>> His opinion on the subject is worth no more than mine
I had great expectations of your post when I read this.
>> We have no evidence that we as a species will ever be able to deploy >> enough energy or resources to move beyond this solar system.
We are only a civilization type 0, which means that the energy we use at the moment is really neglectible to our future resources
>> It's quite possible that every civilisation does that and so, except >> for a narrow window of a hundred years or so, is effectively radio silent.
Wrong again, we are not looking for alien intelligence that does not want to be discovered.
>> The belief that there is something special about the human race which >> justifies its long term existence is as "religious" as any theistic >> religion, and no more defensible.
Any species tries to preserve its existance and occupy all the space it is able to get. This is not a religion, it is biology.
>> Jeez, I can store my whole "digital life" on a 1 gig USB key, with room to spare . Jeez, you must have a _very_ interesting life. I can store it all on a 5 1/4 inch floppy
>> it's clear that it's WAY to early to begin speculating
One thing I've learned working in my business is that you must start doing something or nothing gets done at all. Ford didn't halt producing cars until they were zero emission.
The great filter and the drake equation is the same thing:
N = Rstar * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L
As the product of the first 6 multiplicands is thought to be 1, it is sometimes shortened to
N = L
In which N: Number of intelligent civilizations able to communicate within our own galaxy L: Tech lifetime (years) able to send radio waves into interstellar space
In the case of humans L is about 100. So, a first guess for N would be 100 civilizations in our galaxy alone.
Note that we are looking for earthlike planets and aliens that are able to communicate more or less like we are and also willing to do so. We are looking for an alien form of ourselves so to speak.
Then as fermi pointed out, such an advanced civilization could spread exponentially and colonize the galaxy in several millions of years. The paradox then is: if there are so many, were are they? Why are they not here on earth? Why don't we see them?
Television signals do penetrate interstellar space. But we are transmitting them for only 60 years or so and very few planets have seen them yet. An other issue is that these signals turn into noise very quickly. In about 5 lighthours or so, which is the distance to Pluto.
So, although humans and their technology are not really detectable on other planets, it might be that alien eavesdropping probes do exits in our solar system as fermi predicted. Picking up our signals and sending them home. But this is by no means the only solution to the paradox.
I do however not understand why aliens would send signals into space. I know we have, but only on a very small scale for short periods of time and often these transmissions were part of some attention generating events. Barely serious attempts. Or, why would aliens be friendly? An why would they _all_ be friendly? Advanced and deadly weaponry is available to malicious regimes on earth, too.
>> It was easier to construct because it used binary.
Babbage examined all number bases from 2 to 99. He was thorough.
But the way his machine works is suitable for many bases. He used the most convenient one to him. Other machines however are better suited for base two. But it took another step before people started to actually realise that switching swiches and base two make a good pair for doing calculations. Base two and boolean logic were known in the 19th century. As were relais. However, the match between them wasn't made before Shannon wrote his paper a century later.
>> But nevertheless, that guy had _something_ working to show for his work
Babbage, actually, had built a 1/7th model of his Difference Engine 1 (built by Joseph Clement). It is on display in the London Science Museum. He used it to demonstrate sudden changes in expected behaviour. Something only God was thought to be able to do. So he did have something.
Babbage thought of the machine as a public good. That is why he asked for the money. However, there were other businesses represented in the governement that were, for obvious reasons, not interested in that of Babbage at all.
Secondly, Difference Engine No.1 costs to the government were £17,470. But Babbage was not particullarly poor as he inherited a substantial amount of money from his father. He could have build 5 Difference Engines if he wanted to and still live a good life without ever having to work.
>> Now before I sound too damning to Babbage, it wasn't only his fault. >> He got into a conflict with the company actually building it, and that >> was the chief reason why the V1 was never completed.
That's true. In that age of custom made tools it was close to impossible to find another manufacturer as everything whould have been remade then. It would not retrofit.
