Ok, i'll never do that again, i promise. My conversion to geekdom is complete now, i suppose. And as retribution for being a "first post loser", i'd like to contribute this comment, completely on-topic, and relavent.:)
Nuclear power is an amazing tool. Sadly, it is a tool that we simply do not have the technological prowess to to control. Even sadder, this hasn't stopped us.
There is no way to assure safety when dealing with nuclear power, or nuclear concepts as a whole. We're still a long way from "cold fusion", and even then the danger will never be eliminated. We're dealing with the very basic building blocks of reality as we know it - it cannot possibly be safe.
Many countries turn to nuclear power a (relatively) cheap and efficient way to power their land. Many do not have a choice. For countries who do not yet have nuclear power, it has become a sort of "watermark" for the economic evolution of their country. This *has to stop*.
Nuclear power is *not* safe, and it never will be. There are lots of options - the most popular and well-known include Solar and Wind power units. Organizations like the EPSEA and Fraunhoer ISE have been pushing and making immense progress in the solar power field - proving it as a viable source of power. Wind power has been used since the dawn of civilization, and is so prevalent and useful now that companies like Wintec are popping up everywhere.
It's time we realize that nuclear power isn't a safe option. Not for us, not for our children, not for earth. It's that simple.
.------------ - - - | big bad mr. frosty `------------ - - -
Personally, i find the concept of the Internet (or any network) as an organic being quite romantic.:)
We could imagine each small cluster / network of computers as a tree. Each of these clusters can be sub-divided into their core components (the branches, roots, leaves), smaller and smaller until their base particles are attained (morons and electrns:) ).
Likewise, we can expand our conceptual view - a large network (wan) of smaller sub-networks would be as a grove of trees. Through forests, and entire vegetal zones, crossing our imaginary "borders", and expanding across the earth.
The parallel between organic life and network "life" is amazing, n'est pas?:)
.------------ - - - | big bad mr. frosty `------------ - - -
I'm no doctor, but I was under the impression that rejection took place on a far lower level than sentience. I thought rejection was purely chemical in nature...?
That's exactly the point - sentience is, in effect, chemical in nature. "Fooling" the brain, would be chemical in nature. Thus, we could use chemical additives, to alter the natural ones, and eliminate rejection.
neat!:)
.------------ - - - | big bad mr. frosty `------------ - - -
It seems like you would have a LOT of concerns about rejection when implanting something into the brain... I imagine the possibility is there and the technology is almost there, but would even this much of a change in some 'unused' brain portion result in a personality change because of the interference?
Rejection is, of course, always an issue. Luckily, science and medicine have provided work-arounds for us. Even today, we have the ability to place all manner of bits and peices all over the human body, with only small chances of rejection. Now, the brain is an area which we haven't delved (pardon the pun) into as much as, say, hands or feet, but it is only a matter of time before we truly understand why and what makes it reject things.
The brain is designed to accept certain things being in it, and not others. Perhaps by "fooling" the brain into accepting a nanochip, we can avoid the whole rejection problem altogether. Again, our theoretical neuro-chemicals come into play, but it isn't really all that hard to see as a reality...
.------------ - - - | big bad mr. frosty `------------ - - -
Would we? If we ended up with a truly conscious, thinking being, could we simply turn it off? Assuming that we can create such a thing, flipping the power off would be awfully close to killing a human.
I suppose we'd have to re-define what constitutes a "living" organism, and what makes our "ok to slaughter list", and what doesn't. Is the robot smart, on the same level as a cow? Kill it. Is the robot smart on the same level as a Dolphin? Kill it, unless you like it. Is the robot smart on the same level as Einstein? Well, it gets a little more difficult here, doesn't it.
And is raw intelligence the only thing that defines a "killable" creature? Do plants "think" on such radically different terms that we cannot even begin to understand it? Is it ok to kill them?
To kill a robot, would be to shut it off. It isn't much different to kill a human, in the same logic path. If the robot could think, learn, have emotions, have feelings, just like a human.. would it not be alive as well?
Perhaps a slightly more philosophical take on it is required - does a "living" computer have a soul? It would be wrong to kill any creature with a "soul", would it not?
As humans, are we nothing more than sophisticated "living computers"? Ah, the mysteries of life..
.------------ - - - | big bad mr. frosty `------------ - - -
Hmmm... Any idea to what extent you would alter someones personality by minutely adjusting the signal to the brain?
Is it not feasable to utilize neuro-reactive chemicals to force faster synaptic responses, keep the "gates" between synapses open, and boost electric signal in the brain?
I'm sure that "optimizing" the way our brain works would make us very different people, to say the least.
In the same breath, i can't help but think of the possibilities of integrating a peice of incredibly fast, single-task peice of hardware into a "slow" or "underdeveloped" portion of the brain, and improving it (the brain). I'm not talking about replacing the entirety of the pink mush, but rather, improving where improvement seems to be needed.
