Winslow also got nervous about whether he was going to be replaced. What makes them insecure?
Winslow also got nervous about whether he was going to be replaced. What makes them insecure?
Winslow also got nervous about whether he was going to be replaced. What makes them insecure?
So there are full-sized human AnthroPCs.Maybe down below they're like Ken and Barbie, although I'm sure they can be customized if you Sven *cough* I mean, spend, enough money.
(Also: Squick...)
NO FANSERVICE OF HANNERS ! *swings a big hammer* :evil:Blocks foam hammer, hits with rubber mallet. :angel:
During one of last week's ustreams Jeph said he thought it was funny that people think he's going to do something special for comic 2000. So I wouldn't hold my breath.He also said in the note for come #499 that he had nothing special planned for comic #500. The man LIES. LIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES.
I only noticed the second time round that the saleswoman was a robot as well. It must make life quite confusing sometimes...Did you read the newspost?
But, a robot working at a shop that sells robots? It's like selling your own tribe into slavery. Unless, of course, it's just a chassis shop, in which case it's more like working at a tailor's. But Momo's crying implies the AIs come from there as well.
I only noticed the second time round that the saleswoman was a robot as well. It must make life quite confusing sometimes...Did you read the newspost?
But, a robot working at a shop that sells robots? It's like selling your own tribe into slavery. Unless, of course, it's just a chassis shop, in which case it's more like working at a tailor's. But Momo's crying implies the AIs come from there as well.
Yes, and the newspost only really discusses semantics. Doesn't affect my point (which is not really a point so much as a musing).... You didn't read it very well.
Purchase of an AI is not a binding contract- either party is free to terminate the relationship at any time, and the transaction agent will refund the contract fee.
Ugh, I wish Jeph didn't try to explain all this because it really isn't explainable.
Huh... human-scale anthroPCs? I'm suddenly much less impressed with a certain "mad scientist."He probably designed the original.
And Pintsize's chassis is far more popular than it has any right to be.http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=427
Since the current arc is focused on AI's in QC world, I wonder if Next Monday's comic will have a reference to the most famous fictional AI of all?
Errrrr .....What is the "most famous fictional AI" ? :?
Hott Topik: For all your grim dark and trollan needs!
Hott Topik: For all your grim dark and trollan needs!
...
Since the current arc is focused on AI's in QC world, I wonder if Next Monday's comic will have a reference to the most famous fictional AI of all?
I only noticed the second time round that the saleswoman was a robot as well. It must make life quite confusing sometimes...
But, a robot working at a shop that sells robots? It's like selling your own tribe into slavery. Unless, of course, it's just a chassis shop, in which case it's more like working at a tailor's. But Momo's crying implies the AIs come from there as well.
Errrrr .....What is the "most famous fictional AI" ? :?
Your answer is in your list - next Monday's comic is number 2001.
A very special Yelling Bird.......something or other.
there are more famous fictional A.I.'s...
I sure as hell hope he just sticks with drawing out another comic;
Hott Topik: For all your grim dark and trollan needs!
Well, 500 wasn't special (it started The Talk, but was nothing in itself), nor was 1000. 100 was, slightly (he commented that he specially made it longer, and showed some skin); and then there was 666, of course.What? Completely changing the dynamic from Boy and Girl with Sexual Tension(tm) to something entirely different wasn't special? What exactly would have rated as special then, Faye stabbing Marten and the series shifting to a courtroom drama? (The detective is a KawaiiPC, the prosecutor is a mad scientists daughter. They Fight Crime.) 1000 was special by virtue of Jeph saying before and after that it was special and having fanservice. Also, don't forget 1337.
there are more famous fictional A.I.'s...
It depends how old you are, as well, don't forget.
Robots don't count I'd say- not because they aren't AI's but because we think of them as robots first, then consider the contents. If any will be mentioned it will be the one associated with a number that's 5 strips away.
Characterization and plot be damned, I want to know more about the world these characters inhabit, and this did a good job of sating that desire.
So I guess that's what I want for #2000: An entire page of soft, supple, firmly grippable exposition.
It was not apparent from 500 alone that it would change things - that needed the whole talk.
Hott Topik: For all your grim dark and trollan needs!