Babbage would have used something like non restoring revision. At least that's what I think, because for every left or right shift he was planning on doing a single addition or subtraction acting upon the numerator. So, writing a simple program and testing the matter, I conclude:
>> Does it explode?
No.
But it would would have been caught in an endless loop.
As you probably know, Ada suggested the ctrl-break button for that. But then she was terribly beaten by Babbage, locked in a dungeon and forced to write programs for calculating Bernoulli numbers.
>> "Turing complete" is not sufficient to run Linux
A Turing Complete Machine is a Universal Machine. And, as was pointed forward by Turing: 'It can be shown that a single special machine of that type can be made to do the work of all. It could in fact be made to work as a model of any other machine. The special machine may be called the universal machine'. [wiki quote]
>> they'll run into difficulty with the infinite tape.
I think this is blabla. It is like talking about the speed of light and adding every single time that it is a speed that can not be reached. Yeah, we know. However, a machine does not need an infinite memory te be of practical use. Moreover, practical machines are not even turing machines. And they never have been. The fun thing is that Babbage's Analytical Engine resembles a modern computer better than does a Turing machine.
>> Microsoft millionaire Nathan Myhrvold commissioned and paid for the US model
Why have one, if you can have two for only twice the price?
And just wondering... Why is that Doron Swade dude on just all the pictures of the difference engine? When I was young, they used to sell big machines by putting pretty girls on the hood.
People are continuously force fed ridiculous commercial claims and para science and when something interesting emerges from the shallowness of media it is a thing to be afraid of and not to trust. Weird.
I'm thinking... you can create an even better XOR using a differential. It is more difficult, because it involves gears and racks. But then there will be no loss of movement and it won't need springs.
The +5 insightful is due to the link to TED I suppose.
Putting yourself in the center of the universe and not understanding why other people may have different feelings is not insightful in my opinion.
There's an interesting experiment described on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness in which dogs are put in an unpleasant situation that they can not escape from. Only 30% of the dogs where not effected in such a way that they thought the situation could not be escaped in the future. Translated to humans I think this means that the majority of people would become depressed if they were in a hopeless situation without a job, family or friends for extended periods of time. Not just an unfortunate few. I think most people are just lucky that they are fixed in this social framwork of work an relationships that is so important for their wellbeing. They would fall apart when it drops away. Then only the other part of 30% may actually see new opportunities.
From what I understand not all of those machines are turing complete. There's some minimum complexity needed for that. A turing machine is an automaton interfacing a large external memory. In order for it to be turing complete the automaton needs a minimum of 2 internal states (which is in effect a 1-bit memory for internal use) and an external memory that is capable of carrying one trit of information per memory cell (1 out of 3). And although this is (probably) a turing complete system, it is not useful for doing calculations (it is just not efficient).
>>>> Forget 3D. I'd like Disney to revive its traditional 2D hand-drawn animation.
>> They're making one right now: The Princess and the Frog.
Yeah, but what I really meant is more like foot-drawn while balancing plates with one hand and juggling with the other. And also not with princesses and frogs in it.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't understand. They look like pretty decent places to work to me.
?
Is this inclusive or exclusive removing the blood clots after those 90 days?
>> Researchers hope they will eventually create machines that can fly like a butterfly
Or you just buy a wowwee dragonfly in a store for $49,99
>> The guy dismisses the possibility that most civilizations evolve in
>> some direction other than midlessly colonizing every star they can reach.
and
>> Or what if we just got lucky and got a galaxy to ourselves?
Congratulations, you have just cited two of the many, many solutions to the Fermi paradox. Now, use Google to find the other ones.
>> the signals would have degraded to a point where they would be
>> indistinguishable from the normal background noise of the universe
That is true for television. It is possible to transmit radio waves that contain little information over many thousands of lightyears
>> His opinion on the subject is worth no more than mine
I had great expectations of your post when I read this.
