Suppose that we are wise enough to learn and know and yet not wise enough to control our learning and knoweldge, so that we use it to destroy ourselves? Even if that is so, knowledge remains better than ignorance. It is better to know even if the knowledge endures only for the moment that comes before destruction than to gain eternal life at the price of a dull and swinish lack of comprehension of a universe that swirls unseen before us in all its wonder. That was the choice of Achilles, and it is mine, too. -Isaac Asimov
Not only that, but in another short story of his (I forget the name) a man is killed due to the tidal forces of a stray black hole. The hole itself did not touch a single atom in his body, yet the gravitational forces it caused as it passed through his vital organs pulverized them.
Science fiction has evolved, hasn't it? Would someone who grew up on Verne and Wells recognize Asimov or Niven? But the interesting thing I find about this is that a significant amount of what Jules Verne (and other writers of the time) predicted in their works was outlandish at the time, but actually became the commonplace today. Science fiction is the only genre that has to update itself with the technology, and that has made a huge difference in the evolution of the genre as a whole.
So it was before. But now we know the Earth was made from a swirl of dust and rocks around the newly-born Sun. So why do we still cling to this archaic idea of a supreme being who created the Earth? Some would say I was wrong, the evidence was wrong, and God created the Earth, man, and everything in a week. Some would say God's hand can be seen in the force of gravity. Some would say God created the laws of physics and let the world run by them. We'll see when we die, and by then the point will be moot.
Paradox
There is no conclusive evidence of life after death; but there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?
This, I think, is an excellent idea. Imagine the possibilities... Greatly reduced casualties. Reduced defense costs (a $10,000 computer rather than a million-dollar airplane...). Viruses rather than nukes. And I bet recruitment would be easier, too... Who wouldn't want to get paid for hacking? I hope the US continues to use this well into the future.
Last time I checked, the Internet was a place to communicate and exchange ideas. Now, I, personally, am completely against hate groups and the such, but they still have a right to express their opinion, no matter how bigoted it may be. But where does anybody get the right to say who can name their site what? If it's a problem of decency for, say, AOL, or protecting children, then the individual ISPs providing those families with service can choose to not allow access to those sites. But the government has no right to do that. Let the parents and the ISPs decide what's proper.
This is idiocy. Why can't Don Henley just go out and get donhenley.com or something equally descriptive? I mean, if Bob Henley went out and got donhenley.com and used it to set up an anti-Don page, that would make sense to sue... I can't count the number of times I've gone to slashdot.com instead of slashdot.org, or onion.com rather than theonion.com... Luckily, I catch on quick. If some person looks for Don Henley at henley.com and finds Bob Henley's web page, then he'll try something else. Like Mr. Link said, that's what search engines are for. But if the registration is legitimate and makes sense, why force little guys to give up their names so some famous guy had it? What if Will Simth sued over smith.com? Would that make sense?
Here's how I see the history of humankind's understanding of God and science:
*Early humans saw the world around them. They realized that they could not control it. Humans hate not having control, so they created God(s) in their own image. Transfer of characteristics: God controls everything. We look like God. Hence: We have some aspect of control over everything. Faulty reasoning, but it made us feel a little more secure in an insecure world.
*Advent of mathematical and scientific understanding. We actually understand certain simple aspects of the world. Anything we don't understand, or can't explain, it was an "act of God." Another characteristic of humans: We hate to admit we don't know something. So "God works in mysterious ways."
*Today: Vast understanding of the way the world works. We know that if we throw something up, it'll come down as long as we throw it low enough. We know that when we deprive a flame of oxygen, it'll go out. We know that if we add HCl to NaOH, we'll get water, salt, and some heat. So why do we need God? God is there to give people a reason to think that the world is right. God is there because our parents and our rabbis said so. God is there because he's God.
I can tell you one thing, though: If God really does exist, he's going to have to conform to the laws of physics just like the rest of us.
The trick to the "museums" from Mote was the Motie's knowledge that their civilization would collapse every couple millennia due to overpopulation, so they tried to start it up again as quickly as possible. The first step, then, to preventing/lessening the destruction of civilization as we know it is to seriously recognize that it's a problem and that we need to do something about it. For example: If we're worried about nuclear war, we start up a facility in the place we judge least likely to be nuked, and possibly some other places, and set up a sort of biodome covered with about an inch of lead. In our case, as far as I can tell, we need not just worry about the destruction of society, but of life as we know it. Of course, the humans tending (and presumably living in) the biodomes would need to know how to reseed the Earth in the event of mass destruction. If anyone's ever read the Homecoming series by Orson Scott Card, what we need is someone to take the role of Shedemai (from the fifth book, Earthborn). Gardener of Earth... We definitely need to put some technology in the domes, too, or some similar structure. Seems to me, though, like human survival's a bit more important than the salvation of art.
