild problems to deal with.
We already have rampant self-replicators on the loose! Oh my! Yeah, humans, fish, bacteria, ants and trees are already rampant. Earth is not covered in a 5 mile deep layer of killer bacteria or killer rabbits because runaway replicators have to deal with competition, lack of resources, and death. Machines will have the same problems. I still need to see an argument on why replication will be so much easier for them.
We already have insanely dangerous intelligences on the loose! Oh my! They're called humans. Plenty of new dangerous intelligences can be produced on 9 month's notice, without much technological investment.
That said, it'll be an interesting century. Technology can definitely be dangerous, but I think massive destruction by an individual or small group is harder than people assume. It'll be easier as time progresses, but that isn't news, is it?
Collectively we're already good at it -- we could do global conventional warfare, nuclear weapons, or kill off the environment. But we won't, as that would be stupid.:)
I'd suggest anyone interested in web application servers also take a look at Zope:
http://www.zope.org
It's not in Java but in Python. It is open source, very dynamic, uses some wonderful design ideas that really make life easier, and has a very nice user community. New features are being created at a rapid pace.
Some random hype:
* Manage it through the web! You can manage almost all of Zope through a web interface. No clients are needed, no server access other than web access is needed.
* object database; publish objects, not files, to the web. Objects can have properties and can talk to each other.
* acquisition; a concept somewhat like inheritance that has very powerful implications. (we have inheritance too; acquisition is inheritance around another axis, so to speak, so they are complement each other)
* Very configurable security system.
* If you don't know Python yet; a wonderfully clean, powerful, flexible, object oriented interpreted language.
* Zope is continuously being developed by Digital Creations, who are very responsive to the user/developer community. Open source not just in name, but done right.
I'm Dutch too (assuming Rowan is Dutch). I don't think there's much of an excuse for the amount of misuse of the English language displayed by the article.
Granted, non-native speakers make mistakes. But Rowan chose to write this in English and submitted it to Slashdot for 'publication'. I think more care could easily have been taken.
And even if the language excuse were valid, there is no excuse for the lack of coherence of this rant. I've read rants by Rowan before (on the ggi mailing list and I think he's also been active on the fbcon mailing list). This is one rant too many. Now I'm going to give some potentially unflattering suggestions:
* I think you mentioned you wouldn't learn C on that list, but would start with C++. If you want to have a say in GGI development or Linux kernel development, I strongly advise you to learn C. If you then want to influence the direction of a project, *code* (or document, or test, but do something constructive). If you do that, you may find people may actually listen more carefully to what you have to say.
* If you haven't experience with any programming language yet (though I've seen a reference to Pliant), then with Eric Raymond I suggest you learn Python, which I consider to be a great language. If you come to comp.lang.python (or tutor@python.org) with questions I'll personally help you. But really, any language will do. Even Perl.:)
* Please read a book or web page about writing coherent essays.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, we can already create O'Neill colonies
(if we had a LOT of money and time). Artificial
gravity is not the problem; the idea is basic
Newtonian physics -- you spin them up and the
centrifugal force is the gravity. Of course you
shouldn't do this with too small a place; everybody will get really dizzy for one the
spin has to be very fast to reach 1 G. But
with a large station the spin rate should be
slow enough for most people.
I don't know how they made artificial gravity in the movie, though, which may likely have been
all wrong.
Right, I wanted to say about the same.
:)
It ain't easy
Creating an AI isn't easy, creating self-replicating machines isn't easy. It'll be a long long time before any crazy individual could create one, if ever. I'd need some pretty good arguments before I'll believe they're more easy than, say, creating a nuclear bomb. If a random nutter can create a disastrous AI or self-replicator that easily, then the world will already have changed far beyond recognition -- we'll have plenty of other wild problems to deal with.
We already have rampant self-replicators on the loose! Oh my!
Yeah, humans, fish, bacteria, ants and trees are already rampant. Earth is not covered in a 5 mile deep layer of killer bacteria or killer rabbits because runaway replicators have to deal with competition, lack of resources, and death. Machines will have the same problems. I still need to see an argument on why replication will be so much easier for them.
We already have insanely dangerous intelligences on the loose! Oh my!
They're called humans. Plenty of new dangerous intelligences can be produced on 9 month's notice, without much technological investment.
That said, it'll be an interesting century. Technology can definitely be dangerous, but I think massive destruction by an individual or small group is harder than people assume. It'll be easier as time progresses, but that isn't news, is it?
Collectively we're already good at it -- we could do global conventional warfare, nuclear weapons, or kill off the environment. But we won't, as that would be stupid.
Regards,
Martijn
Hi there,
:)
I'd suggest anyone interested in web application servers also take a look at Zope:
http://www.zope.org
It's not in Java but in Python. It is open source, very dynamic, uses some wonderful design ideas that really make life easier, and has a very nice user community. New features are being created at a rapid pace.
Some random hype:
* Manage it through the web! You can manage almost all of Zope through a web interface. No clients are needed, no server access other than web access is needed.
* object database; publish objects, not files, to the web. Objects can have properties and can talk to each other.
* acquisition; a concept somewhat like inheritance that has very powerful implications. (we have inheritance too; acquisition is inheritance around another axis, so to speak, so they are complement each other)
* Very configurable security system.
* If you don't know Python yet; a wonderfully clean, powerful, flexible, object oriented interpreted language.
* Zope is continuously being developed by Digital Creations, who are very responsive to the user/developer community. Open source not just in name, but done right.
* Okay, so I like it.
Regards,
Martijn
Hi there,
:)
I'm Dutch too (assuming Rowan is Dutch). I don't think there's much of an excuse for the amount of misuse of the English language displayed by the article.
Granted, non-native speakers make mistakes. But Rowan chose to write this in English and submitted it to Slashdot for 'publication'. I think more care could easily have been taken.
And even if the language excuse were valid, there is no excuse for the lack of coherence of this rant. I've read rants by Rowan before (on the ggi mailing list and I think he's also been active on the fbcon mailing list). This is one rant too many. Now I'm going to give some potentially unflattering suggestions:
* I think you mentioned you wouldn't learn C on that list, but would start with C++. If you want to have a say in GGI development or Linux kernel development, I strongly advise you to learn C. If you then want to influence the direction of a project, *code* (or document, or test, but do something constructive). If you do that, you may find people may actually listen more carefully to what you have to say.
* If you haven't experience with any programming language yet (though I've seen a reference to Pliant), then with Eric Raymond I suggest you learn Python, which I consider to be a great language. If you come to comp.lang.python (or tutor@python.org) with questions I'll personally help you. But really, any language will do. Even Perl.
* Please read a book or web page about writing coherent essays.
Regards,
Martijn