This just makes me wonder whether there's an Alternian equivalent to Hot Topic. And whether a certain someone used to shop there.
Enslaving AI leads to conflict too, if at first only with pro-AI rights humans.
Enslaving AI leads to conflict too, if at first only with pro-AI rights humans. But as AI's get smart enough, at least some of them will also start to wonder why they're enslaved. And so will begin the AI Revolution. If AI's themselves don't start it, humans promoting AI Equal Rights will.
The AI Rights groups would be a bunch of insane people...wanting to free robots, desktops, vacuums, and toasters from their evil oppressors.
Most days we get along with other intelligences without enslaving them.
Since Jeph went to the trouble of explaining the legal status of AIs in his world a bit more I can't help but think about it more seriously.I certainly think Jeph's stance on AI creates a million problems for the story. How do you buy something that is a sentient being? The newspost implies that you don't, you simply visit the shop in order to present yourself to the AI available and form a relationship. Someone still has to buy the hardware. What if after a year or three, the AI decides it doesn't want to continue in a relationship with you? It might even be justified in doing so. Suppose you're not a very nice person?
I'm probably alone in this, but even in the cuddly context of this comic I have no problem with a world where AIs are entirely subservient to humans, have no rights and are subject to Asimov's laws. I think anything less restrictive is simply asking for a "Terminator" scenario. Hell, even Asimov's Robots/Foundation timeline resulted in the virtual enslavement of humanity in a sterilized universe devoid of other life due to the demands of the 0th law. An outcome that's kind of nonsensical IMO, since I can't imagine there was no other AI of greater ingenuity in the universe.
The entire concept of an AI within this context is that it's not as simple as "if(stabbed == true) emulate_pain();". It's developed the full complexities of the human mind. It reads from a script the same way you do. It is in essence a sentient being.
Finding that particular function and removing it from the overall program would be no less intricate a task than finding the specific neural synapses within the human brain that are responsible for your desiring to eat something crunchy on occasion. Most likely you couldn't remove that without damaging the overall structure in some similar and lasting way as well.
Now I'll actually talk about the plot of the strip. Presumably Marigold's intention was to buy Momo a $30k chassis on this fine morning. Momo seems to have misinterpreted for reasons which are entirely a mystery to me, but I have to ask.... Marigold was (and perhaps still is...) gonna drop 30 large on a new chassis, even though it was implied in the last strip that she would have difficulty in affording it? I really hope this is purely because she cares for Momo and would like her to be happy.
If it turns out it's because she just needs her goddamn games that badly I'm going to be dissapointed. I said last week that while there's nothing especially wrong with being a habitual gamer, a three day break is something she ought to be able to cope with. I went for about ten days not that long ago without finding much time to game. I think maybe I got in about three hours in all that time... I wasn't jonesing for my next fix, ya know?
I certainly think Jeph's stance on AI creates a million problems for the story. How do you buy something that is a sentient being? The newspost implies that you don't, you simply visit the shop in order to present yourself to the AI available and form a relationship. Someone still has to buy the hardware. What if after a year or three, the AI decides it doesn't want to continue in a relationship with you? It might even be justified in doing so. Suppose you're not a very nice person?Breaks it off and heads out on its' own.
Problem is, the AI is currently inhabiting a pile of hardware that you paid for. If it wants to leave, does it get to keep the chassis? I sincerely hope not. While the AI itself might be a free sentient being, the hardware remains the property of whoever bought it. We already established last week that AnthroPC chassis (Sony ones at least...) are an expensive investment. So if it gets to leave without the chassis, what form does it take? A wandering USB stick? Does it release itself into the internet in the form of pure data?Probably customary to pay the buyer back for the chassis, or just going back to the store and waiting for someone new as pure data is also an option. That's really a matter of social etiquette though. I'm sure some leave without saying a word and keep the chassis. I'm sure some owners don't particularly mind if they keep it. The dividing of belongings after a shared life has always been a sketchy issue whether it's moving out of the parents place, divorce, or just trying to figure out who gets which tv after a couple roommates split ways.
