Baby Astronaut

Does "logic" have a technical meaning in computing? If that's what you're referring to, I know nothing about it. Imagine you're stuck using only two letters of the alphabet to communicate the English language, plus all verbal and mathematical languages in existence. You would use ABABAAAAABBABBAAABBAABABABAAAAABABABAABBABBAABAB for example to say "please". Not very efficient. You'd say there were "AB" kinds of people who understood binary or not, rather than "2". All I'm saying is that if the computer understood 36 states instead of 2, it would be able to write the numbers 1-10 and letters A-Z as they naturally appear in our language. Thus computer programming becomes a vastly easier task. The only way for this to occur is for the computer to understand more than on/off in a practical manner. One such way is by a photon receptor sensitive enough to distinguish between one, two, or more photons hitting it. Now if this receptor can absorb 100 photons, then we can directly code in alphabet of most languages, plus numbers and various math symbols. I think the current system is highly inefficient is all.

You're asking me to describe a method that doesn't exist. It'd be like me asking how fast a spaceship would be traveling if it reached Jupiter in eight days from here, and your response was to ask me how that's possible first. I think my question is legitimately answerable. Please give it a shot. Forget the photon example. I don't even want to know the exact numbers. Just tell me, from your experience in knowing how quickly a program's size can grow (just to accomplish simple tasks), can this be alleviated if the computer were able to use a higher base number than 2? And if so, will it possibly have benefits for overall speed as well? Thank you.

If they didn't have our fermenting little buddies on their planet, I'd say good odds. Hopefully they won't have the fizzy yellow stuff as their first impression. Maybe we'll get lucky and the first beer they drink is Arrogant Bastard. They might have a new respect for us then

For technology, let's say a photon sensor object, which uses a higher base number than 2 for computing, let's say 8. The number of photons hitting it simultaneously determines the instruction. It works differently than binary instruction, which needs one gate per on/off instance. Let's just say the photon sensor is the gate itself. Now, instead of 0 and 1 being the limit of variables from which to build a computer language, we can stretch the new limit to however many photons the object can absorb simultaneously. To make answering my questions easier, I started with 8. I'm sure one can imagine the possibilities. If your computer suddenly understood 8,000 rather than 2 instructions at once, it might vastly shrink the amount of data you need to instruct the computer to do something. For example, a program that needs 1.5 million lines of code with binary might instead only need 375 lines of code with this new process. I'd like to verify how feasible my thought experiment is.

From what I understand, the expansion doesn't occur in places where local forces (i.e. gravity, electromagnetism) are stronger and thus overcome it.

Injured his back in a last ditch effort to remove forgotten boxes of evidence left in Rove's previous office, hidden so well they forgot about it Pretty heavy boxes

If an instruction takes 1,000 lines of code to write, using the normal 2 states (1s and 0s), how many lines would the same instruction take to write by a future computer able to use 8 states (various increments of "on/off"). Also, how much would processing speed increase? Thirdly, would storage capacity (hard drives, disks) be increased any due to the extra states?

Hey, well someone deleted my one joke. Maybe they didn't get it and thought it wasn't a joke, since it's more like deadpan humor. I began with: "I'm not exactly a comedian, maybe someone can help me.....Is compassionate conservatism a joke?" Get it? I was hinting their "compassion" is a joke. Lol, eh? Maybe it was too offensive. (but considering the number of political jokes in the thread...)

If aliens were to visit earth, they'd almost certainly not be wasting vast amount of resources hiding and studying us. What's the point? Even if they were just observers, the universe is probably teeming with an enormous amount of wonders to explore, other civilizations to meet, etc. Aliens would likely have the technology to study us quickly, it'd be like us studying a forgotten tribe in jungle, not more than 40 years study necessary. And if they wanted resources or manpower, it'd be to their benefit to immediately train us. If we discovered a forgotten tribe in the jungle, or found life on Mars, think about it. How much energy and resources it would take us to hide from or amongst them while observing, compared to if we just introduced ourselves after taking a few minor precautionary steps. If aliens were going to attack or enslave, they'd likely do it right away, otherwise taxpaying aliens back home would be calling for heads due to the amount of time and dedication being spent on a more primitive species of intellect. Sisyphus's explanation is pretty level-headed.

