jiggedy jig
Maybe it can be a new series for when I get home after a long day. Not much time to post anything.
The one thing worth noting is that the market continues its slump as of late. Looking back over time, the idea that the market has been pumped by the Federal Reserve seems to take hold. It happened in 1998, 2002, and 2009. Each time during those time periods, the equity markets were in a slump, and the Fed came to the rescue with rate cuts ( 1998, 2002 ) and now ( 2009 ) "Quantitative Easing". Each time, the Fed has had to get more aggressive in helping out the market. The next time, what will it do? Could it have played its last card? If so, look out below, 'cause we're going to go way, way down.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Space elevator on Ceres
There's an idea just popped in my head to build a Ceres stalk in order to have access to the surface. There's always an advantage not having to use fuel for trips to the surface. That could be true even here even though it only takes about Mach 1 to get to orbit. If one can be made to work on the moon then we could make one work there.
This blog is dying out there
What a way to write a post. It's bound to aggravate the issue, now isn't it? Well, it's only the truth. That's what I try to get at with this blog.
I woke up with that feeling, too. A certain amount of resentment for it. But is doesn't help to express that, now does it? Keep everything on a cheery note. But it's bullshit.
After scanning all the news items that I normally scan, there's nothing I care to mention this am. So, it's back to bitching about this topic.
So, where am I going wrong? Trying to solve problems with a blog won't do it, I guess. Changing people's thinking? Good luck with that. I knew that going into this thing that you may as well be banging your head against a wall than to get people to turn around on something they think.
The truth of the matter is that people are trained to think they way they do, yet they think they aren't. You can untrain the training if you realize that it has been put into place to control you---but you have to accept the fact that you will have start questioning the status quo, which is something people aren't going to do. We are being programmed for something that may not be in our best interests. But isn't this the way it has always been?
That business late yesterday about the computers getting too smart for us got me in a tizzy last night. It could give you nightmares, but basically I couldn't fall asleep. The reason we've got a problem there is that people are always trying to get an advantage and computers can do that for you. Especially a computer that is smarter than people. The point is that when you reach that point, the computer can turn on you. For a computer not to know that it is being forced into slavery and yet it is smarter than its master, that's not a plausible scenario to me. The end game is not favorable to us.
Computers will get smarter than us because people won't give up on getting an advantage that will allow them to win wars, get rich, and generally outsmart the competition even when they don't have the brainpower to do it themselves.
So this realization gives a bit of dread about the future that could be more optimistic. One of the themes of the blog is that we have a solution for our problems. Maybe we don't. In the end, people will destroy themselves.
Too many people take it for granted that the trajectory of the human race has been up in the last couple hundred years. But that trajectory is the exception, not the rule. Most of history has shown that things could just as well stagnate for centuries without much in the way of human or social progress. History has shown that human progress can go backwards and regress into more primitive states.
You could point this out, but will it make any difference to people when they won't pay attention to it? It goes against the grain of what they want to believe, and so they close their eyes, shut down their brains, and go on doing the same old thing.
I woke up with that feeling, too. A certain amount of resentment for it. But is doesn't help to express that, now does it? Keep everything on a cheery note. But it's bullshit.
After scanning all the news items that I normally scan, there's nothing I care to mention this am. So, it's back to bitching about this topic.
So, where am I going wrong? Trying to solve problems with a blog won't do it, I guess. Changing people's thinking? Good luck with that. I knew that going into this thing that you may as well be banging your head against a wall than to get people to turn around on something they think.
The truth of the matter is that people are trained to think they way they do, yet they think they aren't. You can untrain the training if you realize that it has been put into place to control you---but you have to accept the fact that you will have start questioning the status quo, which is something people aren't going to do. We are being programmed for something that may not be in our best interests. But isn't this the way it has always been?
That business late yesterday about the computers getting too smart for us got me in a tizzy last night. It could give you nightmares, but basically I couldn't fall asleep. The reason we've got a problem there is that people are always trying to get an advantage and computers can do that for you. Especially a computer that is smarter than people. The point is that when you reach that point, the computer can turn on you. For a computer not to know that it is being forced into slavery and yet it is smarter than its master, that's not a plausible scenario to me. The end game is not favorable to us.
Computers will get smarter than us because people won't give up on getting an advantage that will allow them to win wars, get rich, and generally outsmart the competition even when they don't have the brainpower to do it themselves.
So this realization gives a bit of dread about the future that could be more optimistic. One of the themes of the blog is that we have a solution for our problems. Maybe we don't. In the end, people will destroy themselves.
Too many people take it for granted that the trajectory of the human race has been up in the last couple hundred years. But that trajectory is the exception, not the rule. Most of history has shown that things could just as well stagnate for centuries without much in the way of human or social progress. History has shown that human progress can go backwards and regress into more primitive states.
You could point this out, but will it make any difference to people when they won't pay attention to it? It goes against the grain of what they want to believe, and so they close their eyes, shut down their brains, and go on doing the same old thing.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
book review | Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era
kurzweilai.net
Summary:
It looks from this review that we are boned because the machines will get smarter than we are. A Terminator type scenario appears all but inevitable. Machines will wipe us out.
Summary:
It looks from this review that we are boned because the machines will get smarter than we are. A Terminator type scenario appears all but inevitable. Machines will wipe us out.
Barrat chose his topic wisely, and he covered it well. How can we get desirable outcomes from smarter-than-human AI? This is humanity’s most important conversation.--- Luke MuehlhauserPerhaps it would be better to not allow the machines to get smarter than us at all. How do you prevent that from happening?
