Those international treaties should be used for what they were intended for - wiping bottoms. The current UN space treaty is so stupid and poorly written that its simply a block to humanity having a future in space.
An amusing irony since all the sailing ships were by definition less dense than water.. In reality the larger something that 'flys' in space is, the less dense it will tend to be. Reaction mass rockets are different - when full around 70 to 90% of their mass tends to be fuel - they are pretty useless at combat anyway except as missiles..:)
Stargate has one of the biggest and most annoying technical errors ever in the more 'serious' sci-fi, it uses two versions of physics that are completely totally incompatible. In SG Wormhole gateways like the Stargates allow instant travel anywhere in time or space and Stargate ships use finite speed 'hyperdrive', but wormholes are totally incompatible with a universe where finite speed FTL travel is possible. Star Trek made the same mistake in DS9 - no warp drive and wormholes...:( Long distance wormholes require space on the large to bend - but in a universe with a stable hyperspace this is totally impossible. Also without a stable hyperspace the universe cannot technically exist.
Not entirely nothing. Computers themselves emerged at least partly from AI research. The real problem with the field is that for decades computers simply didn't have the power needed for Strong AI, even today they only barely do and still hit several near vertical walls - especially with reliability. I'm working on a Strong AI project and the heart of this work today is developing a custom hardware & software platform..
BTW : Nuclear fusion - working reactors do now exist, and they are now getting close to break even, and for power gen the technology is now really 20 or 30 years away. The real crime with fusion is lack of funding, poor planning, and inefficient organisation - otherwise we could already have commercial fusion today..
Not sure what they were naming it but AI research dates back at least to the 1930's - for instance in the work of Alan Turing. And a lot earlier if you count the logicians. It was only as the field developed that the search for mechanical intelligence became separated from the field of general computing...
Sadly that's absolutely true. I know because I have been developing a Strong AI project for over 20 years. Strong AI is one area where I would definitely NOT bet on university research, and am pretty sure it will only ever be an outsider like me who succeeds..
Yeah sure the burger flippers should be trembling in their boots. I work on these kind of robots and a few statistics for you. Humanoid robot base systems will cost (minimum) between about $250,000 to $1 million, service and battery costs are going to be about $20,000 to $50,000 per year. Plus each robot will probably need 1 to 2 highly trained technicians on permanent standby and will have en expected mean time between failures (MTBF) of between about 1 day and 1 week. On doing heavy manual labour that MTBF could fall to between 1 minute and 1 hour. The parts replacement schedule alone will cost as much as most human workers.
The people who AI is most likely to replace first are mid and senior level managers, executives, in some cases CEO's, and certain overpaid professionals.. Ok, and computer programmers, clerical workers, maybe some professional drivers, and maybe some soldiers. No robot can compete (on costs) with a human working for $10 or $15 per hour, or $1 per hour in the developing/third world.
Yes but if you're not careful physics and maths can also wonder off deep into the realms of pseudoscience. In physics current theory stops or fails at the edge of the FTL barrier - but if you examine a map of reality 99.9999...% of the universe can only exist as an FTL structure. The FTL region of general relativity predicts either non-existence, or a young universe, or a fixed fate (past and future fixed), and is totally illogical given that 3 dimensions occupy a smaller region than 4. Then there are Super strings, 10 dimensional spaces, super symmetry, the 'holographic' principle (2D universe), circular time, etc, etc... most of them with no proof whatsoever. In the real world maths is ultimately based on physics and not the other way around - and mathematics when analysed is an evolved system - and that makes the whole concept of Pure mathematics essentially a lie and little more than a delusion.. but higher maths wonders off into many strange realms like infinite dimensional spaces, Laplacian operators, non-Euclidian topologies.. and many others.
Just proves what we already knew - that psychology is half science and half pseudoscience. Good thing that so many base their careers and their children's future and the future of the world on it..
An Astrologer "..and they had the nerve to call us pseudoscientists!"
Again it isn’t a photonic drive. RTFA. Conservation of momentum is only violated if you have a closed system - therefore if you get acceleration the system is not closed... (it is supposed to be pushing against fluctuations in the quantum vacuum)
The idea is that the drive works by accelerating fluctuations in the quantum vacuum which acts as the reaction mass. The real question is whether it can ever produce useable amounts of thrust.
If you look at the physics in detail any successful ‘gravity engine’ will either push against space time (Alcubierre warp drive), a zero point field or ether, or something like the quantum vacuum, or maybe use negative mass. There is always a reaction mass somewhere.
Ironically we do have one method that would combat climate change and that we can pretty much predict - have a medium scale global nuclear war. Climate change could easily be so bad that a nuclear war + nuclear winter that say kills 1.5 billion people could net save lives. Climate change and following effects are predicted to kill some 3 billion people. (maybe 1.5 to 5 billion)
The real question is whether climate change is going to happen and how bad it will be... By the time we know the answer there is one thing we can be certain of - it will be far too late to do anything about it...