Even if you could make the frame-rates go that quickly, you wouldn't capture a room being lit slowly, however cool that might be. Why? The photons have to reach the camera in order to even see the light, and by then it's too late. Unless a way exists to do it with rows of cameras lining the entire room, and then compile the videos so you somewhat get the effect you're looking for.

if our universe worked like this at the quantum level. From one angle certain events are possible/impossible, but if you rotated the angle of observation, the perspective shift might form "trick of the eye" qualities or patterns, which alter the relevant cause-and-effect mechanisms to fit the new physics allowable by the dimensions of this illusion as if it were real.

I dunno. Formulated thoughts based on established speech requires language, but inherent/natural thought wouldn't. The latter is only understood by its thinker, however any eavesdropper would probably interpret it as gibberish.

o t t f f s s e n t

I'm not so certain. Superstition itself could be listed as one more answer to the thread's question. However, I do agree about how a superstitious ritual could've eventually become a strong tradition, which maybe happened to coincide with beneficial precautions or methodologies. But the same adherence to tradition might have kept ignorance flourishing and even discouraged/punished new thoughts, ideas, or discoveries. Thus in the end, both instances probably evened out along the results.

Well said, padren. Might I add that "nice" is possibly not even genuine. The actually better quality we might be confusing it with is "kindness". That seems more real to me, where "nice" seems like pretending, often due to timidity, fearing rejection, or perhaps ulterior motives. A kind person often doesn't lie, they just know how to disagree without angering someone. They can be firm, reasonable, affirmative, set in their ways, loud, yet still be kind.

I caught that too I was like "a ball 1 meter off the ground can't be 1/4 its weight an extra meter higher."

I've always imagined that if a whole lot of modern babies were transported at infancy to the just after post-caveman era, they would grow up as smart as their prehistoric villagers and their learning wouldn't surpass that of others. So I agree with you. Because no matter how quickly a child picks up knowledge, its parents still had to teach it. Without a precursor, the genius can't get very far. And in prehistory, they might have not understood the concept of history enough to safeguard and record knowledge for posterity, much less be wise enough to share it with others.

Maybe it just didn't occur to anyone. I mean, it's not a big intuitive leap to "write" sounds. First you'd have to think of it, and it's unlikely you'd think it feasible because you wouldn't have known about consonants, vowels, alphabet system, notation, etc. The closest writers they had I'd guess were painters. Just draw what you need to convey. And even drawing would not be an intuitive leap, how would you ever have thought of "representing" something without vocals? Maybe at first you just point to familiar things. Remember. no one had parents teaching the basics of schooling we take for granted. Also, language would've had to develop into a coherent structure, one that has rules where a lot of people agree on the meaning of sounds (words). This is harder than might seem at first. In the U.S. alone, we have dialects of the same language which are difficult as hell to understand, and yet modern society boasts a comprehensive, standardized network of learning institutions along with by dictionaries and spelling bees. True, but it only has a part, as you implied. Too many people believe it is THE driving reason and forget about bedroom kids who tinker and discover into adulthood, creating new inventions without any survival needs pushing them. Information will collapse as knowledge increases and new systems facilitate this collapse. One example is the attempt for a simpler tax code. People often attempt to simplify computer programming language and structure. Ruby programming language (Wikipedia) (my paraphrasing) Often engineers focus on the machines. They think, "By doing this, the machine will run faster. By doing this, the machine will run more effectively. By doing this, the machine will etc etc etc." But in fact we need to focus on humans, on how humans care about doing programming or operating the application of the machines. We are the masters. They are the slaves.” Ruby follows the principle of least surprise, meaning that the language should behave in a way that minimizes confusion for experienced users. Matsumoto has said his primary design goal was to make a language which he himself enjoyed using, by minimizing programmer work and possible confusion. We'll eventually apply this philosophy to many other systems. At some time in the future, law will be clear enough that a lawyer won't have to decipher it for you, tech industries will adopt more universal and intuitive terms, etc. I don't know. Half of that list seems a bit arbitrary, perhaps even with a tinge of bias.

