Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
You should try bartending sometime, you hear a lot of the above 'round last call.
(My Law Prof was Dick Wolf)
I don't care if his name was 'Dick.' That has got to be one of the coolest names in American history. It deserves to make weak men tremble and strong women curse when he announces who he is.
the act of doing so isn't funny, that doesn't mean someone can't make a joke. Learn the difference.
Consider the case of Tiger Woods for a current example:
Difference between a Cadillac and a golf ball? Tiger can drive a golf ball over 300yds.
Why did Phil Michelson call Elin? To find out how to beat Tiger
Where was Elin the night Tiger crashed? Out clubbing.
and on it goes. Humor is a way of dealing with the awful. We'd all be happier if it didn't happen in the first place, but if it did happen, we might as well derive something positive from it.
The problem with the
For the unaware, we are "dismantling" planets *now* -- what do you think launching satellites to explore foreign bodies (that don't return to earth) or crashing them into foreign bodies (where some of the material ejected may reach escape velocity for said body) is??? Now given the influx in asteroid/comet/solar ion debris I suspect the Earth is still in a net mass gaining state -- but we know how to invert that situation should we choose to do so. We do understand the physics involved and have the technology to manage it.
What most people are unaware of is that there has been some thought devoted to planetary dismantlement. Freeman Dyson did some (in discussing in 1960 in Science the dismantlement of Jupiter to create a Dyson shell) ). David Criswell  thought of some more/better paths to dismantlement.
So the answer is very clear -- we dismantle the sun at a rate which slows its aging -- so the 5 Billion years number becomes ENTIRELY fictional -- we cannot predict what a technological civilization would do. But there are significant odds that it might dismantle the sun to the point where its lifetime is on the order of that of a red dwarf (several hundred billion years or more with no red giant phase). Ample time to decide when and how to move to a new star with a new lease on life.
1. In a molecular nanotechnology enabled world, there isn't really a "global warming" perspective to worry about. It is too simple to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in some inert form. People who are in the hard-core "global warming" camp should ask themselves why when I wrote the paper "Sapphire Mansions" in 2001, did I not instead call them "Diamond Mansions"?  It was because I did not wish to encourage the sucking of CO2 out of the atmosphere to the extent that all plants would DIE!
2. Molecular scale Nanotechnology has been defined and reviewed since 1992 (Drexler, Nanosystems) -- over 15 ago!. During that period nobody has said it is "incorrect", nobody has said it violates "laws of physics", at the most people may have said it is "hard". But if I can point out 4+ paths to get there -- so one has to wonder if it is simply not a lack of technological imagination that keeps us from already being there (and as a species having such methods in our technology toolbox).
3. David R. Criswell from Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, Eds.: Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones, University of California Press, 1985, Chapter 4, pp 50-87. 4. It may be worth noting that the "Sapphire Mansions" phase of human development I consider to probably be limited to a few decades -- while the "Matrioshka Brains" phase lasts the life of our engineered sun (or longer).
There's a lot of "If I don't need it, no one needs it" arrogance in the OS community.
That's pretty amazing. Precisely that attitude is one of the major reasons why I abandoned the proprietary world. I found that within OS, I could generally find at least someone that actually had somewhere near the problems I had, and had started trying to solve them.
I'm not saying you're wrong... but my experience is pretty much the diametrical opposite of what you're describing. Perhaps it's related to the exact problem set, rather than a general attitude, hmm?
I've gone my entire life on ATT/Cingular and I think I've had one dropped call... ever. Maybe two.
What are you guys doing to get dropped calls? Or is it extremely location-specific? I've never understood this complaint.
Tell that to the people that get told they cant have a domain name that says 'Disney', even if their name IS Disney.. Its not always cut and dry like one would expect.
( but i agree, he's stupid )
So does Martin Goetz though. For instance he argues about hardware implementations versus software implementations. Implemented in hardware something would be patentable so if instead it's implemented in software it should also be patentable.
I know. PoIR does not, hence the confusion.
Implemented in hardware something would be patentable so if instead it's implemented in software it should also be patentable.
I know, but I can't say I agree with the argument. Supposing someone made a printing press that could only print one book. You'd give them a patent on the machinery that does the printing (setting aside prior art for a second) but not on arrangement of the letters. If someone later came along with a movable type press that could set any book, you wouldn't allow that since you could patent a press that printed any single book, you should also be able to patent books, since any book could be reduced to a static press that could be patented.
It's a bogus argument. The hardware ought to be patentable, sure. But if someone finds a way to move the software component out of the hardware, that ought not to be covered by patents.