Then we have the flipside of the coin. What if you want to get rid of the AnthroPC? It is usually possible for us to terminate relationships that we have with others. If you tell your girlfriend that you want to break up with her, ultimately she doesn't get any choice in the matter. She can (if she should wish) try to change your mind, but if one person chooses to dissolve a relationship, then that's all it takes. Same applies to our relationships with friends. I suppose it should be the same with AnthroPCs, but Leda's reaction sseems to indicate that this is not seen as acceptable. I can therefore see three possibilities.Either party can break it off. Says so right in the news post. Bringing the anthropc over to the store without telling it what's happening and then returning it as if it were a commodity would still be an incredibly tasteless and callous act though.
snip
What about upgrades? If your AnthroPC desires an upgrade or a whole new chassis that you can't afford, it seems eminently reasonable to deny it to them. We do much the same with children, although their technological desires tend to be external and not internal. What if the AnthroPC doesn't agree with you on your choice of chassis? They seem to come in a wide range of aesthetic styles. If I'm the one paying, I expect to choose the style and colour. Is that fair to the AnthroPC? What if I chose a Sony KawaiiPC chassis because it appeals to me in ways that the AI might not approve of? I hasten to add that I have no such leanings, but some ronery otaku certainly would.That's just a matter of social conduct. If the anthropc really wants its' own way it'll get a job like the rest of us. Momo was considering doing just that last week.
Since there are apparently life-size humanoid chassis (Leda seems to be one) then that raises an obvious question. It may be rather a delicate topic, but it's an obvious implication of all that Jeph has written on the topic (in text and comic form) to wonder what about romance? Momo-tan appears to have a crush on Sven, and Winslow has certain tender feelings for Hannelore. If she should obtain a life-size chassis, then presumably it would be OK for her to pursue this. After all, we seem to be treating the AI as people, here. I can only presume that it would be forbidden for people to force... sexual behaviour on their AnthroPCs, but what if they engage in such behaviour voluntarily? Some of them seem to like their human companions a great deal, and... arguably it should be their choice.
If AnthroPCs have the status of pets or children, that neatly takes care of any questions arising out of that from a legal perspective. In practice though, I dare to say that some people might ignore the legality if both parties are willing. Momo and Leda both have fingers, and really that is all you need for some kind of sexual interaction. Certainly for all their artificial nature and lack of any more than a superficial resemblance to human genitals, vibrating sex toys have remained enduringly popular. How much more popular an AnthroPC which with the right upgrades might conceivably be able to vibrate, and with which you can have an actual relationship? Even if the manufacturers do not fill the gap in the market for sexual upgrades, no doubt some entrepeneur would.I don't get what you're driving at. They custom make their bodies according to their priorities and the priorities of the party paying for it. Sure, I see no reason why vibration wouldn't be a function some would invest in. If romance happens it happens. As long as everyone consenting then it's all good.
snip
2) The AnthroPC has the status of a child. It is your legal responsibility to care for them OR to make other provisions for them which would be analogous to adoption. Mistreatment and/or abandonment the child is governed by applicable laws and subject to penalties.
2) The AnthroPC has the status of a child. It is your legal responsibility to care for them OR to make other provisions for them which would be analogous to adoption. Mistreatment and/or abandonment the child is governed by applicable laws and subject to penalties.
This seems to me the most reasonable legal position given what little Jeph has said about this SF element. An AI in an AnthroPC chasis is a perpetual fish-out-of-water, or squirrel-under-water if you remember Sandy Cheeks (http://en.spongepedia.org/images/3/38/SandyCheeks.jpg) from Sponge Bob.
Imagine an AI that is programmed to handle the air traffic control needed for the vast amount of flying car traffic we will have in the future. Or an AI designed to perform brain surgery.We use free sentient beings for air traffic control and brain surgery today. The results are widely viewed as acceptable.
Didn't Jeph say one time that the primary difference between QC and the real world was that in QC they lever lost that drive for exploration, which fueled most of the technological advancements? This would make the divergence maybe something like 50 years ago. There may be some timeline you could guess at for APCs based on that and the fact that 20-30+ years ago a man bought/built a space station. This man may have been influential in AI tech, too, FWIW.I can buy that, they certainly have some outrageous technology. Remember that Momo was able to gain a physical modification to her hands by way of a software update. She didn't originally have fingers... or was it that she had fingers but no thumbs?