Sadly multiverse theory is so ridiculous that it easily beats any religion. It beats geo-centrism, and even a disk on a giant turtle is more reasonable.
The only people who believe in an infinite multiverse are those who do not understand infinity or tautology. The tautology paradox says that in an infinite multiverse every word in ever written or said must be true in at least one universe. (Think of Barney the purple dinosaur as being real) The visitor paradox says that in an infinite multiverse we should have visitors from at least one other universe and possibly an infinite number. Put the paradoxes two together and in an infinite multiverse exists we should be looking for Stewie and Brian from Family Guy.
You mean anyone with an IQ over 80? If you cant function with multiple contradictory views then you don't have a hope of understanding or functioning in todays modern society. Newspeak doublethink, double plus good comrades'...
It was when they militarized thee hippies that was the real thing. Hippies turned out to be the ultimate weapon, blew up the whole world. Yup.
The real ultimate weapon in the human arsenal is the human hand - not many weapons made.. or fired.. without using hands. Hands have been killing before we even evolved away from the other monkeys. The other human weapon - the brain - that's killed a fair few as well. - The human body is a well oiled killing machine, and killing and hunting is in every drop of human blood. .
The deep sea trenches are moonscapes, mostly desolate and dead, - and vast - hundreds of thousands of square km. A few radioactive drums are not going to hurt them. The sea already contains about 4 billion tons of radioactive 'natural' uranium.
No actually the real problem is that general relativity is completely wrong, at least at FTL speeds. If you actually build an FTL version of physics it becomes quite clear that an absolute frame and FTL Simultaneity are required for the universe to exist, and general relativity forbids both. The solution that reconciles the two models is to restrict the (physical) dimension of time to quantum scales. This marginally modifies the theory of space time to make dimensional time a notional abstract quantity. The real problem with an FTL physics is that it lets the 'demons' of infinite numbers into the maths, and so requires a completely new approach. Which is why so many physicists hate it so much. (Working in Strong AI I have developed a maths that basically works with infinite numbers and imaginary roots.)
They do as long as they don't propose anything too radical.. like that dark matter might fit very well as tachyonic material. They cant even consider that because it threatens fundamental scripture....
Slashdot Mirror
Those international treaties should be used for what they were intended for - wiping bottoms. The current UN space treaty is so stupid and poorly written that its simply a block to humanity having a future in space.
An amusing irony since all the sailing ships were by definition less dense than water.. In reality the larger something that 'flys' in space is, the less dense it will tend to be. :)
Reaction mass rockets are different - when full around 70 to 90% of their mass tends to be fuel - they are pretty useless at combat anyway except as missiles..
Don't worry about that.. This thing with Stargate has annoyed me for years. Have to admit that I'm actually working on the problem.. :)
Stargate has one of the biggest and most annoying technical errors ever in the more 'serious' sci-fi, it uses two versions of physics that are completely totally incompatible. In SG Wormhole gateways like the Stargates allow instant travel anywhere in time or space and Stargate ships use finite speed 'hyperdrive', but wormholes are totally incompatible with a universe where finite speed FTL travel is possible. :(
Star Trek made the same mistake in DS9 - no warp drive and wormholes...
Long distance wormholes require space on the large to bend - but in a universe with a stable hyperspace this is totally impossible. Also without a stable hyperspace the universe cannot technically exist.
The 'Star Wars Holiday Special' is that little deformed child that the rest of Star Wars keeps locked up in the attic. .
Not entirely nothing. Computers themselves emerged at least partly from AI research. The real problem with the field is that for decades computers simply didn't have the power needed for Strong AI, even today they only barely do and still hit several near vertical walls - especially with reliability. I'm working on a Strong AI project and the heart of this work today is developing a custom hardware & software platform..
BTW : Nuclear fusion - working reactors do now exist, and they are now getting close to break even, and for power gen the technology is now really 20 or 30 years away. The real crime with fusion is lack of funding, poor planning, and inefficient organisation - otherwise we could already have commercial fusion today..
Not sure what they were naming it but AI research dates back at least to the 1930's - for instance in the work of Alan Turing. And a lot earlier if you count the logicians. It was only as the field developed that the search for mechanical intelligence became separated from the field of general computing...
Sadly that's absolutely true. I know because I have been developing a Strong AI project for over 20 years. Strong AI is one area where I would definitely NOT bet on university research, and am pretty sure it will only ever be an outsider like me who succeeds..
Yeah sure the burger flippers should be trembling in their boots. I work on these kind of robots and a few statistics for you. Humanoid robot base systems will cost (minimum) between about $250,000 to $1 million, service and battery costs are going to be about $20,000 to $50,000 per year. Plus each robot will probably need 1 to 2 highly trained technicians on permanent standby and will have en expected mean time between failures (MTBF) of between about 1 day and 1 week. On doing heavy manual labour that MTBF could fall to between 1 minute and 1 hour. The parts replacement schedule alone will cost as much as most human workers.
