Posts by nyelvmark 588 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Nov 2009
Anyone who watched "Lost in Space" back in the 60s knows what a robot is: something like Robbie. Robbie wasn't all that impressive, though. Sure, he knew the answer to any question, but he moved really slowly, and had only limited ability to manipulate physical objects.
But that was 50 years ago. Today's robots can probably travel at rocket-ship speeds, and have all the necessary manipulators to do any job faster than a human can. They must be able to think, of course, because Robbie was able to, and so were HAL, Robocop and any number of robots in movies and TV programs ever since.
Or am I confusing fiction with reality?
Interestingly, Mensa say (or used to) that it's the other way around. The average score on their tests is well above 100, because the applicants are self-selecting.
Intuitively, that seems plausible. If you failed GCSE maths 3 times, you probably have a fair idea that you aren't a genius. Why embarass yourself by proving it? You might be stupid, but that doesn't mean you're an idiot, does it?
Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2)? Certainly - it's a powerful bleaching agent, also used in rocketry as the oxidising agent. It's obviously nasty stuff, though, unlike its insidious cousin, DHMO, which as everyone with a clue knows by now, is responsible for uncountable deaths annually in various scarcely-reported ways - sometimes, perplexingly, by its absence and sometimes by its presence.
Scientists have not yet explained this paradox, which may be the reason that scientific papers on the properties of DHMO are rarely to be found.
You're only anonymous if NOBODY knows who you are. The principle of the internet group of that name ought to be that nobody knows anyone else's real identity, so that if any member is "doxed" (=documented, real identity revealed) he can't dox anyone else.
This, however, creates impossible logistic problems. How can you organise anything secretly if you have no way of knowing who you're talking to? How can you spot an infiltrator? Sure, you can use impenetrable encryption, but how can you be sure you're sending the keys to someone you can trust? Complete anonymity renders you impotent, and every person you reveal your identity to introduces an exponential security risk.
The world's police forces (around a decade behind in technology, as usual) are now realising that they can win against such "anonymous" groups because of the above logic.
Whilst Anonymous, LulzSec, et al may have given us a few laughs this year, I suspect that the kind of thing they've been doing will remain a fringe activity, and will cease to be news in a few years.
In one AGW debate here recently, I posted - without comment - a link to monthly atmospheric CO2 readings at Mauna Loa from 1958 until today. This pure data attracted more downvotes than upvotes.
Go figure.
Here's the link:
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/noaa-mauna-loa-co2-data.html
In fact, our chances of long-term survival are exactly 0 until we learn how to reverse entropy, since this will inevitably lead to the heat-death of the universe. Please forgive me if I pass on contributing to the research budget, though - I don't view the problem with the urgency that you seem to.
>>one of these is driving along a narrow mountain road with a sheer drop on one side and solid rock on the other. Now...
There's a little sports car coming the other way, driven by a beautiful young blonde.
Your automatic system dosn't know whether to block her passage or toss itself off.
.
.
.
.
This joke is often credited to Max Miller (died 1963)
Surely the normal situation is that you need to sue your insurance company (or at least, threaten to do so) before they will take your case seriously. An insurance company that just gave money to anyone who claimed wouldn't last long, I think.
So why are the insurance company suing Sony, instead of denying the claim on some flimsy grounds and then waiting for Sony's suit? It looks upside-down to me! A legal opinion would be appreciated.
The late-lamented Sarah Bee used to reject such posts, after correcting the article (that's what the posting guidelines say that the moderator should do). In this case, I see that the article has been corrected, but that the comment has been allowed to stand. If you were confused, I hope this helps.
I'm sure they would be pretty strict on the use of it - but why would they care about poison being supplied to the infidel? Particularly if the opium growers were good muslims who all wore beards and didn't educate their girls, and furthermore were able to make generous donations to the cause.
You know - that's not as ridiculous idea as you make it sound. If suspended animation was actually possible, it could have judicial applications. Analogous to sending convicts to Australia.
So far it's just a science-fiction idea, however, so I don't recommend starting a political party which promises this as a reform. Not that that's going to stop anybody...
Isn't this close to the perfect snap? Surely, when the probe is at closest approach, it will send thousands of detailed pictures, each of 1 square km of surface, or something - doubtless invaluable to the scientists looking for evidence to support their pet theories of planetary evolution, but hardly the stuff that makes newspaper headlines.
Unless, of course, they manage to snap somebody snapping them.
Personally, I'm more interested in Phobos, with its interestingly low density which MIGHT just suggest that there are hollow spaces inside. It's time we investigated that.
...will either destroy humanity, or empower it to the next level of evolution.
I can't see the latter happening, however. I think we're all doomed. The church of Jobs will rise to supremacy, and their high priests will oversee the end, whilst encouraging all the faithfull to 'upgrade now - before it's too late'.
Some sceptics may survive until near the end; gathering their dwindling resources they may buy iPods, or iTVs - whatever is cheapest - to wave in front of them, hoping to forestall the anger of the iMob, but the compulsory upgrades will eventually expose them - "Hey, that guy's waving an iPad1 - GET HIM!!"
Fortunately, given my life-threatening Beluga caviar and truffle addiction, I'm unlikely to live to see the end. But I weep for the rest of you. I'm just glad I bought those Apple shares...
...like, "what was his name again?" - "AaaaaRGH!" - "Oh, you should be more careful - did you hurt yourself? Now, what was that name again?" - "XenuAAAaaargh!" - "No, try again. We've got all day, you know."
"We've spoken to your college - they say you're suspended until we finish with you. That means no graduation this year, or maybe ever. Your girlfriend has already told us that she thought you were weird all along. Your parents, I hear, are planning another kid. Now, I'm gonna pretend that you told me a name already, but I didn't hear it right. D'you wanna play?" - "NoAAAaaargh!"
I hope they really don't know each other's names, but I suspect, human nature being what it is, that too many of them do, to make for the perfect anonymous system.
Good luck, guys.
>> The contraction of "because" sounds exactly like "cause" ("be-caws" and "caws"; your accent may vary).
Well, you learn something every day, as they say. It's a big language, so I don't dispute your testimony. Most Merkins, I believe, pronounce the word "dog" with that "awe" vowel (allowing for a little wiggle-room, phonemically). Perhaps you're one of them?
The remainder of your post is best responded to with silence.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
