"In three hundred years people will be laughing at some of our ideas about quantum physics, chemistry, string theory, etc. as completely laughable in retrospect."
They will -never- be laughing at our quantum physics and chemistry. At least not in the experimentally proven parts. (assuming the experiments were done and evaluated properly) The models of quantum mechanics and chemistry will always work as approximation of some later theory, just as classical mechanics works as aproximation of quantum mechanics or general relativity. (and just as optics works as approximation of electrodynamics)
Future people may be laughing about string theory though, no real experimental results conforming that. (maybe alchemy was that days string theory:D)
I think the laws should be based on some kind of consensus, or at least compromise of the whole societies morals. I also think to attain acceptable comprimises for most, the laws should allow for a lot. Ofcourse there will always be some people for which the comprimise is unacceptable. They should try change the law via changing other peoples morals by transfer of ideas. There will still be people for whom this is not possible, they can: -live by the law anyway, to keep the peace -just violate the law and risk getting cought -violently try to change the law (by taking power)
The enforcement of the law will try to stop the 2nd and 3rd, with support of any of the people "agreeing" with the law. (im not saying anything here about how the compromise that becomes the law is reached, nor how the law should be enforced)
I recon we should all find an encryption program, and make a file C:/Haha_this_is_encrypted_with_random_data_and_i_a m_not_giving_you_the_key
or even better lets all send some government email adress an encrypted file terrorist_plot.
I agree. There are more problems with human civilizations living for geological timescales though. I recon evolution "has a lot of pressure on it" at this time since we are living in such different circumstances, then we did earlier. Over longer timescales humans are going to change psychologically and physically. There is a danger we go dependend on medical/food technologies, increasing our vunerability. This leaves us to choose between (1) not using some medical technologies, (2) becoming part of the technology, or (3) simply screwing up the genepool and being sad little critters dependend on medical stuff. (3 sucks, with 2 i really mean becoming part of the technology, don't think technology is near up to it though, but it probably will considering the timescales i am thinking about)
Take invitro fertilisation is an obvious case of technology screwing up the gene pool, you definitely dont want to proliferate inability to procreate without technology. At least if you choose (1). Also there are a lot of "curable" genetic diseases which could make people reliant on medical tech. A solution could be just to artificially take out the gene that causes the disease, ofcourse humans may not be able to oversee the consequences of this. Also, this solution is a step towards choice (2). Another solution is to not allow people that have used certain medical technologies/for certain reasons, to procreate. Ofcourse this gives you the problem when to do this. What diseases are genetic? Some may have genetic aspects, but seem like chance. (like being reckless and being hurt in a car-crash) You could be drastic and say any serious medical treatment should cause a "no procreate-ticket".
Ofcourse banning people from procreating is harsh. (leading to people ignoring it) Very importantly it also may be subject to discrimination. History has examples of this, (prolly)worst of all the concentration camps of the nazi's.(for which the "reason" was the claimed superiority of the Arian race, also genetic) (though i am only talking about banning procreation, and they killed people)
For these reasons i am personally all for choosing (2) whole heartedly. Ofcourse choice 2 also has a whole range of problems I wouldn't want to use any DRM-like or big brother-like technology that cant get rid of/am dependend of. Also you don't want to be dependend on technology that is fragile in some sense. I mean with this the technology shouldn't be easily lost by destruction of a single or a few industrial complexes or, death of people who understand the tech. And the technology must not be posibly unavailable because some bastard has taken control of it via politics.
Btw this subject is a bit beyond a single slashdot comment written in an hour, i consider this comment "think out loud", with some readability added. Also I am thinking about such long timescales (1000 yr order size, probably) relative to how long we have more serious technology (lets say 100yr tops, -?yr at worst:D ) this discussion may not even be relevant yet. I seem to have assumed that in the long term future we have the ability to give nearly everyone who needs it medical attention. (which is rather optimistic)
Ofcourse some methods of saving/generating power deserve more funding then others, I am pretty sure fusion research deserves a lot of funding considering its promise.
Thermal Depolymerization prolly would deserve some funding too, if it helps for the environment. But you'll have a hard time convincing me making oil from plastic/biomass and then burning it is more efficient then just burning it directly. Even if this burning is centralised, you still have to transport the biomass/plastic to a Depolymerization plant, then the oil to where the energy is needed. It may be very usefull if oil gets expensive and other portable energy technologies(like hydrogen cells) don't work.