Furthermore, it stands to reason that by using these "neuro-additives", in conjunction with the hardware, we could open the pathways to otherwise under-used or completely un-used portions of the brain, tapping their (currently unexplored) abilities.
Could the next stage of Human evolution be the amalgamation of man and machine? It is the great question of all things Sci-Fi, but is it really that far from the truth?
.------------ - - - | big bad mr. frosty `------------ - - -
In regards to input, we could scrap the whole keyboard / mouse interface altogether. Scientists have been working, for quite some time now, on a brain -> computer interface, to pass commands from thought to execution. The first test subject, a mentally challenged young man, seems to be working out well. Obviously, we're years away from being able to write code just by thinking about it, but, the possibility exists.
It will be interesting to see who lines up when we create computers the size of nanochips, which are implanted behind our eyeballs, display images directly to our retinas, and have wireless highspeed connectivity. Multiplayer Quake, anyone?
.------------ - - - | big bad mr. frosty `------------ - - -
This new law raises intersting topic for debate. Here, we see that the government has banned the production and distribution of "something" that has, traditionally, been used for malicious and/or damaging purposes. Fairly straightforward.
However, upon closer inspection, we find an inherant flaw - what constitues the now "illegal" viral code? A somewhat sesible definition of a virus, can be found at "whatis.com/virus.htm". The key point in any defintition seems to be : "A virus is a piece of programming code inserted into other programming to cause some unexpected and, for the victim, usually undesirable event.". Again, decent enough.
However, what about "software patches" ? Upgrade packs, the (in)famous Microsoft "Service Packs", and the like? Generally speaking, the user doesn't really have any clue how, or what, these are doing - beyond "fixing broken things". These patches insert their code into the parent program, usually modify the behaviour of the program in some way, and sometimes result unexpected results (option removed, feature added, etc..). That's all the criteria of a virus, right there. Should these be illegal also?
Back the the first point - we see the government trying to protect its people by banning "something" - specifically, in this case, viral code. Why this, and not many of the other "things" that are (primarly) harmful? The obvious selection - firearms. Why not ban guns? Or biological weapons facilities (most industrialized "1st world" companies have them, in some capacity)?
If we'd like to get a little paranoid/"Evil Future Governement" about it, we could go as far as to speculate that the government can (and will) start to ban all manner of things it considers "bad for you". Meat? Cow Milk? Free Speech? Ah, the wonders of Totalitarian government.
By now, many of you might be thinking "man, this isn't the x-files, our government won't go THAT far". Yes, you're probably right.. of course, you don't code viruses... .------------ - - - | big bad mr. frosty `------------ - - -
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, i'll never do that again, i promise. My conversion to geekdom is complete now, i suppose. And as retribution for being a "first post loser", i'd like to contribute this comment, completely on-topic, and relavent. :)
Nuclear power is an amazing tool. Sadly, it is a tool that we simply do not have the technological prowess to to control. Even sadder, this hasn't stopped us.
There is no way to assure safety when dealing with nuclear power, or nuclear concepts as a whole. We're still a long way from "cold fusion", and even then the danger will never be eliminated. We're dealing with the very basic building blocks of reality as we know it - it cannot possibly be safe.
Many countries turn to nuclear power a (relatively) cheap and efficient way to power their land. Many do not have a choice. For countries who do not yet have nuclear power, it has become a sort of "watermark" for the economic evolution of their country. This *has to stop*.
Nuclear power is *not* safe, and it never will be. There are lots of options - the most popular and well-known include Solar and Wind power units. Organizations like the EPSEA and Fraunhoer ISE have been pushing and making immense progress in the solar power field - proving it as a viable source of power. Wind power has been used since the dawn of civilization, and is so prevalent and useful now that companies like Wintec are popping up everywhere.
It's time we realize that nuclear power isn't a safe option. Not for us, not for our children, not for earth. It's that simple.
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
Personally, i find the concept of the Internet (or any network) as an organic being quite romantic. :)
:) ).
:)
We could imagine each small cluster / network of computers as a tree. Each of these clusters can be sub-divided into their core components (the branches, roots, leaves), smaller and smaller until their base particles are attained (morons and electrns
Likewise, we can expand our conceptual view - a large network (wan) of smaller sub-networks would be as a grove of trees. Through forests, and entire vegetal zones, crossing our imaginary "borders", and expanding across the earth.
The parallel between organic life and network "life" is amazing, n'est pas?
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
I'm no doctor, but I was under the impression that rejection took place on a far lower level than sentience. I thought rejection was purely chemical in nature...?
:)
That's exactly the point - sentience is, in effect, chemical in nature. "Fooling" the brain, would be chemical in nature. Thus, we could use chemical additives, to alter the natural ones, and eliminate rejection.
neat!
