| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Comments:
<0> Nanobat: i downloaded a free template...and i want to fix it into a technically sound site, is that ripping off? and phaedrus is from Plato
<1> You could drop load time by a couple seconds by using CSS sprites also
<2> phaedrus44: If it's a free template, then it's fine
<0> :
<0> )
<2> Murder!
<0> my last site had designed by: Me and the dudes on IRC
<0> hehe
<0> at the footer
<3> Nanobat: I mean there is Nanobot in here as well as you. I've never seen the "bat" talking in here. I ***ume you're the same person, but why the two nicks ?
<2> I'm at work
<2> Oh, I thought you were asking me how I, Nanobot, relate to nanobots
<3> I like nanotechnology. it's going to be the "next big thing" very soon. will probably change society more than the Internet did
<2> Very possibly
<3> a bit scary, though, that the US military is at the forefront of development
<4> The US military's been at the forefront of development of a lot of things we now take for granted in life.
<4> Like, y'know, the Internet. And GPS.
<2> Because I guess our current weapons don't kill hard enough
<5> Samus_Aran: How's it any different than anything, including the Internet?
<4> Penecilin..
<3> most technology stems from militaries
<4> Hell, commercial jet transportation.
<5> Life and death is a good motivator to make stuff work.
<4> All the first commercial jets started as military contracts.
<3> atoi|work: its scary because the Internet was an uninterruptable communications medium. nanotech can be used for almost any purpose, including removing peoples freedoms
<3> and yes I am aware that almost all tech came from the military
<1> Anyone seen that special on high tech weapons?
<5> The Internet removes Scientology's freedoms to keep it's Science Fiction roots secret!
<5> <snicker/>
<6> You don't need nanotech to remove somebody's freedoms, you just need to shout "TERRORIST!"
<3> heh
<1> One being just nukes that get detonated at a high altitude so the EMP knocks out everything in a radius of.. about the size of the US? o_O
<3> kirun: I just watched Jack*** Two last night. that reminded me of the scene in the taxi where they play a prank on the guy who is pretending to be a terrorist
<2> Nanotechnology has the potential to dramatically increase the length of a person's life. Little robot maids repairing the wear and tear damage that makes up aging
<2> That may end up being quite a bad thing
<2> Overpopulation is a problem as it is
<7> and quite an expensive thing :P
<8> Nanotechnology has the potential to dramatically decrease the length of a person's life
<8> Nanotechnology has the potential to dramatically * the * of a person's life
<2> Duesentrieb: So does medicine
<5> Nanobot: debatable.
<6> Well, we'll just raise the retirement age to 250!
<8> * has the potential to dramatically * the * of a person's life
<8> fill in the blanks
<4> Nanobat: No worries, we'll just depopulate a little with a few frivilous wars.
<7> lol
<1> duuuuude. You guys all see the story in the news about the little girl that has some problem with her brain growing too big so she's brain damaged (or something like that).. and they're cuttung off her tits, taking out her uterus and giving her hormones so she stays 6 forever?
<3> nanotech brings ultimate surveilance .. I'm sure they could even build recording devices into the lines on a piece of paper before too long. it brings fully functional cybernetics, including "brain upgrades". it brings indefinite life spans. it brings new ways to kill people that make biological weapons look like kids toys.
<1> Creepy ****
<2> sipher: Yes yes. I kind of agree with the parents
<5> sipher: link?
<3> sipher: uh, how would mutilation make someone "stay six" ?
<2> It would prevent her from going through puberty
<2> That's it
<1> Nanobat: One of the reasons they're giving is "She'll stay small so we can transport her easier." like wtf?
<2> sipher: Puberty would only cause further complications. She could never consent to *** in the first place, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. The kid would probably prefer to stay a kid
<4> Can't have ***, so no point in becoming an adult? :)
<2> The parents have to do all of the feeding, transportation, etc. It really would be a huge problem if the kid grew more
<2> mattmcc: In what way would she benefit from becoming an adult? I can tell you lots of problems it would cause
<2> And we're only talking ****ually* an adult
<9> try to imagine what it would be like to have to care for a person who is the size/weight/strength of an adult but has the mind of an infant
<2> Add the fact that the kid can't even feed herself. The parents must do it manually
<2> The kid can't even swallow on her own
<4> Oh, the brain is done developing. Missed that part.
<5> dmlloyd: People do that all the time.
<9> atoi|work: I know that. I am facing that prospect myself
<2> The brain is damaged
<1> You know what would happen 100 years ago? She'd die! This is going to sound terrible (and it's actually a friends arguement) but evolution is trying to kill her off.. and we're meddling with it. We do it everyday for all kinds of handycap people. Back in the day if you couldn't hunt for food or make things for trade you died.. now we just hook up some tubes
<5> dmlloyd: Good luck. It's a daunting task.
<9> atoi|work: I'm not looking forward to it.
<5> No one does. :(
<2> Technological evolution far outweighs biological evolution. There's no point in arguing that we should let natural evolution happen, because that would be *worse* for our species overall.
<6> Evolution doesn't "try" to do anything... though I would say that if humans think they can do better, they have a good chance of being wrong
<1> How do you figure?
<4> Who's to say they're mutually exclusive?
<5> Nanobot: Good to know you've figured that out by doing a study on "techo evolution" vs. "natural evolution". I'll look for it in the scientific journals.
<7> I'd be dead if it wasn't for medical intervention, as a newborn
<10> what's the self replicating unit of "techo evolution"?
<2> sipher: In the harshest of environments, natural evolution would take ages to show significant results in animals as complex as humans. Meanwhile, with technological evolution, we see dramatic results in only 100 years
<5> insin: Ask Nanobot, apparently he knows the advantages of it.