I absolutely loved Clash of the Titans... despite the acting and the effects, I thought it had a genuinely good story. I'm just waiting for someone to go ahead and do a Greek mythology movie right, with good CGI for the monsters and such, good acting, AND being true to the story. Knowing the myths, though, that's going to come pretty close to earning it an R...
But I really agree about the character development. I've never read The Princess Bride (I've been meaning to), but sounds like the director (writer?) did an amazing job of converting the description. And superstitions and spirits like that were certainly present, if not true, in the D&D world. Not to mention the fact that heritage was verrry important. If this is done right, then it will be amazing. If it's done wrong, I'm still going, just to see the big draconic battle scene....
The first obvious clue that it was a hoax, I think, was when they stated that they'd be replacing the mail system because it was written by an open homosexual. Personally, I was not aware that Christians were so blatant in their prejudice against those of different orientation...
And for the crackers... I suppose you'd be able to use it to get in the backdoor of some systems? And what about virus protection? "Protect your computer from Internet-transmitted diseases. Put a Condom on your Penix." Hmmm... Red Hat Penix... that should be interesting.
Given all of this technology we currently have, and the research being done in direct brain links to things like robotic arms, I'm guessing that, given maybe ten to twenty years and enough funding, we will be able to take a quadriplegic's head and attach it to a prosthetic body... or am I getting ahead of myself? But this will most likely mean a huge shift in the way medical care is handled, period. Doctors may need a degree in engineering... or each hospital will have a team of biomechanics to work on the robotic bodies. A good book to read that sort of deals with this subject (fictionally) is The Bicentenial Man, by Isaac Asimov. Also see the Onion's article on Stephen Hawking for a more humorous look at the technology.
The fact that we can't come up with a satisfactory response to that question itself answers it. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I recently bought Illuminati Deluxe for a party... While reading through the rules, I found a section on cheating. It essentially said that they condoned, and in fact approved of, cheating. This is, of course, in the true spirit of the game. With regards to the Slashdot card, perhaps it could be an effect card that vastly increases the power of one of a couple groups (I haven't seen Y2K yet, but I bet they have at least a couple groups representing nerds...). Or use that as a special power for a group. I'll think of more uses, and post them later... Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone see the irony in the fact that IKONOS' first image happened to be of Washington? I have this sense of foreboding...
Suppose that we are wise enough to learn and know and yet not wise enough to control our learning and knoweldge, so that we use it to destroy ourselves? Even if that is so, knowledge remains better than ignorance. It is better to know even if the knowledge endures only for the moment that comes before destruction than to gain eternal life at the price of a dull and swinish lack of comprehension of a universe that swirls unseen before us in all its wonder. That was the choice of Achilles, and it is mine, too.
-Isaac Asimov
Not only that, but in another short story of his (I forget the name) a man is killed due to the tidal forces of a stray black hole. The hole itself did not touch a single atom in his body, yet the gravitational forces it caused as it passed through his vital organs pulverized them.
Sounds like a feature of Jesux...
Science fiction has evolved, hasn't it? Would someone who grew up on Verne and Wells recognize Asimov or Niven? But the interesting thing I find about this is that a significant amount of what Jules Verne (and other writers of the time) predicted in their works was outlandish at the time, but actually became the commonplace today. Science fiction is the only genre that has to update itself with the technology, and that has made a huge difference in the evolution of the genre as a whole.
Paradox
There is no conclusive evidence of life after death; but there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?
This, I think, is an excellent idea. Imagine the possibilities... Greatly reduced casualties. Reduced defense costs (a $10,000 computer rather than a million-dollar airplane...). Viruses rather than nukes. And I bet recruitment would be easier, too... Who wouldn't want to get paid for hacking?
I hope the US continues to use this well into the future.
Last time I checked, the Internet was a place to communicate and exchange ideas. Now, I, personally, am completely against hate groups and the such, but they still have a right to express their opinion, no matter how bigoted it may be. But where does anybody get the right to say who can name their site what? If it's a problem of decency for, say, AOL, or protecting children, then the individual ISPs providing those families with service can choose to not allow access to those sites. But the government has no right to do that. Let the parents and the ISPs decide what's proper.
This is idiocy. Why can't Don Henley just go out and get donhenley.com or something equally descriptive? I mean, if Bob Henley went out and got donhenley.com and used it to set up an anti-Don page, that would make sense to sue...