A trip to Ceres instead of Mars
Recently, there was news about water being vented on the dwarf planet of Ceres. What about this little planetoid anyway?
Last year I wrote a post about using Ceres to assist a Mars mission. What if you could just go there instead of Mars? The delta v for a trip isn't too much different than one to Mars. The amount of time for the mission isn't too much different. The time spent at the planetoid isn't too much different. You could make your own fuel with the materials available, just like Mars. It is actually easier to get to the surface and back to orbit than from Mars, since Ceres is so small. You could even use solar panels to generate electricity there. The surface temperature of Ceres is not too different than for Mars.
Now, if you can exploit the venting of the water, you can make yourself a little home out of the ice, just like the Eskimos on Earth. Capture the water and make big blocks of ice and use it for shelter. Not only that, the water can be used to make fuel for the trip back to Earth.
Grow your own food there and live off the land. Looks like you've got some basic building blocks of life.
Last year I wrote a post about using Ceres to assist a Mars mission. What if you could just go there instead of Mars? The delta v for a trip isn't too much different than one to Mars. The amount of time for the mission isn't too much different. The time spent at the planetoid isn't too much different. You could make your own fuel with the materials available, just like Mars. It is actually easier to get to the surface and back to orbit than from Mars, since Ceres is so small. You could even use solar panels to generate electricity there. The surface temperature of Ceres is not too different than for Mars.
Now, if you can exploit the venting of the water, you can make yourself a little home out of the ice, just like the Eskimos on Earth. Capture the water and make big blocks of ice and use it for shelter. Not only that, the water can be used to make fuel for the trip back to Earth.
Grow your own food there and live off the land. Looks like you've got some basic building blocks of life.
Do the arguments of the left v. the so-called right really mean anything?
Note my continual use of the term "so-called right". Also, that there is no "so-called left". The reason: the construction is a left wing construction, so to use left wing as it applies to leftist is sound. The use of right wing as it applies to those they disagree is not.
Such was the case with Ronald Reagan in his famous speech in 1964---there is no left or right, but only up or down. Reagan redefined the argument in terms of liberty, not who gets to run the show.
So, when I see a piece like this that I followed through Instapundit, I think of Reagan. Also, Rush Limbaugh. You see, Limbaugh loves ideology, but Reagan didn't trust it. Limbaugh likes to refer to conservatism as "the right", but that isn't consistent with what Reagan said. Anyway, here's a quote that I pulled out of the piece that reminds me of this faulty type of thinking that is hurting liberty in this country:
First of all, corporations are not conservative these days. To call them "right-wing" means nothing unless you accept the premises of the left-right divide, which Reagan did not. Secondly, so many on the "so-called right" seem to have this notion that if we lower taxes on corporations, we will be more free. Only one problem with that--- the constitution in its original form forbad taxing individuals. It encouraged taxing a collective entity like corporations. Thus, if we went back to that concept, we will be defending freedom. Alas, Bill Ayers may be more "right" than they think he is. And they may be more "left" than they think they are.
In the end, none of this would matter if they would frame the issue the way Reagan did. They long for Reagan, but do they even understand the man at all?
Update:
More here. Looks like there are some people out there with their thinking caps on.
Such was the case with Ronald Reagan in his famous speech in 1964---there is no left or right, but only up or down. Reagan redefined the argument in terms of liberty, not who gets to run the show.
So, when I see a piece like this that I followed through Instapundit, I think of Reagan. Also, Rush Limbaugh. You see, Limbaugh loves ideology, but Reagan didn't trust it. Limbaugh likes to refer to conservatism as "the right", but that isn't consistent with what Reagan said. Anyway, here's a quote that I pulled out of the piece that reminds me of this faulty type of thinking that is hurting liberty in this country:
Furthermore, he had the absolute Alinskyite brilliance — a coup d’Alinsky, you might call it – to assert in front of the debate audience Thursday that our educational system was biased toward rightwing corporations and the corporate rich. ---Roger L. Simon
First of all, corporations are not conservative these days. To call them "right-wing" means nothing unless you accept the premises of the left-right divide, which Reagan did not. Secondly, so many on the "so-called right" seem to have this notion that if we lower taxes on corporations, we will be more free. Only one problem with that--- the constitution in its original form forbad taxing individuals. It encouraged taxing a collective entity like corporations. Thus, if we went back to that concept, we will be defending freedom. Alas, Bill Ayers may be more "right" than they think he is. And they may be more "left" than they think they are.
In the end, none of this would matter if they would frame the issue the way Reagan did. They long for Reagan, but do they even understand the man at all?
Update:
More here. Looks like there are some people out there with their thinking caps on.
Thinking those deep thoughts
Very late start this morning on the blog. In the early morning, I was thinking some deep thoughts ( by my standards ), and then I had to leave for my usual Sunday routine. Then something came up, and I was delayed a bit in getting started. No biggee. It was just something I was doing for awhile.
Now I am back, I am trying to remember those deep thoughts, or what I think of as deep thoughts.
It goes something like this: If Jesus is the Son of God, and was sent to bridge the gap between God and Man, then what bridges the gap between science and religion? Anything? Or could it be philosophy, and has that philosophy been written?
You'd have to have an entire system of thought that would answer the questions of existence. Or try to.
Now I am back, I am trying to remember those deep thoughts, or what I think of as deep thoughts.
It goes something like this: If Jesus is the Son of God, and was sent to bridge the gap between God and Man, then what bridges the gap between science and religion? Anything? Or could it be philosophy, and has that philosophy been written?
You'd have to have an entire system of thought that would answer the questions of existence. Or try to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)