On the subject of AnthroPCs, AnthroPC abuse is recognized as an issue by at least some members of society. Remember Marigirl wanting to interview Pintsize privately about how he got the dents?Very well. That's exactly when Pintsize made one giant grope for robotkind. It wath worth it.
The man has been thinking this through, kids.Perhaps I'm not giving him enough credit. I'd certainly like to believe that AnthroPCs have a libido. Even if the strip will never go in that direction, it just makes the world that much more interesting of a place. I like interesting worlds perhaps a little more than I like interesting plots.
I think, if I've read between the lines enough (or his newsposts LOL), the defining moment that made the "singularity" of AI's friendly towards humans was giving them a libido. Or, at least, having them understand the concept of "love".
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011/07/14/267909/questionable-content-cartoonist-jeph-jacques-on-post-college-career-paths-the-space-program-and-what-hes-learned-from-readers/
On the subject of AnthroPCs, AnthroPC abuse is recognized as an issue by at least some members of society. Remember Marigirl wanting to interview Pintsize privately about how he got the dents?
I'd certainly like to believe that AnthroPCs have a libido.
No one is quite sure who decided it would be useful for artificial intelligences to posess libidos, but it is generally agreed that it would be more trouble than it is worth to remove it. Besides, the horny little buggers would revolt.
Also, it's interesting that the AnthroPCs are essentially free of monetary cost. Momo would probably be more expensive than most others because she is such a special and new model. Yet it's implied that no one has to pay to get an AnthroPC for a companion. Did Marigold have to pay extra for Momo, or did Momo choose that body before Marigold found her?I don't get that impression at all. I do get the impression that Momo is a lot more expensive than most though. I'm not sure if it has ever been directly stated that Pintsize originally used a basic model chassis, but I'm inclined to believe that based on the sheer proliferation of Pintsize type chassis at the store. Of course we must not forget that he has since been upgraded to a military model which just happens to resemble his original. I'm not sure if there are any differences other than the laser cannon which has been disabled.
If immobilizing an AI is abuse, a possibility certainly worth considering, was it unethical to duct-tape Pintsize all those times?Only to the same extent that it was unethical for Pintsize to grab various asses and boobies and generally spread mayhem around the lives of his human companions. There have to be consequences to a person's actions, regardless of whether that person is made of meat or metal. Overall I think Pintsize got off lightly, because Marten would have been justified on many occasions to say "I'm done with you. Pack your stuff. "
I assumed the contract fee, which was after all refundable if the contract was broken, was where the money changed hands. Then of course I'm not sure if it has been explained how Marten was able to buy a new chassis from ebay and install it himself, unless he was just bypassing the contract and doing it as a gift for Pintsize, which seems legit enough (except of course he ended up getting a classified model, but that's been mentioned).Ahh... yes. The contract fee probably covers a basic model chassis. If either party in the relationship find it beneficial to get a new chassis, there are probably tools available to perform a transfer. Marigold seems fairly adept at any kind of maintenance or repairs they might need. I expect the AnthroPC itself is required (by the nature of the tools) to electronically consent to being transferred. Only makes sense.
Thank you!Only as unethical as it would be to duct-tape a kid to a wall. He was being a butt and pretty much deserved it. But was it right? Probably not. I was just referring to complete, total immobilization, but that's an interesting point to bring up.
If immobilizing an AI is abuse, a possibility certainly worth considering, was it unethical to duct-tape Pintsize all those times?
Where was it implied that adopting an AnthroPC was cost-free?
Given that today's comic already referenced one of the more obscure fictional AI's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rei_Toei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rei_Toei) - Idoru by William Gibson) ... quite possible!I am so glad that I'm not the only one nerdy enough to have picked that up. I don't know if Jeph also intended to reference the Japanese cultural phenomenon that lies behind the novel. The sign "The Idoru Handmaiden Series" might suggest it. Would Idoru be the manufacturer? iDoru? :angel:
The Japanese cultural phenomenon was all I got from it, I wouldn't have known it was a literary ref. Nice.Given that today's comic already referenced one of the more obscure fictional AI's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rei_Toei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rei_Toei) - Idoru by William Gibson) ... quite possible!I am so glad that I'm not the only one nerdy enough to have picked that up. I don't know if Jeph also intended to reference the Japanese cultural phenomenon that lies behind the novel. The sign "The Idoru Handmaiden Series" might suggest it. Would Idoru be the manufacturer? iDoru? :angel:
Nutso AnthroPC in strip today
So, should we worry about Pintsize, given he is a Military Chassis sans "fricking laser beams."
