Page 2 of 3

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 03:35
by Zoombie
Caydr wrote:
Sure, YOU would rather starve you fat suburbanite American who is rich and has everything they could want. What about the people starving in Africa and Asia and other down on their luck places? I bet they wouldn't care that their food is more nutritious and easier to grow because it's genetically engineered, they'll just be glad to not DIE!
This is the only smart thing I've heard all week, thank you.
I hate freggen hippies...

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 05:41
by pharoph
:-) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

im having a smiley craze!

the world will commit suicide before the get into that theory...

(Americans are prompted to buy things)

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 14:19
by Comp1337
pharoph wrote::-) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

im having a smiley craze!

the world will commit suicide before the get into that theory...

(Americans are prompted to buy things)
well im having a block annoying pharoph craze

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 16:22
by Erom
Nuclear Deterrence works great when you are dealing with rational actors, which states usually are. So I definitely would not have stopped the development of nuclear tech if I had had the chance. While I am at least a little concerned about non-state actors getting their hands on nukes (IE, crazies who would actually use them) I think people overestimate the chance of that happening (building + maintaining a true warhead is HARD) and in any case, when I consider the amount of power we generate with atomics as that much less oil and gas being burned, it's a net positive.

If anything, I'm a proponent of building more nuclear power plants to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 16:33
by Saktoth
Core.
*transhumanist*

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 19:26
by NOiZE
CORE !!!!

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 20:05
by Teutooni
Haha, should have made a poll. :lol:

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 20:22
by Erom
And yeah, for the record, if the technology came along tomorrow I would be willing to pattern myself. Even thought I prefer Arm in the game :)

There are some questions like - what would my family and girlfriend be doing? I would give up patterning if my loved ones felt strongly against it, and immortality would feel pretty hollow alone. And also, I'd be worried about the technological implementation - in a Stevenson novel (Diamond Age, I think) there is a guy with an add for bug spray stuck obscuring the lower left corner of his vision for his entire life. He eventually takes a power drill to his temple - I think I would do the same if infected with cybernetics/patterning viruses.

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 20:41
by manored
Erom wrote: If anything, I'm a proponent of building more nuclear power plants to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Ya, sure, why to burn oil if we can build gigant radiactive bombs in our citties? :) I
would be in favor of nuclear energy if wasnt for the huge risk...

I think that some people here are forgetting that robots are destructible too... AKA, you could kill yourself later if you didnt liked eternity :) Also, in a infinite time span everthing can happen, so eventually you would die in a accident or war of some sort...

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008, 21:14
by Teutooni
manored wrote: or war of some sort...
I can see where this is going. "...their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSB-Rk1sYZw

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 07:18
by pharoph
YA THINK

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 07:37
by rattle
Comp1337 wrote:
pharoph wrote::-) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

im having a smiley craze!

the world will commit suicide before the get into that theory...

(Americans are prompted to buy things)
well im having a block annoying pharoph craze
Totally forgot about adding him...

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 07:45
by SinbadEV
I was reading Altered Carbon (by Richard Morgan) when my leave started... I was really enjoying it for about three fifths of the thing and then kinda set it down and haven't picked it back up on like 3 weeks... anyways... it's about brain backups and stuff... you can have your brain pattern put into a new clone body when you die as long as you are insured well enough... otherwise your family can rent sleeves for a few hours so you can attend family functions.

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 14:06
by Comp1337
manored wrote:gigant radiactive bombs in our citties?
Haha what
how many cities have nukes planted in them

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 14:39
by PicassoCT
Even if your Brain is pattered - there still remains the Fatal Error: 404 - this Memory and all of its backups are lost because nobody would built spareparts for all eternity. Have a nice Day!

There is Kiln People of David Brin - and hey, nobody said we would have to die for a Copy. So meet my Mini(mized)me..

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 14:57
by HeavyLancer
Core for me. I think that 'patterning' or simply straight downloading of the brain into a computer will occur. I'd like it to be more like a gradual replacement or organic and addition of electronic parts to the brain. Basically, expanding the brain and replacing the bits already there at the same time. And then you have your 'transcended' human. I like the phrase 'SoulCom' (Soul Computer) for such a being. :-)

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 15:56
by Erom
manored wrote:Ya, sure, why to burn oil if we can build gigant radiactive bombs in our citties? :) I
would be in favor of nuclear energy if wasnt for the huge risk...
This isn't the 1950's anymore. The technology is there- plants built today are significantly safer, and the technology can only improve.

And anyway, how many people died from the Chernobyl accident? Not many compared to the amount that die annually from pollution from fossil fuels. Periodic nuclear meltdowns would kill less people than fossil fuels do now.

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 17:53
by Comp1337
Erom wrote:
manored wrote:Ya, sure, why to burn oil if we can build gigant radiactive bombs in our citties? :) I
would be in favor of nuclear energy if wasnt for the huge risk...
This isn't the 1950's anymore. The technology is there- plants built today are significantly safer, and the technology can only improve.

And anyway, how many people died from the Chernobyl accident? Not many compared to the amount that die annually from pollution from fossil fuels. Periodic nuclear meltdowns would kill less people than fossil fuels do now.
Has anyone ever actually died of a nuclear meltdown?

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 17:58
by Erom
A few- a number of emergency response personnel were sealed in at Chernobyl, but that's it, at least directly. You have to factor in increased cancer rates due to released radiation and things, however. Even counting those indirect deaths, though, it's still an order of magnitude less lethal per megawatt generated than oil.

Re: ARM or CORE?

Posted: 15 Apr 2008, 19:59
by Peet
And the accident at chernobyl was not the product of normal operation, it was the result of an unauthorized and irresponsible experiment iirc.