Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #70296 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-28 06:30 +1300 |
| Last post | 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-02-28 06:30 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-27 17:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-04 08:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:59 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-05 03:43 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 10:54 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-06 02:02 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-05 11:00 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 11:17 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-05 13:27 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-05 16:15 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-05 19:21 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-27 13:24 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-02-27 11:32 -0800
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-02-27 20:14 -0800
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-02-28 09:58 -0600
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-28 19:54 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-02 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-03 08:48 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-02 23:00 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-02 19:02 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-02 20:17 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-04 15:31 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 04:05 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-05 03:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 21:02 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 18:57 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:41 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy android <here@there.was> - 2015-03-05 20:11 +0100
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:57 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:26 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-04 16:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-03-05 01:27 +0100
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 02:27 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 16:32 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 20:55 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 18:58 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 09:50 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:54 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 08:02 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-06 09:53 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 17:23 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-06 16:17 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 21:38 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 08:51 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-06 10:49 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 23:02 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-06 16:10 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-06 13:55 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 23:01 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-07 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-07 07:08 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-07 12:20 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 15:21 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-06 18:34 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 20:34 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-07 09:01 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:37 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 14:51 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 15:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:36 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-08 10:49 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:08 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-09 14:44 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 08:52 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-09 13:47 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 13:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-10 00:38 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 16:03 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 00:17 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 23:29 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 11:37 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-10 14:44 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-10 14:59 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-10 14:51 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-10 18:46 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 15:08 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 23:56 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 20:05 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 01:45 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 22:25 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 02:42 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-12 00:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 09:01 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-11 13:06 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 09:57 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 08:50 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-12 17:43 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-12 23:45 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-10 08:15 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 15:25 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 10:17 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-07 16:07 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 20:34 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:47 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 14:51 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 15:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 16:12 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 19:46 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:06 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-09 14:33 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-09 14:56 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-10 09:42 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 15:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:32 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:25 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 09:02 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 14:15 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:37 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 05:52 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 19:52 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:57 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 19:46 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 23:18 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:05 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-08 10:47 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:55 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-08 00:00 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-08 10:16 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-09 04:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 10:25 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 14:56 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-18 01:37 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 09:07 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-05 12:01 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:43 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 21:35 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 09:30 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 19:52 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m14xds.lb2m2s3s3gvhN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70860 |
