Dr Hannah Critchlow said that if a computer could be built to recreate the 100 trillion connections in the brain their it would be possible to exist inside a programme.
Dr Critchlow, who spoke at the Hay Festival on ‘busting brain myths’ said that although the brain was enormously complex, it worked like a large circuit board and scientists were beginning to understand the function of each part.
Link to Original Source
The article appears to only consider the risk of an individual dying, not the entire human race. The latter is much harder to recover from (we'd basically have to evolve all over again).
Ah, I don't have to reload, flipping between different resolutions is faster.
Getting just a few seconds of video and then having to hit reload, over and over, isn't exactly my idea of live.
00:19:53 Okay, and then you and everybody else will go on making more and more.
00:19:57 And eventually you're gonna run out of places to put it, right?
00:20:00 That is a problem that we're trying to solve, and there are a number of long-range solutions.
00:20:06 Oh, yeah? yeah.
00:20:07 Opening new dump sites, use of salt domes, abandoned mines for long-term storage.
00:20:13 We may even find a permanent solution by rocketing our waste into space, out of the earth's atmosphere, traveling harmlessly out of our solar system.
00:20:25 And what if there's life out there that's not particularly interested in dealing with our garbage?
00:20:31 Well, then I guess they will just have to send it back.
I know it's not exactly what you're asking, but DNA sequencing is getting cheaper, our ability to understand it is growing, and yet it never occurs to most people to save a DNA sample. At some point, when sequencing becomes cheap enough to do casually (not just for medical purposes) people WILL start to understand its value, and wish someone had saved samples from their ancestors, not just some old photos. It's possible to arrange for the samples to be frozen indefinitely, at low cost, for future sequencing (since current technology is not only expensive, but more importantly, isn't actually capable of reading the entire genome yet).
I suspect that this will be one of the most expensive treatments ever.
Treating aging directly should be cheaper in the long run than treating all age-related diseases separately, which is what we're doing now.
We enjoyed being forgotten until google came along. This is not about imposing a "new" right, this is about enjoying what we the previous generation has as a freedom. This is about reclaiming what search engine stole from us. As I already said multiple time on slashdot, a society which do not forget , helped by a seaerch engine, is a pathologic society which does not forgive, and ruins potentially lifes forever.
Google is a memory prosthesis. The fact that such a thing did not exist until recently, does not mean that there has ever been a right to ban it. We're in a transitional period where people haven't yet learned to adapt to it by properly discounting the importance of long-past events. If we just ban it now, we never will. The damage done by the transitional period is temporary, that caused by continuing to forget as before is not.
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana
New Atomic Clock Reaches the Boundaries of Timekeeping
On Earth, maybe. It's not a theoretical limit - the article itself points out that you can put the clocks in space.
Ye suspects the only way we will be able to keep time in the future is to send these new clocks into space. Far from the earth's surface, the clocks would be better able to stay in synch, and perhaps our unified sense of time could be preserved.
In the long term, the value of a stock is it's future free cash to shareholders, discounted by time and
The magic phrase is Dividend discount model.
There should be a duress password to indicate coercion.
You lost me when you assigned an arbitrary number as your cutoff rather than defining the cutoff on reasonably definable measures of physical and mental health.
Yes. Not only that, from the article:
As for the two policy implications, one relates to using life expectancy as a measure of the quality of health care. Japan has the third-highest life expectancy, at 84.4 years (behind Monaco and Macau), while the United States is a disappointing No. 42, at 79.5 years. But we should not care about catching up with—or measure ourselves against—Japan. Once a country has a life expectancy past 75 for both men and women, this measure should be ignored. (The one exception is increasing the life expectancy of some subgroups, such as black males, who have a life expectancy of just 72.1 years. That is dreadful, and should be a major focus of attention.)
Not only did he pick an arbitrary number, but he believes it should be used as public policy.
One warrant canary conveys 1 bit of data. How many are allowed? Has anyone gotten away with using more than one?