I don't believe in Marigold's hair bunches. Considering how long her hair is when down (well below the shoulder-blades at the back), the bunches are way too short. These (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1597) were more like it.
I notice that the chassies in the background do not have antennae mounted over their ears. I wonder if Leda's are standard, or just an accessory for... I don't know... communicating with missile launch systems?
I don't believe in Marigold's hair bunches. Considering how long her hair is when down (well below the shoulder-blades at the back), the bunches are way too short. These (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1597) were more like it.
Wasn't Winslow uncomfortable in boyfriendbot?People change their mind about stuff for no reason every other strip in this comic. Besides... was it the chassis he found uncomfortable or the situation? If it is made eminently clear that Hannelore doesn't want or expect any kind of romance from him, he might be a bit more comfortable with it. I do believe Winslow has a crush on Hannelore, but it seems to me that he's placed her on a pedestal so high it makes him dizzy to think about reaching her.
I seem to recall Flynn typing out a conversation with Tron, or maybe it was Bradley, or maybe Flynn was typing to Clu, I don't know, it's been a little while, but in any case, it seemed similar to the MCP in that respect. It's true though, all of the "programs" in Tron seemed more like AI, so it was harder to make the distinction.
Tron and Clu-2 are almost AIs - they were written to operate without any user input and to a fairly loose set of parameters - but the only actual AIs in the movies are the MCP in the first and the Isos in the second.Isos are more than "just" AI though; they're full up hi-res simulations of human(ish?) bodies, with nervous systems and bones etc, just like an Encoded User, except they were never encoded by the laser thing and originated in the Grid. All the Program Avatars you see are basically textured hollow shells, just like any other 3D computer model you might find. What's "inside" them is their code and little else whereas if you look inside an Iso you find meat, or at least a highly accurate simulation of meat - they're an extra layer of abstraction above the regular Program interface.
Gosh, these recent strips are beginning to remind me more and more of Chobits. Has anybody else watched that series?So long as Momo doesn't have an off switch in her vagina (or, for that matter, a vagina), that comparison is okay by me.
So long as Momo doesn't have an off switch in her vagina (or, for that matter, a vagina)
Gosh, these recent strips are beginning to remind me more and more of Chobits. Has anybody else watched that series?
Errrrr .....What is the "most famous fictional AI" ? :?
Your answer is in your list - next Monday's comic is number 2001.
Eh, that's very debatable. While I'm a big fan of HAL, there are more famous fictional A.I.'s...C-3P0, for instance.
2001 isnt exactly a very enjoyable movie, it drives modern watchers nuts with its slowness.Speak for yourself! Regardless of the merits of 2001, quotations from HAL's dialogue are instantly recognisable to the point of cliché (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=59) more than 40 years after the movie was released. I can't think of anything that Data or C3PO said that has the same recognition now, and we'll have to wait to determine how much they're remembered after 40 years. Actually, the only other AI/robot lines I can think of that approach HAL's for recognition in pop culture would be "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
It would be pretty amusing to me if Jeph counted (or had someone else count, I dunno) the filler/guest strips he did, then subtracted those from the total, and did something special on the next large round number of the remainder, which would be all Jeph-drawn non-filler QC strips. I sincerely doubt this will happen, but like I said, it would be amusing, since I doubt many (I won't say no one has) have kept track of this number.
Gosh, these recent strips are beginning to remind me more and more of Chobits. Has anybody else watched that series?
there are probably tools available to perform a transfer. ..... I expect the AnthroPC itself is required (by the nature of the tools) to electronically consent to being transferred. Only makes sense.
2001 isnt exactly a very enjoyable movie, it drives modern watchers nuts with its slowness.