John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 16:12:22 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> > wrote: > > <<snipped>> > > > >And we'll know basically nothing of the science behind things that are > >being done in the year 3000 either. Science changes and evolves as new > >ideas come along and new things discovered. > > > > Untrue. We know, for a solid gold fact, exactly what the science and > technology of the year 3000 will be because we have already seen it. > It will be the science and technology of pre-lithic hunter-gatherers > and there will be very few of them. > "Pre-lithic" because all the good flint has been used up. > Be it 40 or 400 years, the oil is going to run out, this city culture > will collapse; wars, famines and general unpleasantness will ensue and > the children of the new dark age will *NEVER* recover. [snip] Well, I'm a little less pessimistic, though it would not surprise me if human civilization rises from the dust and falls several times over, unless we start evolving and bettering ourselves in ways that will require we be a bit more like the Star Trek's Federation in terms of society, instead of our current petty state. I have faith in our ability to do so. It's far from a given, though. > > Many of the things future generations will > >take for granted are no doubt considered "impossible" by foolish people > >today. > > There are differences. There are tried and tested methods of knowing > what can and can not be done in this universe. 500 years ago we had > very few of those and almost everything was open to being thought > possible. Now we have many tools and we have probed the limits of > physics. We *know* *things*. For sure. For facts. For absolutely > certain. > My sister does this and it bugs the fuck out of me. She asserts that > her "feelings" and "opinions" matter so much as my technical > expertise, scientific knowledge and experience actually *using* > science, mathematics, engineering and screwdrivers. That, because I > should value *her* I should value her *opinions* about genetics, > evolution, chenistry, computing and engineering. That her utter and > complete ignorance is somehow to be valued as a source of wisdom and > utility. That "all methods of gaining knowledge are equally valid". [snip] Yep. It's good to have hope. But no matter the amount of wishing, myself or my descendants won't be beaming anywhere (assuming it's ever practical, not just possible) in anything close to the Trek time line. Probably not for millennia, even if human civilization remains uninterrupted. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 20:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdgkro$rkm$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70639 |
On 2015-03-08 02:23:11 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > >> In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie >> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit >>>>>>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe >>>>>>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts >>>>>>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." >>>>>>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, >>>>>>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or >>>>>>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all >>>>>>>>>> you like. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's >>>>>>>>> possible and what isn't based on today's knowledge: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465 >>>>>>>>> 002048 /ref=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was >>>>>>>> impossible, flying between countries in a couple of days was >>>>>>>> impossible, let alone flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today >>>>>>>> can't even start to understand what may or may not be possible in >>>>>>>> another 1000 years and more. :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter >>>>>>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically >>>>>>> improbable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently >>>>>> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future >>>>>> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of >>>>>> us will be around to see it. >>>>> >>>>> A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more >>>>> realistically - information, because it's information that is required. >>>>> Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at >>>>> the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of >>>>> energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do >>>>> so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect >>>>> down to the quantum state. >>>>> >>>>> Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information >>>>> which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a >>>>> beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be >>>>> scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with >>>>> how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. >>>>> >>>>>>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of >>>>>>> a clue about such things. Today we do. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at >>>>>> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are >>>>>> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can >>>>>> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to >>>>>> do. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today >>>>>> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has >>>>>> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn >>>>>> anything into anything else. >>>>> >>>>> No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues >>>>> involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek >>>>> style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing >>>>> science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the >>>>> realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more >>>>> 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is >>>>> unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will >>>>> require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able >>>>> to be imagined. >>>> >>>> As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe >>>> beyond what THEY were able to imagine... >>> >>> Science isn't magic. >> >> No, but something that future generations can do may well look like >> magic to us if we could see it. A television would look like magic to >> someone from 500BC. > > The difference is that a person from 500BC knew nothing about the > science and technology behind a TV. And a person from 200 years ago knew nothing about the science and technology behind sub-atomic particles And the person from 50 years ago knew nothing about the science and technology behind high temperature superconductors.. Etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 19:46 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0zb6a.1ynvv8v1x4418rN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70650 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-08 02:23:11 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > >> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>>> On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > >>>>>>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe > >>>>>>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts > >>>>>>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > >>>>>>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > >>>>>>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > >>>>>>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > >>>>>>>>>> you like. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's > >>>>>>>>> possible and what isn't based on today's knowledge: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465 > >>>>>>>>> 002048 /ref=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was > >>>>>>>> impossible, flying between countries in a couple of days was > >>>>>>>> impossible, let alone flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today > >>>>>>>> can't even start to understand what may or may not be possible in > >>>>>>>> another 1000 years and more. :-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > >>>>>>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > >>>>>>> improbable. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently > >>>>>> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future > >>>>>> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of > >>>>>> us will be around to see it. > >>>>> > >>>>> A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more > >>>>> realistically - information, because it's information that is required. > >>>>> Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at > >>>>> the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of > >>>>> energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do > >>>>> so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect > >>>>> down to the quantum state. > >>>>> > >>>>> Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information > >>>>> which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a > >>>>> beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be > >>>>> scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with > >>>>> how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of > >>>>>>> a clue about such things. Today we do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at > >>>>>> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are > >>>>>> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can > >>>>>> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to > >>>>>> do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today > >>>>>> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has > >>>>>> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn > >>>>>> anything into anything else. > >>>>> > >>>>> No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues > >>>>> involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek > >>>>> style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing > >>>>> science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the > >>>>> realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more > >>>>> 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is > >>>>> unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will > >>>>> require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able > >>>>> to be imagined. > >>>> > >>>> As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe > >>>> beyond what THEY were able to imagine... > >>> > >>> Science isn't magic. > >> > >> No, but something that future generations can do may well look like > >> magic to us if we could see it. A television would look like magic to > >> someone from 500BC. > > > > The difference is that a person from 500BC knew nothing about the > > science and technology behind a TV. > > And a person from 200 years ago knew nothing about the science and > technology behind sub-atomic particles > > And the person from 50 years ago knew nothing about the science and > technology behind high temperature superconductors.. > > Etc. Yes. That is the point. And now we know something of these parts of reality. Thus being more educated, or educated full-stop, we can make better guesses as to where that science will lead. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 23:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdgt53$9e4$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70653 |
On 2015-03-08 06:46:35 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2015-03-08 02:23:11 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie >>>> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: >>>>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." >>>>>>>>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, >>>>>>>>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or >>>>>>>>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all >>>>>>>>>>>> you like. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's >>>>>>>>>>> possible and what isn't based on today's knowledge: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465 >>>>>>>>>>> 002048 /ref=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was >>>>>>>>>> impossible, flying between countries in a couple of days was >>>>>>>>>> impossible, let alone flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today >>>>>>>>>> can't even start to understand what may or may not be possible in >>>>>>>>>> another 1000 years and more. :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter >>>>>>>>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically >>>>>>>>> improbable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently >>>>>>>> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future >>>>>>>> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of >>>>>>>> us will be around to see it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more >>>>>>> realistically - information, because it's information that is required. >>>>>>> Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at >>>>>>> the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of >>>>>>> energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do >>>>>>> so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect >>>>>>> down to the quantum state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information >>>>>>> which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a >>>>>>> beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be >>>>>>> scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with >>>>>>> how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of >>>>>>>>> a clue about such things. Today we do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at >>>>>>>> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are >>>>>>>> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can >>>>>>>> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to >>>>>>>> do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today >>>>>>>> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has >>>>>>>> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn >>>>>>>> anything into anything else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues >>>>>>> involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek >>>>>>> style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing >>>>>>> science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the >>>>>>> realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more >>>>>>> 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is >>>>>>> unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will >>>>>>> require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able >>>>>>> to be imagined. >>>>>> >>>>>> As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe >>>>>> beyond what THEY were able to imagine... >>>>> >>>>> Science isn't magic. >>>> >>>> No, but something that future generations can do may well look like >>>> magic to us if we could see it. A television would look like magic to >>>> someone from 500BC. >>> >>> The difference is that a person from 500BC knew nothing about the >>> science and technology behind a TV. >> >> And a person from 200 years ago knew nothing about the science and >> technology behind sub-atomic particles >> >> And the person from 50 years ago knew nothing about the science and >> technology behind high temperature superconductors.. >> >> Etc. > > Yes. That is the point. And now we know something of these parts of > reality. Thus being more educated, or educated full-stop, we can make > better guesses as to where that science will lead. Yes. We know SOMETHING of them. What we DON'T is what proportion of the whole that something we know is. The people of 1000 years ago knew SOMETHING about their world, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-09 09:05 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <090320150905076564%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70653 |
In article <1m0zb6a.1ynvv8v1x4418rN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > On 2015-03-08 02:23:11 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > > > > The difference is that a person from 500BC knew nothing about the > > > science and technology behind a TV. > > > > And a person from 200 years ago knew nothing about the science and > > technology behind sub-atomic particles > > > > And the person from 50 years ago knew nothing about the science and > > technology behind high temperature superconductors.. > > > > Etc. > > Yes. That is the point. And now we know something of these parts of > reality. Thus being more educated, or educated full-stop, we can make > better guesses as to where that science will lead. But the person today knows nothing about whatever new scientific discoveries will be made in the next 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 10:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cm2nlqF69opU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70639 |
On 2015-03-08, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
[125 lines snipped]
>> Whether it becomes possible in the future is unknown. Absolutely nobody
>> alive today or in the past can ever definitively say it's never
>> possible. Trying to predict what does or doesn't happen in the future
>> is a game for morons and conmen.
>
> Again - science and reality are not magic.
