toastywombel

Dr. Syntax, I think "meh", means that we invent an AI, but it does not revolutionize science or it has little effect. Although I don't agree with that, it is a possibility.

Boom! That just happened!

I totally agree, open source allows a whole community to help build and improve an operating system. I also hate the idea of paying $400 dollars for an operating system. Ubuntu Geek huh. Which distro you running? I'm actually on Jaunty right now, but I have dual boot with Fedora 11 and Xp. I guess it would be called a tri-boot haha. What upsets me the most about Windows is that I understand charging for your product, but they don't even have an open source network in which people can review the windows code and share upgrades/bug-fixes with each other. Instead you have to wait for Microsoft to release upgrades. Plus the security issues in Windows are completely ridiculous. Of course Microsoft's argument is that they have a larger personal computer market and therefore more spy-ware/ad-ware is made to infect windows. But thats a ridiculous point considering that most of the servers in the world use Linux. I have used various Linux systems (fedora, ubuntu, slackware) for server and personal use over about three years, never have I gotten spyware/adware/trojans/mal-ware on the linux systems. XP/Vista on the other hand require reformatting your hard-drive every six-months at least or it slows down, no matter what firewalls or anti-virus you use. Thats no good considering every time you reformat, more sectors on your hard-drive become corrupted. But I am probably preaching to the choir lol. To be fair to Microsoft though, I have not tried Windows 7, it has gotten many good reviews, but then again so did XP (was not too bad) and Vista (probably the biggest OS failure ever relative to its hype).

Closed source (Microsoft Windows) or open source (Linux kernel) software, which do you think is better and why? go!

Why are you so hateful in your tone, really nearly every-single post you make you either insult directly or indirectly the people of this forum while putting yourself on a pedestal. Why do you find the need to tell us how your going to add some "bold" to the o.p.? Why not just say what you are going to say instead of adding a "self-promoting" introduction? Furthermore that is not effective communication, you use the word "bold" in grammatically incorrect way (its an adj or adv), and you make a strange abbreviation (o.p.) that I suppose is for "original post". You may have an interesting point of the necessity to look at the male dichotomy to understand female dichotomy, but if you knew anything about human nature, its natural for one to have knee-jerk rejection of another's ideas, if that other comes off cocky and insulting.

I mentioned in another thread that if we invented an AI system we could possibly copy the information in a human brain into this system. This would be a human conscience in a computer-system. Thus it would be a human in some sense but it would also be a machine. But if this machine could reproduce itself and adapt to its environment it would have many characteristics of life. This seems like a more possible route than silicon based life.

Yeah its going to be fun! I'm already getting pumped haha.

There have been observations of gravitational waves from LIGO. This is from Wikipedia, "In February 2007, GRB 070201, a short gamma-ray burst, arrived at Earth from the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, a nearby galaxy. The prevailing explanation of most short gamma-ray bursts is the merger of a neutron star with either a neutron star or black hole. LIGO reported a non-detection for GRB 070201, ruling out a merger at the distance of Andromeda with high confidence. Such a constraint is predicated on LIGO eventually demonstrating a direct detection of gravitational waves." Furthermore LIGO is described as "not a one-shot experiment". There are constant modifications being made to detect these small bends in light caused by bends in space time that signal gravitational waves. We will probably have to be a little patient until the boys up at Caltech and MIT perfect this technology The reason we may have not found gravitational waves from the system you mentioned is, just like swansont said, it is too far away. The further away these systems are the lower the frequency of there gravitational waves. It is impossible to view gravitational waves outside a specific frequency set. Also from Wikipedia, "Stephen W. Hawking and Werner Israel list different frequency bands for gravitational waves that could be plausibly detected, ranging from 10-7 Hz up to 1011 Hz.[2]" Anything outside those frequencies are thought to be impossible to detect. Here are some links you might find useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO http://ligonews.blogspot.com/ Hope this helps

I'm curious if anyone has heard of this. I saw a history channel documentary about the future. In it, futurist/ theoretical physicist Michio Kaku (I am not sure if that is exactly how his name is spelled) described clothing that could help keep one alive if they are injured or resuscitate them if they have a heart attack. It could also apply pressure to a wound to help slow bleeding, and contact medical services if one is knocked-out. I think this would be great technology if implemented, has anyone heard anything about this? Does the technology has a specific term? Are there any new articles/books/information/studies pertaining to this topic? Furthermore there are sites I have come across that seem somewhat sketchy to be quite honest, but they refer to negative-ion clothing. So far I have not seen any FDA evaluation of these products so I am weary, but any thoughts?

I see, well thanks for the suggestions

Thank you for the suggestion I will most definitely will read it! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI noticed on ebay how it suggested another book along these lines its called High Risk (children without a conscience). Do you know anything about that read? It looks very interesting as well.

I would agree. Genetics could cause a pre-disposition towards anti-social behavior, but environmental learned traits probably decide whether a human is more anti-social. I notice from my experience that a single child is usually always more selfish than a child with siblings because they never have to share, that would be a learned trait. Also I could see how someone living in an environment where everyone around him/her does not meet that persons needs. The person then would have to rely on only themselves to achieve anything, that then could lead to a distrust of society by that person.

Lol did he get banned?

I see I see, yeah many disorders do lead to anti-social behavior, do you think all anti-social behavior could be linked to a genetic disorder?

I agree that it is a great time to be alive! And no, I have not been in the military and I was not familiar with the term SNAFU, pretty funny term once you described it. I agree with your point that the more complex the operation and the more people involved the greater the risk. I will concede if we created an AI that is infinitively self improving, yes we would most likely be in trouble. My argument is that "I hope" we would not give an AI system that kind of unlimited power. It would be un-wise

I see your point on the close relationship between the individual and society and how if the individual succeeds the society succeeds visa-versa. But I was more going for, what motivates an individual to have/consume so much that he/she hurts society? While other individuals do everything they can to ensure the betterment of society.

Okay I am done talking to you, its a waste of time. I suggest that no one else on this forum give the time of day to CTD. One final thing before I go you are wrong about software too here is the definition. software n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory; "the market for software is expected to expand" [syn: software system, package}, package] [ant: hardware]

Lol well actually I got two positive rep points for that post, I think most logically thinking people would find it funny. Maybe not you though, because it was at your expense. Furthermore what is evidence based-faith? That is an oxy-moron. Faith-Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. [1913 Webster] You cannot have evidence based-faith, it would not be faith if you had evidence to back it up.

People often have different beliefs on which is more important, although I think society's needs is the most important, is there anything genetic that could explain why some people prefer the society's needs over the individual's needs or visa-versa?

Wow, so you called us godless. Tell me CTD who are you to decide who is and is not godless? More ego! And BTW you have not responded to anything I have said and I am curious why. You respond to everyone else? Those who need evidence for their faith have the weakest faith of all. Through that "godless" statement you have expressed who you are and what your agenda is.

Beautifully put

lol I do not know, I think it would be hard to answer that question considering no one has gone back in time. I know if you were to go back to the beginning of the Universe and the moment of the Big Bang the temperature of the Universe would be so hot that you most likely would be vaporized.

Wow, CTD I have made several posts pertaining to your topic yet you have not responded to any of them.

I did not give you a negative rep

Although I agree I don't think it is appropriate to use that exact language.