I can't count the number of times I've gone to slashdot.com instead of slashdot.org, or onion.com rather than theonion.com... Luckily, I catch on quick. If some person looks for Don Henley at henley.com and finds Bob Henley's web page, then he'll try something else. Like Mr. Link said, that's what search engines are for. But if the registration is legitimate and makes sense, why force little guys to give up their names so some famous guy had it? What if Will Simth sued over smith.com? Would that make sense?
Here's how I see the history of humankind's understanding of God and science:
*Early humans saw the world around them. They realized that they could not control it. Humans hate not having control, so they created God(s) in their own image. Transfer of characteristics: God controls everything. We look like God. Hence: We have some aspect of control over everything. Faulty reasoning, but it made us feel a little more secure in an insecure world.
*Advent of mathematical and scientific understanding. We actually understand certain simple aspects of the world. Anything we don't understand, or can't explain, it was an "act of God." Another characteristic of humans: We hate to admit we don't know something. So "God works in mysterious ways."
*Today: Vast understanding of the way the world works. We know that if we throw something up, it'll come down as long as we throw it low enough. We know that when we deprive a flame of oxygen, it'll go out. We know that if we add HCl to NaOH, we'll get water, salt, and some heat. So why do we need God?
God is there to give people a reason to think that the world is right. God is there because our parents and our rabbis said so. God is there because he's God.
I can tell you one thing, though: If God really does exist, he's going to have to conform to the laws of physics just like the rest of us.
The trick to the "museums" from Mote was the Motie's knowledge that their civilization would collapse every couple millennia due to overpopulation, so they tried to start it up again as quickly as possible. The first step, then, to preventing/lessening the destruction of civilization as we know it is to seriously recognize that it's a problem and that we need to do something about it.
For example: If we're worried about nuclear war, we start up a facility in the place we judge least likely to be nuked, and possibly some other places, and set up a sort of biodome covered with about an inch of lead. In our case, as far as I can tell, we need not just worry about the destruction of society, but of life as we know it.
Of course, the humans tending (and presumably living in) the biodomes would need to know how to reseed the Earth in the event of mass destruction. If anyone's ever read the Homecoming series by Orson Scott Card, what we need is someone to take the role of Shedemai (from the fifth book, Earthborn). Gardener of Earth...
We definitely need to put some technology in the domes, too, or some similar structure. Seems to me, though, like human survival's a bit more important than the salvation of art.
Paradox
I absolutely loved Clash of the Titans... despite the acting and the effects, I thought it had a genuinely good story. I'm just waiting for someone to go ahead and do a Greek mythology movie right, with good CGI for the monsters and such, good acting, AND being true to the story. Knowing the myths, though, that's going to come pretty close to earning it an R...
But I really agree about the character development. I've never read The Princess Bride (I've been meaning to), but sounds like the director (writer?) did an amazing job of converting the description. And superstitions and spirits like that were certainly present, if not true, in the D&D world. Not to mention the fact that heritage was verrry important. If this is done right, then it will be amazing. If it's done wrong, I'm still going, just to see the big draconic battle scene....
The 13th Paradox
The first obvious clue that it was a hoax, I think, was when they stated that they'd be replacing the mail system because it was written by an open homosexual. Personally, I was not aware that Christians were so blatant in their prejudice against those of different orientation...
Well, do you think they're going to have people call it "JEE-Sucks"?
And for the crackers... I suppose you'd be able to use it to get in the backdoor of some systems?
And what about virus protection? "Protect your computer from Internet-transmitted diseases. Put a Condom on your Penix."
Hmmm... Red Hat Penix... that should be interesting.
Given all of this technology we currently have, and the research being done in direct brain links to things like robotic arms, I'm guessing that, given maybe ten to twenty years and enough funding, we will be able to take a quadriplegic's head and attach it to a prosthetic body... or am I getting ahead of myself?
But this will most likely mean a huge shift in the way medical care is handled, period. Doctors may need a degree in engineering... or each hospital will have a team of biomechanics to work on the robotic bodies.
A good book to read that sort of deals with this subject (fictionally) is The Bicentenial Man, by Isaac Asimov.
Also see the Onion's article on Stephen Hawking for a more humorous look at the technology.
The fact that we can't come up with a satisfactory response to that question itself answers it.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I recently bought Illuminati Deluxe for a party... While reading through the rules, I found a section on cheating. It essentially said that they condoned, and in fact approved of, cheating. This is, of course, in the true spirit of the game. With regards to the Slashdot card, perhaps it could be an effect card that vastly increases the power of one of a couple groups (I haven't seen Y2K yet, but I bet they have at least a couple groups representing nerds...). Or use that as a special power for a group. I'll think of more uses, and post them later...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.