But apparently delete keys are. At least, so far as you're concerned.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 67th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude,
that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 20:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdgko7$rki$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70633 |
On 2015-03-08 00:31:23 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >>>>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are >>>>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". >>>>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit >>>>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe >>>>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts >>>>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." >>>>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, >>>>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or >>>>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all >>>>>>>> you like. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and >>>>>>> what isn't based on today's knowledge: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048/r >>>>>>> ef=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> >>>>>> >>>>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, >>>>>> flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone >>>>>> flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to >>>>>> understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and >>>>>> more. :-) >>>>> >>>>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter >>>>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically >>>>> improbable. >>>> >>>> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently >>>> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future >>>> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of >>>> us will be around to see it. >>> >>> A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more >>> realistically - information, because it's information that is required. >>> Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at >>> the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of >>> energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do >>> so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect >>> down to the quantum state. >>> >>> Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information >>> which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a >>> beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be >>> scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with >>> how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. >>> >>>>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of >>>>> a clue about such things. Today we do. >>>> >>>> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at >>>> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are >>>> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. >>>> >>>> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can >>>> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to >>>> do. >>>> >>>> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today >>>> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has >>>> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn >>>> anything into anything else. >>> >>> No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues >>> involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek >>> style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing >>> science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the >>> realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more >>> 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is >>> unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will >>> require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able >>> to be imagined. >> >> As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe >> beyond what THEY were able to imagine... > > Science isn't magic. > >>> Some day I'm certain we'll be able to make a coffee cup out of energy. >>> It won't have the same quantum state, but it won't need to, in order to >>> hold a hot beverage. >>> >>> Perhaps some day we'll also be able to re-create that coffee cup down to >>> it's quantum state. Maybe even while our current civilisation is more >>> than just a memory, if one is optimistic. >>> >>> But a perfect down to the quantum state human? Again - we'll probably no >>> longer be human by the time we manage that, if we ever do. >> >> So... ...why, if you can do a coffee cup right down to the quantum state... >> >> ...why would a human be any more difficult? > > Seriously? Why would a human being with all it's extremely complex > systems be more difficult than a coffee cup with a simple fairly uniform > stucture and composition? From the perspective of replicating atoms down to the quantum state, what would it matter which atoms you're replicating? > >> How arrogant must you be to be "certain" about anything in this area? >> >> I doubt that Stephen Hawking himself would be willing to pronounce >> himself "certain" as you have done. > > Tell me - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage possible? Now? Of course not. In a 1000 years time with what they might understand about reality, I'm not nearly brave enough to declare it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 00:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54fbd76b$0$4355$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70633 |
Am in a state of shock. Just watched the documentary where Spock & friends save humpback whales from extinction by stealing 2 from 1986 and bringing then to the 23rd century. In this documentary, they also give a San Franciso company the formula for transparent aluminium. This formula was apparently entered on a MacIntosh Plus. But this was all a deception. It was actually an IBM PC inside a Mac box. And the graphics were generated on an IBM PC. The screen refresh rate of the Macintosh was incompatible with 24fps for movies. So to show a non-flickering screen, they had to change all the components inside. This explains why the mouse was unresponsive to Scotty's commands and why the keyboard strokes did not match what was going on on screen since neither wear actually connected to any circuitry. source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/trivia?ref_=tt_ql_2 :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 10:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_MudnfsWlPEnxGHJnZ2dnUU7-QudnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #70633 |
In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> Tell me - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage possible?