>> We have no evidence that we as a species will ever be able to deploy
>> enough energy or resources to move beyond this solar system.
We are only a civilization type 0, which means that the energy we use at the moment is really neglectible to our future resources
>> It's quite possible that every civilisation does that and so, except
>> for a narrow window of a hundred years or so, is effectively radio silent.
Wrong again, we are not looking for alien intelligence that does not want to be discovered.
>> The belief that there is something special about the human race which
>> justifies its long term existence is as "religious" as any theistic
>> religion, and no more defensible.
Any species tries to preserve its existance and occupy all the space it is able to get. This is not a religion, it is biology.
>> Jeez, I can store my whole "digital life" on a 1 gig USB key, with room to spare
.
Jeez, you must have a _very_ interesting life. I can store it all on a 5 1/4 inch floppy
>> it's clear that it's WAY to early to begin speculating
One thing I've learned working in my business is that you must start doing something or nothing gets done at all. Ford didn't halt producing cars until they were zero emission.
>> It is NOT however anything that should be used
>> in an actual probability analysis of ET or ETI.
Fermi wasn't trying to disprove their existence. He raised the question.
>> swallow intellectually weak arguments
The only thing you do is limit these 'intellectually weak arguments' to three, thereby 'solving' the paradox within your own field of view.
The great filter and the drake equation is the same thing:
N = Rstar * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L
As the product of the first 6 multiplicands is thought to be 1, it is sometimes shortened to
N = L
In which
N: Number of intelligent civilizations able to communicate within our own galaxy
L: Tech lifetime (years) able to send radio waves into interstellar space
In the case of humans L is about 100. So, a first guess for N would be 100 civilizations in our galaxy alone.
Note that we are looking for earthlike planets and aliens that are able to communicate more or less like we are and also willing to do so. We are looking for an alien form of ourselves so to speak.
Then as fermi pointed out, such an advanced civilization could spread exponentially and colonize the galaxy in several millions of years. The paradox then is: if there are so many, were are they? Why are they not here on earth? Why don't we see them?
Television signals do penetrate interstellar space. But we are transmitting them for only 60 years or so and very few planets have seen them yet. An other issue is that these signals turn into noise very quickly. In about 5 lighthours or so, which is the distance to Pluto.
So, although humans and their technology are not really detectable on other planets, it might be that alien eavesdropping probes do exits in our solar system as fermi predicted. Picking up our signals and sending them home. But this is by no means the only solution to the paradox.
I do however not understand why aliens would send signals into space. I know we have, but only on a very small scale for short periods of time and often these transmissions were part of some attention generating events. Barely serious attempts. Or, why would aliens be friendly? An why would they _all_ be friendly? Advanced and deadly weaponry is available to malicious regimes on earth, too.
>> then it will be moved to Myhrvold's home
Microsoft is hiding all computers that will do work faster than windows.
>> It was easier to construct because it used binary.
Babbage examined all number bases from 2 to 99. He was thorough.
But the way his machine works is suitable for many bases. He used the most convenient one to him. Other machines however are better suited for base two. But it took another step before people started to actually realise that switching swiches and base two make a good pair for doing calculations. Base two and boolean logic were known in the 19th century. As were relais. However, the match between them wasn't made before Shannon wrote his paper a century later.
>> But nevertheless, that guy had _something_ working to show for his work
Babbage, actually, had built a 1/7th model of his Difference Engine 1 (built by Joseph Clement). It is on display in the London Science Museum. He used it to demonstrate sudden changes in expected behaviour. Something only God was thought to be able to do. So he did have something.
Link: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/ManualSSPL/10303373.aspx
>> asked for more funding
Babbage thought of the machine as a public good. That is why he asked for the money. However, there were other businesses represented in the governement that were, for obvious reasons, not interested in that of Babbage at all.