No actually mathematics is also written in just handwriting. Also the definitions used are designed to be "human-understandable" rather then "machine understandable". In proofs usually some of the things are written out, or left to the reader. I am not saying that a machine can't understand it, but mathematical writing is certainly not specificly written for the machines to understand. (of course you could make a system to do that)
I am still a bit confused what open source code means. What if the source code is obfuscated, (messed up beyond human-read) but it is still the code that is compiled/interpreted. Is it then still open source? (even though there was active purpose to prevent other people from building on it)
Should the code be "human-readable"? How to define that?? I say if you want to call it open source (and be a nice guy) you should give internal documentation away too.
I happen to know a whole range of organisms which rely only on solar power, never heard them complain about a blackout.
I know only one species of organisms that uses a whole range of power sources, and they are whining about energy all the time!
how about this: "However, it's still the case that Microsoft could stop all new innovation in the Linux space by bringing suits using newer patents, at the cost of some survivable damage to themselves. My theory is that they won't do so until they get unified software patenting laws in Europe. They won't create bad news that would sink their own legislative efforts."
I wouldn't know, but I would believe this in a heartbeat, what about other/.-ers. (ok at least the part that they would use the patents, not sure wether it would stop inovation/development)
Thanks, replacing those 10J with 5000J (~4180) we get 20 k Sievert/C for one sievert that is 5 10^-5 C, which would correspond to mild radiation sickness. Still dont know wether the neutrons have a long half-distance(distance that halfs their amounts) in our body, but suspect they do. I was soo wrong in my earlier reply (maybe i am still wrong somewhere).
Still, the wattages of the experiments with fusion were very low, round a watt. And only very little of that is absorbed by the experimenters' bodies. I still think they would be alright, probably a higher chance of getting cancer though.
Ok i agree with your point those laptops may be usefull in developing countries. Getting 1B$ of 100$ laptops there is 10M laptops, and they will use them. Will be usefull even without internet, can store a lot of books in one laptop. (out you can copy them from laptop to laptop) Yes, they need clean water, food and medicine, but if we keep thinking short term we will not solve the problems on the long term .
about this: "Take your negativism elsewhere, and let people who actually want to make a lasting difference do it." uhm actually, he said he did try to make a difference, please take your own negativism elsewhere too plz.
I question why the parent was moderated flamebait.. Being -quite frankly by my opinion- an idiot, who falls for all that bible crap doesn't make him a flamebaiter. Obviously sex/mastrubation feels good => use it, considering consequences and ethics. (too bad i only had the second one:( ) Reading the replies of the post may be very instructive for some, maybe parent should be moderated up, hmm interesting or something. (nearly wanted to say funny, but don't do that)
I found Ubuntu easy to install too, but rather dislike the fact that you can't just download application installers, just click install (maybe give a destination, and wether shortcuts), run the install. And then use the application. Often even the windows version of the same app is that easy to install, oh why wouldnt the linux app be!!! Also, the documentation that is automatically installed along could be more extensive. Ok must admit, have not much experience with Ubuntu a lot yet. Found out you have to be root before you can do some stuff. Besides that I am pretty impressed with Ubuntu, but easy installation of stuff is critical, and should be a goal for any project making a application that is not called a beta.
"Won't the weapons come in handy when rebelling? In fact, isn't that the reason the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, so that the people will be able to overthrow their government?"
Right.. then (mostly) badly trained cilivilians can fight the militairy while being bombed and the enemy has tanks, thats going to work. Even if they win there is a good chance the rebelion will fall apart into smaller groups that just fight eachother. (like often seen in africa) Meanwhile, before the rebellion, thousands are dying accidentally because monkeys have the right to bear arms.
As guns for personal defense.. doubt many people can keep their guard up all day, and will be cought off guard when they need the gun. (i know, parent post ichigo didnt say anything about that, needed to be added)
Ok i should've been more specific i mean what is the use of going there for the type of outpost they were talking about in the article. L1 is a good place to start a lunar space elevator? I don't quite believe it, wouldn't the earth get in the way of the line? Where do you know that from, have some links? L1 is between the sun and the earth. A space elevator from the moon may even not be posible geostationary orbit of the moon is too far, perturbed by earths gravity or even beyond the earth. (though im to lazy now to calculate it)
I read somewhere (maybe in another slashdot story?) that the "livelyness" of a object was defined by the improvement of the chance there will be a similar object if there is the first object to start with.