I doubt it. Although I don't which is a more likely pediment: The
physics or the FDA.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-09 04:18 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m100wm.1sk1fbhflshbtN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70667 |
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, > jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > > > > Tell me - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage possible? > > I doubt it. Although I don't which is a more likely pediment: The > physics or the FDA. Well if it never gets FDA approved, the incidents of nuclear fission irradiating everyone and everything nearby, will likely put a stop to it, anyway. Or if they use too much pressure and initiate fusion, clean energy will be a useful side-product of the shrink ray project. Much like the Space Shuttle program giving us non-stick coating for fry pan - bonus! ;-) -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 10:25 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <080320151025068976%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70603 |
In article <1m0xk03.kaxeom3mj4iN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > In article <1m0x6g5.1fc98ooldw4haN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > > In article <mdd532$43j$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On 3/5/15 5:23 p, Kurt Ullman wrote: > > > > > > In article <1m0uwkk.auf6x418i6j47N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, > > > > > > jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> My takeaways from his speech are > > > > > >>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > > > > >>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > > > > > >>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe > > > > > >>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts > > > > > >>> through wormholes, etc. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > > > > > Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > > > > > force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > > > > > workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > > > > > you like. > > > > > > > > > > This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and > > > > > what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > > > > > > > > > The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048 > > > > > /ref=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > > > > > > > But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, > > > > flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone > > > > flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to > > > > understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and > > > > more. :-) > > > > > > That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > > > transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > > > improbable. > > > > Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently > > at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future > > scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of > > us will be around to see it. > > A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more > realistically - information, because it's information that is required. > Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at > the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of > energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do > so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect > down to the quantum state. > > Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information > which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a > beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be > scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with > how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. People were saying similar things about like laptop computers, 3D printers, etc. only a few years ago, and yet now they're a reality ... you can print plastic, various food, and even living tissue. Yes, a transporter of some sort is *currently* impossible, but we have absolutely no idea what scientists may or may not discover in the future. It wasn't that many years ago that people claimed it was impossible to sail around the Earth because you'd fall off the edge, and they were proven wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-15 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7n6bga1jntqn4u8ett3912u5jhd1j0ersh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70624 |
On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 10:25:06 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
<<snipped>>
>People were saying similar things about like laptop computers, 3D
>printers, etc. only a few years ago, and yet now they're a reality ...
>you can print plastic, various food, and even living tissue.
That is *UNTRUE*. The "Venus Equilateral" tales were written in the
1930's or so and were *replete* with ideas about 3D printing. Small
computers have been hand-held in stories for *millennia* though
usually they are "slates" of some description and work by "magics".
There is very little in our technologies that is truly *novel*. The
ways we do things certainly are but the effects have been talked about
since before the Babylonians.
Minotaurs and recombinant-DNA. Scrying glass, or "magic mirror" and
TV. Rockets and flying chariots. The methodology changes but people
have imagined much of what we can do since rocks were the latest in
super-weapons.
Indeed, the Magi and Scholars of the past may well, on being
"magically" transported to our era, see our current tech as poor,
shabby and weak compared to the tales of their fathers.
Our TV's for example only allow us to see a tiny number of "places"
and we constantly need to pay for even those, while the picture
quality of most is dreadful compared to a proper scrying glass.
>
>Yes, a transporter of some sort is *currently* impossible, but we have
>absolutely no idea what scientists may or may not discover in the
>future.
Yes, we do. For a century we have known. Quantum and the numbers make
things impossible. That is fact. "Star Trek" teleportation is not
going to happen no matter *what* extra-magical science you invent.
It can not be done.
> It wasn't that many years ago that people claimed it was
>impossible to sail around the Earth because you'd fall off the edge,
>and they were proven wrong.
That is Disneyfied tripe and was *never* part of mainstream thought.
Your scholastic system should be sued.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-18 01:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pklhgade00lnk19k4d5pi0t7jnar2c4foe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #71105 |
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:56:59 +0000, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 10:25:06 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
>wrote:
>
>
><<snipped>>
>
>>People were saying similar things about like laptop computers, 3D
>>printers, etc. only a few years ago, and yet now they're a reality ...
>>you can print plastic, various food, and even living tissue.
>
> That is *UNTRUE*. The "Venus Equilateral" tales were written in the
>1930's or
Actually, the 1940's. Mostly, though two were written much later.
