Looking at their upcoming launch manifest I see: NASA, Orbcomm, Asiasat, Space Systems, Loral, Thales Alenia Space, US Air Force, CONAE, NSPO, Spacecom, Bigelow Aerospace, SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation, SES, Iridium, and SATMEX.

The US government isn't even the customer for a majority of the launches through 2015. If you're specifically talking about manned missions you might have a better argument. But even then the Bigelow Aerospace launch is tantalizing hints of the future... even if it's only the future for the fabulously, ridiculously wealthy.

It still wouldn't explain the lack of communication from the team. They're one of the most prominent and well known open source security tools and the entire website and signing keys get hacked, you don't think they would be talking to the community right now if?

If you're gonna post compromised binaries of TrueCrypt, you generally wouldn't stick them on a page with "WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure" in large, bright red text. You'd also expect some kind of statement from the good folks that have been running TrueCrypt for the past decade.

I'll join the chorus of people speculating about them getting a court order they couldn't bring themselves to follow. I would stay far, far away from that latest binary, if I had to guess it contains whatever loophole they were ordered to put in place, hence all the big and bright warnings.

Maybe, but as long as that limit is several times more thinking power than the human brain you still have, effectively, the singularity that Vinge described: i.e. you have technological advancement faster than can be predicted at the present time. Unless you think the human brain is the absolute theoretical maximum thinking power it's possible to accumulate in one system...

But Verner Vinge isn't one of them. In his original paper, he used them to illustrate how difficult to comprehend concepts might, conceivable play out. For example, he mentions that a singularity may play out over the course of decades or over the course of hours. Imagining how such massive changes could occur on a global scale in just a few hours is difficult, so he points the reader to a book whose author has already put time and effort into imagining how such a thing could play out and what some of the implications might be. It is using the book precisely as a thought experiment to examine an especially extreme part of what he is describing.

You're begging an important question with your argument, let me quote from the article to illustrate it.

If you asked someone today what the first computer capable of designing an improved version of itself would look like, you'd say it would be a true AI. This is not necessarily true. You are assuming that designing a new, more powerful computer requires true intelligence. Maybe in reality it'll be a few million node neural network optimized with a genetic algorithm such that the only output is a new transistor design or a new neural network layout or a new brain-computer interface.

The disparaging way that the summary and article talk about references to science fiction stories is practically an ad hominem attack. There is nothing inherently wrong with science fiction stories that makes them improper for thinking about the implications of changing technology. Much of the best sci-fi in existence is little less than thought experiments about how various kinds of advances might affect humanity on an individual and cultural level.

Curiosity: What are some explicit examples from relatively modern media. Anything later than 2005 would be pretty interesting. I don't watch much modern sci-fi these days, my wife just isn't very interested in hard sci-fi and the soft stuff wouldn't really apply (since it's 3/4 fantasy 1/4 technobabble).

No. No it cannot be rolled back. What you are describing is probably among the most severe and permanently damaging forms of torture known to man. The human mind is not evolved to maintain stability without outside contact. I'd rather die than spend a decade (or 2 or 3 or 4) locked in a box the way you describe. I'm actually horrified that you think it's an acceptable form of justice.

Because it's "lumpier" than the universe should be based on our current understanding. At sufficiently large scales, any one section of the universe should look basically like any other section. The Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall (and other features of similar size) are above the "sufficiently large" scale so we don't expect to see organized structures but we do, so our understanding isn't complete (which is hardly surprising).

Nothing you say is wrong but what you imply is.

The prequels were fundamentally broken. Episodes 4-6 achieved cult status because they were enjoyable the first time around (not to mention the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). The prequels released stand alone, not as part of the already established series, would have been laughed out of the theater. It's not rose colored glasses, there is a large and irrefutable quality gap between the original trilogy and the prequels.

Yes, but if my consciousness is an illusion then why how is it driving my behavior? If I'm making decisions about my survival based on how unique and special I think I am, I am conscious.

Hell, lets even ignore all that. What would I, as an end user, use OpenStack for? I'm sincerely asking: what is the use case for an end user directly using OpenStack?

I know that I'm conscious. I'm self aware. I have a stream of thought that I can analyze (and I can analyze that analysis if I really want to). That's pretty much the definition of being conscious. After that I'm left with only a few options.

I can believe that I am a unique snowflake, the only conscious human being in the world. But that doesn't make any sense. For one thing there's nothing about me that should make me unique in that regard. For another, most humans behave in ways that are basically consistent with the way I behave and much of my behavior is driven by my consciousness. It'd be difficult or impossible to account for the actions of others if I chose to view them as mere automatons.

Or I could believe that my consciousness is an illusion. Something my brain conjures up to make me think that I'm directing myself through my day when in reality I'm just another robot puttering through the day. First and foremost, why would such a thing evolve? If consciousness doesn't drive human behavior why do I perceive myself to be conscious?

Or I could believe the other human's are conscious as well. Given the alternatives, this seems like the most reasonable, logically choice.

Hell, I can do all that on the $55 tablet I got my 2 year old daughter for car rides. Or the ancient and out of support for several years $100 touchpad.