<11> I think your claims of hundreds of years for evolution is not born out by current evidence
<1> "little people".. perfect example. Thanks to modern science they live longer than ever.. and reproduce. Their offspring have a 50/50 chance of being little too. The jobs they can perform are limited by their handycap and their medical expenses are huge.. yet they choose to reproduce.
<2> When I say "technological evolution", I'm referring to how we use technology to improve our lives, help fight off diseases, etc.
<11> there's quite a few examples which have shown changes in only a few generations
<12> my girlfriend was born three months premature and never would have survived without a lot of medical intervention. does that mean she doesn't have anything to contribute to society?
<5> chessguy: yes, kill her now, plz.
<2> JibberJim: But not nearly on the level that technology has taken us
<5> jk :)
<12> not funny
<7> chessguy "I'd be dead if it wasn't for medical intervention, as a newborn" I wasn't premature, but I had something that would have killed me if it wasn't for the surgeons knife.
<5> chessguy: lighten up.
<7> atoi|work you could attack me :P
<12> Ocoth, yes. she had to have heart surgery when she was 8 days old
<7> Since you'd be attacking me, and not my girlfriend, and I don't have to have loyalty to myself :P
<1> chessguy: no.. She can still function. I'm talking more about extreme mental/physical disabilities where you just prolong the death
<2> I believe Richard Dawkins wrote about evolution through technology versus natural evolution.
<7> sipher *everything* to *everyone* prolong's the death
<5> Nanobat: Saying "evolution" is not really acurate, tbh, when we talk about "evolution" we're talking about genetic traits common to the gene pool of a race changing, not figuring out how to make asprin.
<1> such as people in vegitative states
<7> just eating for an "average" person is prolonging death
<1> that contribute nothing
<12> sipher, that's not what you said though. "survival of the fittest" would have killed her off it weren't for technology
<1> and use resources
<7> chessguy mine wasn't so highly rated
<2> atoi|work: "evolution" is a generic word. Look it up in a dictionary
<7> chessguy but would have killed me none the less
<5> You're comparing HUMAN evolution with the acquisition of knowledge, though, which is my point. They are very different.
<7> "highly rated" as in heart surgery sounds more impressive than digestive system surgery :P
<2> atoi|work: Yes, they are different, but both have comparable effects on the species. I argue that technology outperforms what natural evolution does to improve us as a species
<6> Nanobat: I think the thing you are looking for is "memes", the modelling of ideas as replicators?
<1> chessguy: Being born prematurely is only a temporary disability as opposed to people that are brain dead
<3> sipher: if you were to advocate allowing people with disabilities to die, you would also need to advocate closing all hospitals and allows those injured or sick due to their lifestyles to die as well
<1> and just consumers
<7> sipher what about me....I'm permanently physically disabled...
<2> kirun: I think you're arguing semantics. "Evolution" is any process of improvement. That's what I'm talking about.
<1> Ocoth: But it doesn't stop you from contributing to society
<7> sipher so your indicator is "contribution to society".
<3> sipher: because in the evolution side of things, those that get injured and die are not "meant" to procreate
<7> what is my financial contribution outways my financial cost?
<6> Nanobat: You said Richard Dawkins had written about it, I was agreeing with that
<2> I can't have this kind of conversation while I'm supposed to be at work :P
<7> s/is/if/
<5> Nanobat: Yes you can, just say to yourself "look busy." That's what I do.
<10> try to look angry
<1> Ocoth: Yes. If you were born missing a leg but had a nack for making weapons.. the others are more likely to keep you around even though you can't hunt
<2> kirun: In a debate or QA session I saw, he referred to it as evolution through technology
<6> IIRC, it's in The Selfish Gene, 2nd edition and on (though I can't find my copy right now to check)
<5> Also, IRC typing looks VERY MUCH like programming.
<3> humans will reach the peak of technology before long. society is going to start changing completely, quicker than a single generation
<5> and sounds like it too!
<1> If you can't do anything they would let you die
<2> The peak of technology?
<3> the Internet changed society more than any other invention in history, in only a decade from its inception.
<2> Like a couple hundred years ago when the head of the patent office said there's nothing left to be invented?
<1> because they knew that you'd just consume and be a burden to the whole
<3> Nanobat: when we either cease being humans, or erradicate ourselves =)
<7> Nanobat haha
<5> Samus_Aran: eh. ok.
<11> sipher, choosing which people to keep alive, and prevent reproducing is just as much as an evolutionary problem as encouraging people who otherwise wouldn't breed to
<3> Nanobat: I am referring to merging technology with our genetics and bodies to the point that we are no longer distinguished as humans
<2> Sure. I think we're going to get to the point where we need to stop thinking in terms of "human" and start thinking in terms of "person"
<3> Nanobat: and once that happens, technology will only increase faster, due to increased processing. won't be long now. I've been waiting on this since I was a kid, actually. it's always fascinated me.
<4> January's Wired had a thing on the sorts of implants/modifications you can get these days for your body..
<3> I am eager to see the final result of technology on Earth. I'm hoping it won't be the erradication of life here, but it does appear that way
<3> we've almost completely destroyed the ocean
<1> <7> what is my financial contribution outways my financial cost? <-- that's what I mean. If the contribution is less than the cost due to a permenent handicap, you would die without modern science. Even if it's greater you might have die anyway without it, but there's more reason for society to try keeping you alive
<2> A while ago, South Korea p***ed a law declaring that any artificial being that is capable of existing under human laws is to be legally recognized as a human
<12> Samus_Aran, by the final result, you mean "the singularity"? :)
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
kbuildsycoca cpu usage
Ubuntu not connecting
secural islam
#mysql
#gaim
posix_getpwuid() +--disable-all
pty spawn what is master_read
ECONF_EXTRA
#gentoo
ssh /dev/tty ENXIO
|
|