in words: the "livelyness" of an object is the chance a second exists when another existed before divided by the chance it turns up from no-where. Hmmm I would fall for that definition. the chances may vary in different environments with this definition, which is also nice (the flu is alive in our body but dead without)
Looks like the Q value will prolly be Q=20. Alpha particles also have Q=20 but those dont really penetrate the skin much and neutrons do. (but very dangerous when they get into you)
A thousandth a a degree sounds a bit little to die of, lets say that a kilo of people is raised 1 C by 10 J (rather high estimate i think) and that a the N value of the tisue is N=0.2 then N*Q*energy=0.2*20*10=40 Sievert/C. 1.0 Sievert corresponds to mild radiation poisoning (according to wiki) that is 1/40=0.025 C quite some more then a thousandth. In total i still not sure wether if their experiments worked they would have died. I dont think they would, the wikipedia (rather heavily using that) article talks about cold fusion experiments only being in the watt-range, don't think this experiment will have much more power. Also the experimenters will be shielded by equipment round and of the experiment and will not be sitting right next to it that much.
Ok I am offtopic here (but at little pain for community) I got modded over-rated, how? I haven't even been modded before i got modded overrated. It would suck if i got modded just because my opinion of halflife2 is too high, and the other guy didnt agree. Mod-points aren't meant for giving your opinion, replying is for that, mod points are just for trying to get the "better" posts to stand out more. in the faq Btw I admit this post wasn't so great, but choose the reason for modding me down better!
With L4/L5 you mean the Langrange points right?
What is the use of going there? There is nothing there right?? You can only hang around there, might aswell be in earth orbit. (which is easier to achieve)
Being on the moon is the point right? Seeing what you can gain/do/learn there.
Are you sure that the neutron flux would be high enough to really pose a threat? Sounds to me that the energy produced is not that great so also the amount of fusions. I think it may not even be fusion but -neutron flux is would be deadly so it cant be fusion- wouldnt be a argument, i think. As other replies said it could be some other nuclear reaction, or bad measuring of the actual power that goes in or out.
I loved that game, the physics element was a huge part of that, immersive apocaliptic feel. Kindah appropriate too, the main character and his friends are physisists..
Slashdot Mirror
I thought-out loud about this before, this is a very hard moral problem for me. my thoughts
"In three hundred years people will be laughing at some of our ideas about quantum physics, chemistry, string theory, etc. as completely laughable in retrospect."
:D)
They will -never- be laughing at our quantum physics and chemistry. At least not in the experimentally proven parts. (assuming the experiments were done and evaluated properly)
The models of quantum mechanics and chemistry will always work as approximation of some later theory, just as classical mechanics works as aproximation of quantum mechanics or general relativity.
(and just as optics works as approximation of electrodynamics)
Future people may be laughing about string theory though, no real experimental results conforming that. (maybe alchemy was that days string theory
I think the laws should be based on some kind of consensus, or at least compromise of the whole societies morals. I also think to attain acceptable comprimises for most, the laws should allow for a lot.
Ofcourse there will always be some people for which the comprimise is unacceptable. They should try change the law via changing other peoples morals by transfer of ideas.
There will still be people for whom this is not possible, they can:
-live by the law anyway, to keep the peace
-just violate the law and risk getting cought
-violently try to change the law (by taking power)
The enforcement of the law will try to stop the 2nd and 3rd, with support of any of the people "agreeing" with the law.
(im not saying anything here about how the compromise that becomes the law is reached, nor how the law should be enforced)
I recon we should all find an encryption program, and make a file C:/Haha_this_is_encrypted_with_random_data_and_i_a m_not_giving_you_the_key
or even better lets all send some government email adress an encrypted file terrorist_plot.
I agree. There are more problems with human civilizations living for geological timescales though.
:D ) this discussion may not even be relevant yet.
I recon evolution "has a lot of pressure on it" at this time since we are living in such different circumstances, then we did earlier.
Over longer timescales humans are going to change psychologically and physically. There is a danger we go dependend on medical/food technologies, increasing our vunerability.
This leaves us to choose between (1) not using some medical technologies, (2) becoming part of the technology, or (3) simply screwing up the genepool and being sad little critters dependend on medical stuff. (3 sucks, with 2 i really mean becoming part of the technology, don't think technology is near up to it though, but it probably will considering the timescales i am thinking about)
Take invitro fertilisation is an obvious case of technology screwing up the gene pool, you definitely dont want to proliferate inability to procreate without technology. At least if you choose (1). Also there are a lot of "curable" genetic diseases which could make people reliant on medical tech.