The people who AI is most likely to replace first are mid and senior level managers, executives, in some cases CEO's, and certain overpaid professionals.. Ok, and computer programmers, clerical workers, maybe some professional drivers, and maybe some soldiers. No robot can compete (on costs) with a human working for $10 or $15 per hour, or $1 per hour in the developing/third world.
Scepticism is always legitimate.. :)
Yes but if you're not careful physics and maths can also wonder off deep into the realms of pseudoscience.
In physics current theory stops or fails at the edge of the FTL barrier - but if you examine a map of reality 99.9999...% of the universe can only exist as an FTL structure. The FTL region of general relativity predicts either non-existence, or a young universe, or a fixed fate (past and future fixed), and is totally illogical given that 3 dimensions occupy a smaller region than 4. Then there are Super strings, 10 dimensional spaces, super symmetry, the 'holographic' principle (2D universe), circular time, etc, etc... most of them with no proof whatsoever.
In the real world maths is ultimately based on physics and not the other way around - and mathematics when analysed is an evolved system - and that makes the whole concept of Pure mathematics essentially a lie and little more than a delusion.. but higher maths wonders off into many strange realms like infinite dimensional spaces, Laplacian operators, non-Euclidian topologies.. and many others.
Just proves what we already knew - that psychology is half science and half pseudoscience. Good thing that so many base their careers and their children's future and the future of the world on it..
An Astrologer "..and they had the nerve to call us pseudoscientists!"
Again it isn’t a photonic drive. RTFA. Conservation of momentum is only violated if you have a closed system - therefore if you get acceleration the system is not closed... (it is supposed to be pushing against fluctuations in the quantum vacuum)
It isn’t any universal field it is gripping but the virtual particles in the vacuum. At least that’s the way I understand it.
The idea is that the drive works by accelerating fluctuations in the quantum vacuum which acts as the reaction mass. The real question is whether it can ever produce useable amounts of thrust.
If you look at the physics in detail any successful ‘gravity engine’ will either push against space time (Alcubierre warp drive), a zero point field or ether, or something like the quantum vacuum, or maybe use negative mass. There is always a reaction mass somewhere.
Ironically we do have one method that would combat climate change and that we can pretty much predict - have a medium scale global nuclear war. Climate change could easily be so bad that a nuclear war + nuclear winter that say kills 1.5 billion people could net save lives. Climate change and following effects are predicted to kill some 3 billion people. (maybe 1.5 to 5 billion)
The real question is whether climate change is going to happen and how bad it will be... By the time we know the answer there is one thing we can be certain of - it will be far too late to do anything about it...
Sadly multiverse theory is so ridiculous that it easily beats any religion. It beats geo-centrism, and even a disk on a giant turtle is more reasonable.
The only people who believe in an infinite multiverse are those who do not understand infinity or tautology. The tautology paradox says that in an infinite multiverse every word in ever written or said must be true in at least one universe. (Think of Barney the purple dinosaur as being real) The visitor paradox says that in an infinite multiverse we should have visitors from at least one other universe and possibly an infinite number. Put the paradoxes two together and in an infinite multiverse exists we should be looking for Stewie and Brian from Family Guy.
Islamic state merely behead people. The recording industry steal our souls - suck them right out - then sell pieces of them back to us at a profit..
You mean anyone with an IQ over 80? If you cant function with multiple contradictory views then you don't have a hope of understanding or functioning in todays modern society. Newspeak doublethink, double plus good comrades'. ..
Just another tiny piece of the creeping bureaucracy suffocating the planet.
It was when they militarized thee hippies that was the real thing. Hippies turned out to be the ultimate weapon, blew up the whole world. Yup.
The real ultimate weapon in the human arsenal is the human hand - not many weapons made .. or fired .. without using hands. Hands have been killing before we even evolved away from the other monkeys. The other human weapon - the brain - that's killed a fair few as well. - The human body is a well oiled killing machine, and killing and hunting is in every drop of human blood. .
The deep sea trenches are moonscapes, mostly desolate and dead, - and vast - hundreds of thousands of square km. A few radioactive drums are not going to hurt them. The sea already contains about 4 billion tons of radioactive 'natural' uranium.
"Christians don't believe in gravity!" - Peter Griffon.
No actually the real problem is that general relativity is completely wrong, at least at FTL speeds. If you actually build an FTL version of physics it becomes quite clear that an absolute frame and FTL Simultaneity are required for the universe to exist, and general relativity forbids both. The solution that reconciles the two models is to restrict the (physical) dimension of time to quantum scales. This marginally modifies the theory of space time to make dimensional time a notional abstract quantity.
The real problem with an FTL physics is that it lets the 'demons' of infinite numbers into the maths, and so requires a completely new approach. Which is why so many physicists hate it so much. (Working in Strong AI I have developed a maths that basically works with infinite numbers and imaginary roots.)
They do as long as they don't propose anything too radical.. like that dark matter might fit very well as tachyonic material. They cant even consider that because it threatens fundamental scripture. ...