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
It seems like you would have a LOT of concerns about rejection when implanting something into the brain... I imagine the possibility is there and the technology is almost there, but would even this much of a change in some 'unused' brain portion result in a personality change because of the interference?
Rejection is, of course, always an issue. Luckily, science and medicine have provided work-arounds for us. Even today, we have the ability to place all manner of bits and peices all over the human body, with only small chances of rejection. Now, the brain is an area which we haven't delved (pardon the pun) into as much as, say, hands or feet, but it is only a matter of time before we truly understand why and what makes it reject things.
The brain is designed to accept certain things being in it, and not others. Perhaps by "fooling" the brain into accepting a nanochip, we can avoid the whole rejection problem altogether. Again, our theoretical neuro-chemicals come into play, but it isn't really all that hard to see as a reality...
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
Would we? If we ended up with a truly conscious, thinking being, could we simply turn it off? Assuming that we can create such a thing, flipping the power off would be awfully close to killing a human.
I suppose we'd have to re-define what constitutes a "living" organism, and what makes our "ok to slaughter list", and what doesn't. Is the robot smart, on the same level as a cow? Kill it. Is the robot smart on the same level as a Dolphin? Kill it, unless you like it. Is the robot smart on the same level as Einstein? Well, it gets a little more difficult here, doesn't it.
And is raw intelligence the only thing that defines a "killable" creature? Do plants "think" on such radically different terms that we cannot even begin to understand it? Is it ok to kill them?
To kill a robot, would be to shut it off. It isn't much different to kill a human, in the same logic path. If the robot could think, learn, have emotions, have feelings, just like a human.. would it not be alive as well?
Perhaps a slightly more philosophical take on it is required - does a "living" computer have a soul? It would be wrong to kill any creature with a "soul", would it not?
As humans, are we nothing more than sophisticated "living computers"? Ah, the mysteries of life..
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
Hmmm... Any idea to what extent you would alter someones personality by minutely adjusting the signal to the brain?
Is it not feasable to utilize neuro-reactive chemicals to force faster synaptic responses, keep the "gates" between synapses open, and boost electric signal in the brain?
I'm sure that "optimizing" the way our brain works would make us very different people, to say the least.
In the same breath, i can't help but think of the possibilities of integrating a peice of incredibly fast, single-task peice of hardware into a "slow" or "underdeveloped" portion of the brain, and improving it (the brain). I'm not talking about replacing the entirety of the pink mush, but rather, improving where improvement seems to be needed.
Furthermore, it stands to reason that by using these "neuro-additives", in conjunction with the hardware, we could open the pathways to otherwise under-used or completely un-used portions of the brain, tapping their (currently unexplored) abilities.
Could the next stage of Human evolution be the amalgamation of man and machine? It is the great question of all things Sci-Fi, but is it really that far from the truth?
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
In regards to input, we could scrap the whole keyboard / mouse interface altogether. Scientists have been working, for quite some time now, on a brain -> computer interface, to pass commands from thought to execution. The first test subject, a mentally challenged young man, seems to be working out well. Obviously, we're years away from being able to write code just by thinking about it, but, the possibility exists.
It will be interesting to see who lines up when we create computers the size of nanochips, which are implanted behind our eyeballs, display images directly to our retinas, and have wireless highspeed connectivity. Multiplayer Quake, anyone?
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
This new law raises intersting topic for debate. Here, we see that the government has banned the production and distribution of "something" that has, traditionally, been used for malicious and/or damaging purposes. Fairly straightforward.
However, upon closer inspection, we find an inherant flaw - what constitues the now "illegal" viral code? A somewhat sesible definition of a virus, can be found at "whatis.com/virus.htm". The key point in any defintition seems to be : "A virus is a piece of programming code inserted into other programming to cause some unexpected and, for the victim, usually undesirable event.". Again, decent enough.
However, what about "software patches" ? Upgrade packs, the (in)famous Microsoft "Service Packs", and the like? Generally speaking, the user doesn't really have any clue how, or what, these are doing - beyond "fixing broken things". These patches insert their code into the parent program, usually modify the behaviour of the program in some way, and sometimes result unexpected results (option removed, feature added, etc..). That's all the criteria of a virus, right there. Should these be illegal also?
Back the the first point - we see the government trying to protect its people by banning "something" - specifically, in this case, viral code. Why this, and not many of the other "things" that are (primarly) harmful? The obvious selection - firearms. Why not ban guns? Or biological weapons facilities (most industrialized "1st world" companies have them, in some capacity)?
If we'd like to get a little paranoid/"Evil Future Governement" about it, we could go as far as to speculate that the government can (and will) start to ban all manner of things it considers "bad for you". Meat? Cow Milk? Free Speech? Ah, the wonders of Totalitarian government.
By now, many of you might be thinking "man, this isn't the x-files, our government won't go THAT far". Yes, you're probably right.. of course, you don't code viruses...
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -