What if someone creates a quantum physics emulator, and then runs genetic algorithms against it to find a useful way to communicate faster than light?
Just because no human has figured it out doesn't mean it isn't possible. Maybe with enough analytical power, AI can find a solution. There may be a round-about path that nobody has spotted yet.
I suppose one problem with this is that there has to be some intermediate "success" to provide feedback to the GA system in order to evolve against. If it's all-or-nothing, it will probably get stuck at "nothing". Communicating the state of the entangled partner is one possible intermediate success, but is there anything between that and "real" communication?
non-profits still have to have revenue in order to pay employees
How about putting non-intrusive ads on the right-half of error pages, such as "page not found" or "network connection not available" pages? (Thanks the unreliability of typical telecoms, the 2nd is quite common.)
I have no problem with that as long as they don't interfere with regular operation, don't hog bandwidth, and it's clear they are ads.
I would suggest they manage any graphical ads through organization servers instead of link to a sponsor's own server, to reduce riff-raff. They'd probably have to cache some ads for the case the network connection is down.
Too bad. I hate to see the main browsers controlled by conglomerates with records of being anti-competitive and playing games with privacy.
Firefox could clean up its UI act and market itself as the anti-corporate choice. People might care about it again. Tap into the vibrant Bernie Sanders crowd.
hysteria-producing Slashdot article about how AIs/robots/H1Bs/women will replace our jobs. I'll believe it when I see it.
Hey, you just described one of my top p0rn fantasies!
Seriously, though, the middle class has been stagnant while the 1% growing in proportion approximately starting around the time offshoring and automation really took off. Coincidence?
True, but historical patterns are not necessarily absolute "laws". A pattern that may last 200 years may not last 500, especially since the level of technology is vastly higher than in the past.
Back then, we could usually see where the new jobs were as agriculture jobs declined. I don't see the equivalent today. The number of people needed to manage the automation is a much smaller proportion than the people required without the automation.
Plus, a lot of technical management can be outsourced to low-wage countries, thanks to the internet . There are smart people in Timbuktu also.
The lower-skill end gets slapped by automation, and the higher-end skill gets slapped by offshoring. What's left in the US seems to be a bunch of marketing suits debating whether to photoshop Kardashian's ass in the next ad.
I almost wish I had the bullshitting skills to join their ranks, but I like the technical side of things too much to take the PHB pill (Dilbert + Matrix reference, for you newbies).
If we didn't have to spend so much on military machines, a nuclear-fueled star-ship that goes say 5% the speed of light is not that far-fetched.
Still, 800+ years is rather far away from our perspective (slowing down is not trivial at those speeds).
I wonder what kind of unmanned probes we could have by now if we didn't have to spend it on a military? If you don't have to worry about life-support and could afford redundant probes to deal with the risk of high-speeds, those things could be really fast, and we perhaps could be getting close-up data from the nearest star systems by now.
If only we could fricken get along. This is why you humans can't have nice things.
While I agree that outright extinction is unlikely with today's technology, civilization (cities) as we know it could end. The terrible events may make the survivors tribal, aggressive, and protective such that civilization never returns to normal. The human population of Earth could be reduced to a few thousand battling each other in a Mad Max dark age.
And in the future, it may be possible to create a microbe or virus (set) that does wipe out every last human, or at least a large enough percent to leave us with insufficient genetic variety to survive. There are probably flaws or vulnerabilities in the generic code of probably every human.
Maybe no one flaw/gap will take out everybody, but a set of pathogens that exploits flaws in the vast majority of the population could be enough put us over the edge. Most germ doomsday scenarios focus on a single germ. When tech is advanced enough, a sinister group may be able to manufacture 1,000 or so diff germs, targeting various lineages.
If you can hack computers, you can hack DNA.
Thus, while I agree that current technology is not sufficient to make us extinct, future technology could that's not so far-fetched in terms of breakthroughs.
In fact, statistically we ARE probably doomed, population-wise. Most likely we are roughly in the middle of humanity's reign: very roughly half of all humans came before us and roughly half will come after. Thus, in the future, only about 60 billion will come after us, since 60 billion came before. (Within about an order of magnitude.) It's unlikely we are at the very beginning or very end of the "curve".
It's possible we may eventually put our brains into digital emulation and stop biologically reproducing (on a large scale). This is probably the best case scenario to explain the Doomsday Argument without humanity outright ending as individuals.
It seems kind of odd that we can "peer into the future" with statistics alone, but that indeed seems to be the case. Statistics is a kind of fuzzy telescope into the future.
If humans spread into the universe and multiplied into the trillions, it's very unlikely we ourselves just happen to be the very early pioneers. We are more likely to be an "average" sample from roughly the middle.
My favorite (for being the most interesting): it could be that all advanced and ultrarational civilizations end up considering the universe, their existence (and growth) to be pointless.
It's possible they are kicking back, smoking doobies, and letting robots take care of them. Doobie Theory.
I personally believe the "zoo theory" is more likely. Advanced civilization(s) know we are here, but otherwise hide from us and perhaps protect us from aggressors because they find us quaint, cute, and/or interesting. Oddly, this best matches "UFO theory".
There is indeed the unknown factor of whether there is something to human nature in the decision-making process that causes the final decision-maker in the chain to be hesitant.
One could argue there is something to human nature that makes most hesitant under such circumstances.
However, my observation of humanity is that each person varies widely, and that different people will react differently. While I agree it's not unreasonable that the majority could be hesitant, it would take a hesitancy rate of about 90% or higher to keep those 15 or so close calls from not likely causing ww3.
There is no definitive study on the issue such that it's opinion either way, but I truly doubt the hesitancy rate is close to 90%. There's just too many aggressive type-A alpha-male types out there in the military command chains.
Look what George W. did to Iraq on flimsy evidence. There's not shortage stupid gamblers in charge, including those in Congress who authorized it.
What if W were in the place of JFK during the Cuban crisis when the generals were urging him to "use it or lose it, you won't get a second chance if they launch first" (paraphrased)?
We would be wiped out OR not even born because there would be too few people giving birth during a nuclear winter, and possibly a direct war afterward.
I'm not talking about outright extinction, just massive population loss.
Let's say each of the 15 or so close-calls had a 1/3 chance of triggering WW3. After only about 7 of such occurrences the chance of WW3 happening is about 90%. Even higher if we plug in all 15.
BUT, ww3 didn't happen. Yet it should have. If it had, most of us would be wiped out and wouldn't be here speculating on why it didn't happen. Thus, I suspect anthropic-principle-like influences.
There were many close calls during the cold war, roughly 10 to 20 serious ones, depending on how you score them.
I suspect we are still here out of a kind of anthropic principle luck: if those close calls triggered WW3, the vast majority of us wouldn't be here pondering our good luck. Dead people don't ponder.
Slashdot Mirror
100T? That seems much higher than other estimates:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org...
Careful, if you hack the universe to find FTL communication, the owners of our universe may just pull the plug on the whole thing.
Seems bullshit travels faster than light
What if someone creates a quantum physics emulator, and then runs genetic algorithms against it to find a useful way to communicate faster than light?
Just because no human has figured it out doesn't mean it isn't possible. Maybe with enough analytical power, AI can find a solution. There may be a round-about path that nobody has spotted yet.
I suppose one problem with this is that there has to be some intermediate "success" to provide feedback to the GA system in order to evolve against. If it's all-or-nothing, it will probably get stuck at "nothing". Communicating the state of the entangled partner is one possible intermediate success, but is there anything between that and "real" communication?
Not as bad as DeLorean: it requires Mr. Fusion, which hasn't even been invented yet.
They did, but we haven't figured out how to cash in Quatloo's yet. Trump may be a decent negotiator, but sometimes skips key details.
How about putting non-intrusive ads on the right-half of error pages, such as "page not found" or "network connection not available" pages? (Thanks the unreliability of typical telecoms, the 2nd is quite common.)
I have no problem with that as long as they don't interfere with regular operation, don't hog bandwidth, and it's clear they are ads.
I would suggest they manage any graphical ads through organization servers instead of link to a sponsor's own server, to reduce riff-raff. They'd probably have to cache some ads for the case the network connection is down.
Tips for (legally) screwing with that Pocket gizmo to give Mozilla headaches? Let's punish stupidity.
Too bad. I hate to see the main browsers controlled by conglomerates with records of being anti-competitive and playing games with privacy.
Firefox could clean up its UI act and market itself as the anti-corporate choice. People might care about it again. Tap into the vibrant Bernie Sanders crowd.
So that's what those saucer people installed up my....um, port.
Hey, you just described one of my top p0rn fantasies!
Seriously, though, the middle class has been stagnant while the 1% growing in proportion approximately starting around the time offshoring and automation really took off. Coincidence?
True, but historical patterns are not necessarily absolute "laws". A pattern that may last 200 years may not last 500, especially since the level of technology is vastly higher than in the past.
Back then, we could usually see where the new jobs were as agriculture jobs declined. I don't see the equivalent today. The number of people needed to manage the automation is a much smaller proportion than the people required without the automation.
Plus, a lot of technical management can be outsourced to low-wage countries, thanks to the internet . There are smart people in Timbuktu also.
The lower-skill end gets slapped by automation, and the higher-end skill gets slapped by offshoring. What's left in the US seems to be a bunch of marketing suits debating whether to photoshop Kardashian's ass in the next ad.
I almost wish I had the bullshitting skills to join their ranks, but I like the technical side of things too much to take the PHB pill (Dilbert + Matrix reference, for you newbies).
We're just grumbly neckbeards: if you are not the right kind nerd, we flame
Send politicians: no matter what happens, it's a win/win.
If we didn't have to spend so much on military machines, a nuclear-fueled star-ship that goes say 5% the speed of light is not that far-fetched.
Still, 800+ years is rather far away from our perspective (slowing down is not trivial at those speeds).
I wonder what kind of unmanned probes we could have by now if we didn't have to spend it on a military? If you don't have to worry about life-support and could afford redundant probes to deal with the risk of high-speeds, those things could be really fast, and we perhaps could be getting close-up data from the nearest star systems by now.
If only we could fricken get along. This is why you humans can't have nice things.
It would indeed be a strange irony if global warming saved us from a nuclear winter by counter-acting it.
However, I'd hate to be around the right-wingers afterwards: "I told you not to worry about global warming; God knows what he's doing."
I think I'd rather perish than listen to that gloating. Their dumb luck would make them even crazier.
While I agree that outright extinction is unlikely with today's technology, civilization (cities) as we know it could end. The terrible events may make the survivors tribal, aggressive, and protective such that civilization never returns to normal. The human population of Earth could be reduced to a few thousand battling each other in a Mad Max dark age.
And in the future, it may be possible to create a microbe or virus (set) that does wipe out every last human, or at least a large enough percent to leave us with insufficient genetic variety to survive. There are probably flaws or vulnerabilities in the generic code of probably every human.
Maybe no one flaw/gap will take out everybody, but a set of pathogens that exploits flaws in the vast majority of the population could be enough put us over the edge. Most germ doomsday scenarios focus on a single germ. When tech is advanced enough, a sinister group may be able to manufacture 1,000 or so diff germs, targeting various lineages.
If you can hack computers, you can hack DNA.
Thus, while I agree that current technology is not sufficient to make us extinct, future technology could that's not so far-fetched in terms of breakthroughs.
In fact, statistically we ARE probably doomed, population-wise. Most likely we are roughly in the middle of humanity's reign: very roughly half of all humans came before us and roughly half will come after. Thus, in the future, only about 60 billion will come after us, since 60 billion came before. (Within about an order of magnitude.) It's unlikely we are at the very beginning or very end of the "curve".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's possible we may eventually put our brains into digital emulation and stop biologically reproducing (on a large scale). This is probably the best case scenario to explain the Doomsday Argument without humanity outright ending as individuals.
It seems kind of odd that we can "peer into the future" with statistics alone, but that indeed seems to be the case. Statistics is a kind of fuzzy telescope into the future.
If humans spread into the universe and multiplied into the trillions, it's very unlikely we ourselves just happen to be the very early pioneers. We are more likely to be an "average" sample from roughly the middle.
It's possible they are kicking back, smoking doobies, and letting robots take care of them. Doobie Theory.
I personally believe the "zoo theory" is more likely. Advanced civilization(s) know we are here, but otherwise hide from us and perhaps protect us from aggressors because they find us quaint, cute, and/or interesting. Oddly, this best matches "UFO theory".
There is indeed the unknown factor of whether there is something to human nature in the decision-making process that causes the final decision-maker in the chain to be hesitant.
One could argue there is something to human nature that makes most hesitant under such circumstances.
However, my observation of humanity is that each person varies widely, and that different people will react differently. While I agree it's not unreasonable that the majority could be hesitant, it would take a hesitancy rate of about 90% or higher to keep those 15 or so close calls from not likely causing ww3.
There is no definitive study on the issue such that it's opinion either way, but I truly doubt the hesitancy rate is close to 90%. There's just too many aggressive type-A alpha-male types out there in the military command chains.
Look what George W. did to Iraq on flimsy evidence. There's not shortage stupid gamblers in charge, including those in Congress who authorized it.
What if W were in the place of JFK during the Cuban crisis when the generals were urging him to "use it or lose it, you won't get a second chance if they launch first" (paraphrased)?
...now we know who to blame
I wish they could convert those high-speed-rail funds to regular highway funds. California roads have gone to shit since the Great Recession.
Fix the basics first.
Anthropic principle and many-worlds have similar implications.
Clarification re "most of us would be wiped out":
We would be wiped out OR not even born because there would be too few people giving birth during a nuclear winter, and possibly a direct war afterward.
I'm not talking about outright extinction, just massive population loss.
Let's say each of the 15 or so close-calls had a 1/3 chance of triggering WW3. After only about 7 of such occurrences the chance of WW3 happening is about 90%. Even higher if we plug in all 15.
BUT, ww3 didn't happen. Yet it should have. If it had, most of us would be wiped out and wouldn't be here speculating on why it didn't happen. Thus, I suspect anthropic-principle-like influences.
There were many close calls during the cold war, roughly 10 to 20 serious ones, depending on how you score them.
I suspect we are still here out of a kind of anthropic principle luck: if those close calls triggered WW3, the vast majority of us wouldn't be here pondering our good luck. Dead people don't ponder.