A solution could be just to artificially take out the gene that causes the disease, ofcourse humans may not be able to oversee the consequences of this. Also, this solution is a step towards choice (2). Another solution is to not allow people that have used certain medical technologies/for certain reasons, to procreate. Ofcourse this gives you the problem when to do this. What diseases are genetic? Some may have genetic aspects, but seem like chance. (like being reckless and being hurt in a car-crash) You could be drastic and say any serious medical treatment should cause a "no procreate-ticket".
Ofcourse banning people from procreating is harsh. (leading to people ignoring it) Very importantly it also may be subject to discrimination. History has examples of this, (prolly)worst of all the concentration camps of the nazi's.(for which the "reason" was the claimed superiority of the Arian race, also genetic) (though i am only talking about banning procreation, and they killed people)
For these reasons i am personally all for choosing (2) whole heartedly.
Ofcourse choice 2 also has a whole range of problems I wouldn't want to use any DRM-like or big brother-like technology that cant get rid of/am dependend of. Also you don't want to be dependend on technology that is fragile in some sense. I mean with this the technology shouldn't be easily lost by destruction of a single or a few industrial complexes or, death of people who understand the tech. And the technology must not be posibly unavailable because some bastard has taken control of it via politics.
Btw this subject is a bit beyond a single slashdot comment written in an hour, i consider this comment "think out loud", with some readability added. Also I am thinking about such long timescales (1000 yr order size, probably) relative to how long we have more serious technology (lets say 100yr tops, -?yr at worst
I seem to have assumed that in the long term future we have the ability to give nearly everyone who needs it medical attention. (which is rather optimistic)
Ofcourse some methods of saving/generating power deserve more funding then others, I am pretty sure fusion research deserves a lot of funding considering its promise.
Thermal Depolymerization prolly would deserve some funding too, if it helps for the environment. But you'll have a hard time convincing me making oil from plastic/biomass and then burning it is more efficient then just burning it directly. Even if this burning is centralised, you still have to transport the biomass/plastic to a Depolymerization plant, then the oil to where the energy is needed.
It may be very usefull if oil gets expensive and other portable energy technologies(like hydrogen cells) don't work.
...don't wait... use the speed-up button. There are three speeds you know, when i played, i was usually in 2 or 3.
No actually mathematics is also written in just handwriting.
Also the definitions used are designed to be "human-understandable" rather then "machine understandable". In proofs usually some of the things are written out, or left to the reader. I am not saying that a machine can't understand it, but mathematical writing is certainly not specificly written for the machines to understand. (of course you could make a system to do that)
They have succeeded already! All generations of man is warned! It has been on /.!
I am still a bit confused what open source code means.
What if the source code is obfuscated, (messed up beyond human-read) but it is still the code that is compiled/interpreted. Is it then still open source? (even though there was active purpose to prevent other people from building on it)
Should the code be "human-readable"? How to define that?? I say if you want to call it open source (and be a nice guy) you should give internal documentation away too.
I happen to know a whole range of organisms which rely only on solar power, never heard them complain about a blackout. I know only one species of organisms that uses a whole range of power sources, and they are whining about energy all the time!
how about this:
/.-ers. (ok at least the part that they would use the patents, not sure wether it would stop inovation/development)
"However, it's still the case that Microsoft could stop all new innovation in the Linux space by bringing suits using newer patents, at the cost of some survivable damage to themselves. My theory is that they won't do so until they get unified software patenting laws in Europe. They won't create bad news that would sink their own legislative efforts."
I wouldn't know, but I would believe this in a heartbeat, what about other
Thanks, replacing those 10J with 5000J (~4180) we get 20 k Sievert/C
for one sievert that is 5 10^-5 C, which would correspond to mild radiation sickness. Still dont know wether the neutrons have a long half-distance(distance that halfs their amounts) in our body, but suspect they do.
I was soo wrong in my earlier reply (maybe i am still wrong somewhere).
Still, the wattages of the experiments with fusion were very low, round a watt. And only very little of that is absorbed by the experimenters' bodies. I still think they would be alright, probably a higher chance of getting cancer though.
Ok i agree with your point those laptops may be usefull in developing countries. Getting 1B$ of 100$ laptops there is 10M laptops, and they will use them. Will be usefull even without internet, can store a lot of books in one laptop. (out you can copy them from laptop to laptop)
Yes, they need clean water, food and medicine, but if we keep thinking short term we will not solve the problems on the long term .
about this: "Take your negativism elsewhere, and let people who actually want to make a lasting difference do it."
uhm actually, he said he did try to make a difference, please take your own negativism elsewhere too plz.
