Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: Seebs on 16 May 2010 05:40 On 2010-05-16, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > Probably not, but civilization has effectively put a stop to any process > of natural selection. I have seen nothing to suggest that this is the case, and quite a bit of evidence suggesting that, if anything, we've created a wildly different set of selection pressures, which is increasing the rate of change substantially. Big changes in environment => faster natural selection. That our natural selection is not always "and the ones who don't run fast enough die" does not mean we don't still have natural selection -- it means that we're suddenly changing the selection criteria. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Morten Reistad on 16 May 2010 08:22 In article <4befbec6$0$14661$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: >Dave Garland wrote: > >> Our species is maybe 250K years old. The sun has what, a couple of >> thousand M years left before red giant time. It's extremely unlikely >> that our species will still be around at that point. > >Speak for yourself. I fully intend to be present when it happen to >witness it. (OK, I may need a lift in the Tardis to do that :-( > >It is quite possible that our species will still be around. But it will >have evolved significantly. In thousands or tens of thousands of years, yes. Tens of Millions, no. The descendents may still be able to read our literature, though. >Lifestyle will also be quite different, and we will have spread out to >other planets by then. And the race will begin to split off and evolve >slightly differently on each planet due to different environments. The step to do so is about as big as the step from starting organised agriculture to the present. We may make it in a few thousand years. Or it may take a hundred thousand. We may have to cope with other stuff, like volcanos, glaciers, deserts, meteors etc. Like our ancestors did between ~80ky to 12ky before present. >There will be periods of serious social unrest due to people from other >planets not treated equally, not allowed to participate in Olympics >because they would be at an unfair advantage (or disadvantage) because >they grew up on a different planet with different gravity, different >oxygen levels etc. We will have to readress the whole concept of human rights when we end with a multi-spieces civilisation. >And if certain portions of society develop telepathic skills (perhaps >with the help of the Vorlons), there will also be much social unrest due >to the telepaths feeling superior to the unevolved ones and the >unevolved ones wanting to prevent telepaths from taking over the world. Very advanced telecommunications, yes. Telepathy, no. But they may be indistinguishable for mere humans. -- mrr
From: Morten Reistad on 16 May 2010 08:14 In article <slrnhuve4a.1fr7.g.kreme(a)ibook-g4.local>, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >In message <ndn4c7-brj.ln1(a)laptop.reistad.name> > Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> wrote: >> If whoever inhabits the planet by then decides to go, they will >> not be humans. > >Probably not, but civilization has effectively put a stop to any process >of natural selection. Further evolution will almost certainly come from >genetic engineering. Or we may stay the same. No, natural selection is with us. The pressure of selection is pushing in very different directions, though. But, the microbiologists are astounded about how big the generic mutations that still happen really are. -- mrr
From: Ahem A Rivet's Shot on 16 May 2010 01:43 On Sat, 15 May 2010 15:25:08 -0400 Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: > AES wrote: > > > > > > > [How can anybody on a _computer_ group, for God's sake, even think that > > at this point a manned excursion to the Moon it's worth wasting funds > > on.) > > What are we going to do, stay on this god-forsaken dirtball until the > sun turns into a red dwarf? Or should we just wait until someone > invents FTL drive? If we're not expanding, we're dying. Well said - but I think a stunt trip to Mars is not the way to go, getting some real infrastructure in place would help a lot - a laser launch facility, some big spinning Hoytethers in near space, a decent re-usable orbital transfer vehicle (a fleet of them for preference), some preliminary asteroid mining projects, an SPS or two, maybe even a skyhook. That sounds to me like $10-20 billion well spent in a direction that would start to get some of us[1] off this dirt ball - it'd probably even turn a profit. [1] When Apollo 11 landed I had hopes that all this would happen in time for that to include me - when the shuttle appeared I knew that hope was lost. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
From: despen on 16 May 2010 11:22
Mensanator <mensanator(a)aol.com> writes: > On May 15, 7:33�pm, des...(a)verizon.net wrote: >> Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...(a)Yahoo.com> writes: >> > AES wrote: >> >> >> [How can anybody on a _computer_ group, for God's sake, even think >> >> that at this point a manned excursion to the Moon it's worth wasting >> >> funds on.) >> >> > What are we going to do, stay on this god-forsaken dirtball until the >> > sun turns into a red dwarf? �Or should we just wait until someone >> > invents FTL drive? �If we're not expanding, we're dying. >> >> When the sun starts expanding, > > When will that happen? 5 billion years from now? Think anyone > will still be around? I don't know if anyone will be around. But the premise above (not mine) is "until the sun turns into a red dwarf". With all the other planet size dangers, the earth faces, the sun burning out is probably not what will kill us off, but it is a certain outcome. >> Mars may warm up for a while. > > How long is a "while"? During the expansion of the Sun? I don't know. Centuries, a thousand years, then thousand? >> Only then would sending a few people to Mars make any sense. > > The expansion of the Sun will be wider than the orbit of Mars. > This must be a new usage of "sense" with which I am unfamiliar. Hmm, didn't know that. Then I suppose we move to Mars, then a moon of Saturn or Jupiter? >> Even then, it can only be done for a short term extension of human >> life, moving any significant part of the population is out of the >> question. �After Mars warms up, it will then be bathed in radiation >> and after that get colder than it is now. �No inner planets will >> remain. > > Doesn't "inner planets" include Mars? Yes I guess it does. >> Expansion into the Solar System makes no sense. > > So why bother sending anyone to Mars? I agree. I think that's what I posted. Ie. "expansion into the solar system makes no senses". >> To expand beyond the Solar System: >> >> 1. �Find habital planets. �Either with telescopes, or robotic missions >> or a combination of both. �This may take thousands of years. >> >> 2. �If there is no life on a potential habital planet, we'd need to >> "seed" that planet with life forms we are compatible with. �This may >> take tens of thousands of years and is still robotic missions. >> >> 3. �Once the target planet is ready, we can figure out whether to >> send a live crew on a thousand year voyage or whether we just want >> to send eggs or DNA to be raised by robots. >> >> The future of space flight is clearly robotic. >> Man is too fragile for the trip. > > That will never happen. What will never happen? Step one is underway. We already have hardware on the way out of the Solar System. It's just not robust enough to make the complete journey. I believe we can make machinery that will function for thousands of years. Not yet, but I think it's possible. |