A (insert dumb person here) enters a bar with a large turd in hand and says "Hey...everyone! Look what I almost stepped on"

You're correct, it'd be highly improbable for the output to actually model reality. Yet if we only had to verify its results, it'd speed up the trial and error process by reducing the number of avenues we still need to explore. Just a guess.

Not entirely sure, but I think grandpa might've had an idea that a computer would be able to run endless simulations using different combinations of variables until it found one that worked for the data you gave it. For example, let's say we hadn't known that E=mc2. You input all other info possible, like matter, energy, speed of light, and whatever else. The computer runs various mathematics using what you do know, and homes in on formulas that seem to work yet don't alter the other formulas except to simplify them. One possible result could've been E=mc2, which doesn't harm classical physics, just expands on it and features simplicity.

The bit about communication by Sayonara³ and insane_alien, and survival prioritizing by swansont, all hit the nail on the head. Below are some more related thoughts for you to check out. -- Genius is only a potential, not a guarantee. Recipe for Genius Revealed -- Geniuses depend on former genius. This is where communication steps in. The Geniuses Behind the Geniuses -- Geniuses learn from others. Again, communication gives us ready access to more heads, which are better than just one head. Einstein Managed His Inbox Just Like You

That's no ninja. "You don't see" are the operative words. Check out this , you'll see.

Thank you, mooeypoo. And just to clear up some things... Well, if one had already defined dangerous, my point is you wouldn't have to survey anyone, just count how many women in the neighborhood *currently* have them. Not necessarily, actually. As was pointed out in the thread before, it might be in the best interest of those creeps to pretend to be nice, and then move on to the next "victim"; in which case the women will define these as "creeps" even though they might not have hooked up with them if they knew in advance. My point was (and still is) if the creep has to pretend to be nice, and if the the women's response if they knew beforehand was to avoid hooking up, then logically women do not seek out dangerous men. I'd say bad boy and dangerous are entirely different. One acts cool, daring, cocky, the other is a psychopath who lacks nearly total empathy, is deranged, graphically violent. Also, notice I said "real" bad boys to distinguish them from the one who are just acting cool, but even the real ones are still not dangerous unless perhaps someone in a bar picked a fight against him. Bad boys. Yeah, well I messed that up. "Dating" is the wrong term. Should have been "hooking up", the precursor to dating is what I meant. You know....getting a date in the first place. Then, leading up to a relationship after the first dates, the variables begin a shift towards the "relationship" ones. Fixed below. The variables again. Pick ups A women pretties herself. Any man who compliments or expresses desire just gave her the one thing she needed most from him. Plus she needs reassurance that other men also desire her. Moves on. The man who doesn't compliment, but teases her and feigns disinterest just took away one thing she needed from him. But, he makes her laugh. She gravitates to him, wanting that attention. Relationship A women pretties herself. If her mate expresses desire while still teasing occasionally, gives her one of the many things she wants from him. Also she needs reassurance that he desires her most. Stays with. If her mate only seeks approval or rarely shows interest, takes away one of many things she needs from him. She gravitates away from him. Remember these are not absolutes, but just general tendencies in many (but not all) women.

Simple test. Everyone go out in their neighborhood and count the number of women and their dangerous husbands or boyfriends. Now tally up. And.....Reality! > First, if women really LOVE dangerous guys, there'd be no such thing as creeps. > Second, women are only initially attracted to bad boys for dating purposes, it's rarely what they desire in a spouse/mate. > A real bad boy might sometimes get lots of "first dibs", but lack more in the area of long term relationships. > Everything depends on a few variables. Dating A women pretties herself. Any man who compliments or expresses desire just gave her the one thing she needed most from him. Plus she needs reassurance that other men also desire her. Moves on. The man who doesn't compliment, but teases her and feigns disinterest just took away one thing she needed from him. But, he makes her laugh. She gravitates to him, wanting that attention. Relationship A women pretties herself. If her mate expresses desire while still teasing occasionally, gives her one of the many things she wants from him. Also she needs reassurance that he desires her most. Stays with. If her mate only seeks approval or rarely shows interest, takes away one of many things she needs from him. She gravitates away from him. Hope we all learned something.