I question why the parent was moderated flamebait.. Being -quite frankly by my opinion- an idiot, who falls for all that bible crap doesn't make him a flamebaiter. Obviously sex/mastrubation feels good => use it, considering consequences and ethics. (too bad i only had the second one :( )
Reading the replies of the post may be very instructive for some, maybe parent should be moderated up, hmm interesting or something. (nearly wanted to say funny, but don't do that)
I found Ubuntu easy to install too, but rather dislike the fact that you can't just download application installers, just click install (maybe give a destination, and wether shortcuts), run the install. And then use the application. Often even the windows version of the same app is that easy to install, oh why wouldnt the linux app be!!! Also, the documentation that is automatically installed along could be more extensive.
Ok must admit, have not much experience with Ubuntu a lot yet. Found out you have to be root before you can do some stuff. Besides that I am pretty impressed with Ubuntu, but easy installation of stuff is critical, and should be a goal for any project making a application that is not called a beta.
Hmm those web searches are just plain obvious.. should've done them myself. Thanks for the reply.
"Won't the weapons come in handy when rebelling? In fact, isn't that the reason the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, so that the people will be able to overthrow their government?"
Right.. then (mostly) badly trained cilivilians can fight the militairy while being bombed and the enemy has tanks, thats going to work. Even if they win there is a good chance the rebelion will fall apart into smaller groups that just fight eachother. (like often seen in africa)
Meanwhile, before the rebellion, thousands are dying accidentally because monkeys have the right to bear arms.
As guns for personal defense.. doubt many people can keep their guard up all day, and will be cought off guard when they need the gun. (i know, parent post ichigo didnt say anything about that, needed to be added)
Ok i should've been more specific i mean what is the use of going there for the type of outpost they were talking about in the article.
L1 is a good place to start a lunar space elevator? I don't quite believe it, wouldn't the earth get in the way of the line? Where do you know that from, have some links? L1 is between the sun and the earth.
A space elevator from the moon may even not be posible geostationary orbit of the moon is too far, perturbed by earths gravity or even beyond the earth. (though im to lazy now to calculate it)
I read somewhere (maybe in another slashdot story?) that the "livelyness" of a object was defined by the improvement of the chance there will be a similar object if there is the first object to start with.
e xist_before)/P(object_exists)
Livelyness(object)=P(second_object_exists|object_
in words: the "livelyness" of an object is the chance a second exists when another existed before divided by the chance it turns up from no-where.
Hmmm I would fall for that definition.
the chances may vary in different environments with this definition, which is also nice (the flu is alive in our body but dead without)
Good point but looked in wikipedia to check: sievert definition, radiation poisoning
Looks like the Q value will prolly be Q=20. Alpha particles also have Q=20 but those dont really penetrate the skin much and neutrons do. (but very dangerous when they get into you)
A thousandth a a degree sounds a bit little to die of, lets say that a kilo of people is raised 1 C by 10 J (rather high estimate i think) and that a the N value of the tisue is N=0.2 then N*Q*energy=0.2*20*10=40 Sievert/C.
1.0 Sievert corresponds to mild radiation poisoning (according to wiki) that is 1/40=0.025 C quite some more then a thousandth.
In total i still not sure wether if their experiments worked they would have died. I dont think they would, the wikipedia (rather heavily using that) article talks about cold fusion experiments only being in the watt-range, don't think this experiment will have much more power. Also the experimenters will be shielded by equipment round and of the experiment and will not be sitting right next to it that much.
Ok I am offtopic here (but at little pain for community) I got modded over-rated, how? I haven't even been modded before i got modded overrated. It would suck if i got modded just because my opinion of halflife2 is too high, and the other guy didnt agree.
Mod-points aren't meant for giving your opinion, replying is for that, mod points are just for trying to get the "better" posts to stand out more.
in the faq
Btw I admit this post wasn't so great, but choose the reason for modding me down better!
With L4/L5 you mean the Langrange points right? What is the use of going there? There is nothing there right?? You can only hang around there, might aswell be in earth orbit. (which is easier to achieve) Being on the moon is the point right? Seeing what you can gain/do/learn there.
Are you sure that the neutron flux would be high enough to really pose a threat? Sounds to me that the energy produced is not that great so also the amount of fusions.
I think it may not even be fusion but -neutron flux is would be deadly so it cant be fusion- wouldnt be a argument, i think. As other replies said it could be some other nuclear reaction, or bad measuring of the actual power that goes in or out.
I loved that game, the physics element was a huge part of that, immersive apocaliptic feel. Kindah appropriate too, the main character and his friends are physisists..