My error. Sorry.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <clr8pgF75tsU14@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70475 |
On 2015-03-05, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <1m0tkla.1bkpgij132p49gN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > >> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> > On 2015-03-05, ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > > Jolly Roger wrote: >> > >> On 2015-03-04, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: >> > >>> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: >> > >>>> However, in my humble opinion, this is absolutely Nimoy's most >> > >>>> memorable >> > >>>> achievement: >> > >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU> >> > >>> >> > >>> Before clicking on the link, I knew that's what it would be. >> > >> >> > >> +1 >> > > >> > > Nope - +2.:-) >> > >> > : ) >> > >> > I wish I had had the chance to meet Leonard while he was still with >> > us... >> >> I always wanted to meet Scotty, but any would do :-) > > I never met any of them, but I did meet Asimov once, and David Weber as > well. Wow. *envy* -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <050320150907537856%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #70513 |
In article <clr8pgF75tsU14@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> I always wanted to meet Scotty, but any would do :-) > > > > I never met any of them, but I did meet Asimov once, and David Weber as > > well. > > Wow. *envy* I've attended talks by Walter Koenig and Dr. Demento, but never got to meet either of them. Dr. Demento introduced us to this song (warning, not safe for office and maybe not for children): <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psxBdHY8n68&spfreload=10>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 12:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mda23j$g2n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70519 |
On 3/5/15 11:07 a, Michelle Steiner wrote: > In article <clr8pgF75tsU14@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger > <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >>>> I always wanted to meet Scotty, but any would do :-) >>> >>> I never met any of them, but I did meet Asimov once, and David Weber as >>> well. >> >> Wow. *envy* > > I've attended talks by Walter Koenig and Dr. Demento, but never got to > meet either of them. Dr. Demento introduced us to this song (warning, > not safe for office and maybe not for children): > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psxBdHY8n68&spfreload=10> That's priceless! And the link just grew very long legs. -- 'Damn it, Jim, I'm an engineer, not a standup comedian!'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmfh94f.j92.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #70519 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was all, like: > In article <clr8pgF75tsU14@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger > <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> I always wanted to meet Scotty, but any would do :-) >> > >> > I never met any of them, but I did meet Asimov once, and David Weber as >> > well. >> >> Wow. *envy* > I've attended talks by Walter Koenig and Dr. Demento, but never got to > meet either of them. Dr. Demento introduced us to this song (warning, > not safe for office and maybe not for children): > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psxBdHY8n68&spfreload=10> Heh. That's a good one. -- http://2blog.kreme.com "Send beer, words simply can't adequately express your gratitude" -- James Sedgwick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmfh906.j92.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #70475 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was all, like: > In article <1m0tkla.1bkpgij132p49gN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: >> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> > On 2015-03-05, ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > > Jolly Roger wrote: >> > >> On 2015-03-04, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: >> > >>> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: >> > >>>> However, in my humble opinion, this is absolutely Nimoy's most >> > >>>> memorable >> > >>>> achievement: >> > >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU> >> > >>> >> > >>> Before clicking on the link, I knew that's what it would be. >> > >> >> > >> +1 >> > > >> > > Nope - +2.:-) >> > >> > : ) >> > >> > I wish I had had the chance to meet Leonard while he was still with >> > us... >> >> I always wanted to meet Scotty, but any would do :-) > I never met any of them, but I did meet Asimov once, and David Weber as > well. I binged all the Honor Harrington books over a couple of weeks. Well, maybe a month. I'm probably done with Honor at this point. I think he kinda screwed the pooch on not killing her off. -- http://2blog.kreme.com "I used to hate the sun, because it'd shone on everything I'd done. Made me feel that all that I had done was overfill the ashtray of my life."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-05 21:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <050320152135148430%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #70533 |
In article <slrnmfh906.j92.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > I never met any of them, but I did meet Asimov once, and David Weber as > > well. > > I binged all the Honor Harrington books over a couple of weeks. Well, > maybe a month. I'm probably done with Honor at this point. I'm not. > I think he kinda screwed the pooch on not killing her off. His original plan was to kill her off and have her kids take over from her, but the fan resistance was too high. But notice that she's playing smaller roles in every book now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-06 09:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmfisvr.10b9.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #70564 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was all, like: > In article <slrnmfh906.j92.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> > I never met any of them, but I did meet Asimov once, and David Weber as >> > well. >> >> I binged all the Honor Harrington books over a couple of weeks. Well, >> maybe a month. I'm probably done with Honor at this point. > I'm not. >> I think he kinda screwed the pooch on not killing her off. > His original plan was to kill her off and have her kids take over from > her, but the fan resistance was too high. Listening to fans is never a good idea. -- http://2blog.kreme.com I do believe Marsellus Wallace, my husband, your boss, told you to take *me* out and do *whatever I wanted*. Now I wanna dance, I wanna win. I want that trophy, so dance good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web