Secondly, Difference Engine No.1 costs to the government were £17,470. But Babbage was not particullarly poor as he inherited a substantial amount of money from his father. He could have build 5 Difference Engines if he wanted to and still live a good life without ever having to work.
>> Now before I sound too damning to Babbage, it wasn't only his fault.
>> He got into a conflict with the company actually building it, and that
>> was the chief reason why the V1 was never completed.
That's true. In that age of custom made tools it was close to impossible to find another manufacturer as everything whould have been remade then. It would not retrofit.
Babbage would have used something like non restoring revision. At least that's what I think, because for every left or right shift he was planning on doing a single addition or subtraction acting upon the numerator. So, writing a simple program and testing the matter, I conclude:
>> Does it explode?
No.
But it would would have been caught in an endless loop.
As you probably know, Ada suggested the ctrl-break button for that. But then she was terribly beaten by Babbage, locked in a dungeon and forced to write programs for calculating Bernoulli numbers.
>> "Turing complete" is not sufficient to run Linux
A Turing Complete Machine is a Universal Machine. And, as was pointed forward by Turing: 'It can be shown that a single special machine of that type can be made to do the work of all. It could in fact be made to work as a model of any other machine. The special machine may be called the universal machine'. [wiki quote]
So yes, a Turing Complete Machine can run Linux.
>> they'll run into difficulty with the infinite tape.
I think this is blabla. It is like talking about the speed of light and adding every single time that it is a speed that can not be reached. Yeah, we know. However, a machine does not need an infinite memory te be of practical use. Moreover, practical machines are not even turing machines. And they never have been. The fun thing is that Babbage's Analytical Engine resembles a modern computer better than does a Turing machine.
>> Microsoft millionaire Nathan Myhrvold commissioned and paid for the US model
Why have one, if you can have two for only twice the price?
And just wondering... Why is that Doron Swade dude on just all the pictures of the difference engine? When I was young, they used to sell big machines by putting pretty girls on the hood.
People are continuously force fed ridiculous commercial claims and para science and when something interesting emerges from the shallowness of media it is a thing to be afraid of and not to trust. Weird.
I'm thinking... you can create an even better XOR using a differential. It is more difficult, because it involves gears and racks. But then there will be no loss of movement and it won't need springs.
It may not be the most beautiful mechanism, but it is a mechanical XOR
http://imageupload.com/~imageupl/show.php/100618_mechanicalXOR.png.html
The +5 insightful is due to the link to TED I suppose.
Putting yourself in the center of the universe and not understanding why other people may have different feelings is not insightful in my opinion.
There's an interesting experiment described on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness in which dogs are put in an unpleasant situation that they can not escape from. Only 30% of the dogs where not effected in such a way that they thought the situation could not be escaped in the future. Translated to humans I think this means that the majority of people would become depressed if they were in a hopeless situation without a job, family or friends for extended periods of time. Not just an unfortunate few. I think most people are just lucky that they are fixed in this social framwork of work an relationships that is so important for their wellbeing. They would fall apart when it drops away. Then only the other part of 30% may actually see new opportunities.
>> You're saying things like a watch can be created by accident?
No, making a watch involves a designer.
However, the designer can be created by accident.
From what I understand not all of those machines are turing complete. There's some minimum complexity needed for that. A turing machine is an automaton interfacing a large external memory. In order for it to be turing complete the automaton needs a minimum of 2 internal states (which is in effect a 1-bit memory for internal use) and an external memory that is capable of carrying one trit of information per memory cell (1 out of 3). And although this is (probably) a turing complete system, it is not useful for doing calculations (it is just not efficient).
>>>> Forget 3D. I'd like Disney to revive its traditional 2D hand-drawn animation.
>> They're making one right now: The Princess and the Frog.
Yeah, but what I really meant is more like foot-drawn while balancing plates with one hand and juggling with the other. And also not with princesses and frogs in it.
If I take a dump at the toilet, I've created a copy. Though, it is not enough to create another me.