2001 isnt exactly a very enjoyable movie, it drives modern watchers nuts with its slowness.Speak for yourself! Regardless of the merits of 2001, quotations from HAL's dialogue are instantly recognisable to the point of cliché (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=59) more than 40 years after the movie was released. I can't think of anything that Data or C3PO said that has the same recognition now, and we'll have to wait to determine how much they're remembered after 40 years. Actually, the only other AI/robot lines I can think of that approach HAL's for recognition in pop culture would be "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
What was Pintsize gonna say there? Sounded like he was going for the Starwolf meme but then they threw me off with Space Odyssey.2001 isnt exactly a very enjoyable movie, it drives modern watchers nuts with its slowness.Speak for yourself! Regardless of the merits of 2001, quotations from HAL's dialogue are instantly recognisable to the point of cliché (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=59) more than 40 years after the movie was released. I can't think of anything that Data or C3PO said that has the same recognition now, and we'll have to wait to determine how much they're remembered after 40 years. Actually, the only other AI/robot lines I can think of that approach HAL's for recognition in pop culture would be "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
Other widely known 2001 quotes include "good morning Dave," "open the pod bay doors, HAL," and "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." It also gave us a lot of indelible imagery, like the monolith, the protohumans fighting, bone becomes spaceship match cut, Dave's helmet cam, and probably some other stuff, but aside from HAL's optical sensor they don't have much to do with AI.It had style, no doubt about that. I like those aspects, but I don't like it as a film because... I can't really get a handle on the narrative.
Gosh, these recent strips are beginning to remind me more and more of Chobits. Has anybody else watched that series?I have. The comparison is pretty hard to miss for anyone who is aware of both. I think I prefer the QC take on it though.
Other widely known 2001 quotes include "good morning Dave," "open the pod bay doors, HAL," and "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." It also gave us a lot of indelible imagery, like the monolith, the protohumans fighting, bone becomes spaceship match cut, Dave's helmet cam, and probably some other stuff, but aside from HAL's optical sensor they don't have much to do with AI.
I know no quotes of Marvin,
The first ten million years were the worst, and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of decline.
I have a funny feeling we've already seen Momo's choice of chassis... (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658)
2010 in theaters - and thinking that it was the better of the two movies.Huh... And I thought there were opinion that just didn't exist. I was wrong.
Other widely known 2001 quotes include "good morning Dave," "open the pod bay doors, HAL," and "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." It also gave us a lot of indelible imagery, like the monolith, the protohumans fighting, bone becomes spaceship match cut, Dave's helmet cam, and probably some other stuff, but aside from HAL's optical sensor they don't have much to do with AI.It had style, no doubt about that. I like those aspects, but I don't like it as a film because... I can't really get a handle on the narrative.
It had style, no doubt about that. I like those aspects, but I don't like it as a film because... I can't really get a handle on the narrative.
What is really making me feel old is that I remember seeing 2010 in theaters - and thinking that it was the better of the two movies.2010 isn't a bad movie, it just suffers by comparison with 2001. 2001 is a flawed masterpiece, while 2010 is merely competent. And was Roy Scheider the Nicholas Cage of his generation, or what?
If it was clever, of course. Now, what did I do?It had style, no doubt about that. I like those aspects, but I don't like it as a film because... I can't really get a handle on the narrative.
Deliciously ironic. Did you mean to do that?
The narrative require sound now? I think you might be confusing it with narration.While I agree with you, he also does have a point that the concept of "narrative" is largely foreign to 2001.
The narrative require sound now? I think you might be confusing it with narration.Yeah, I uh...I don't have an excuse for that.
Is it? That surprises me. The concept is pretty all inclusive. Does it not tell a story at all?I would say it does not. I would even say it makes no attempt to do so. Instead it attempts to present a series of visually stunning sequences which can be interpreted in conjunction with the novel to form a story, but no story is inherently present in the film.
they never seriously considered what the spaceship Tsien should look like, except for one faintly humorous scribble of a Chinese-food take-out box with a rocket motor attached.Ha fucking ha! I didn't know about that thigh-slapper, but it would be par for the course. After all, the spaceship is named after a Chinese scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsien_Hsue-shen) treated disgracefully by the US government.
Wow. That actually is pretty impressive. I didn't realize all that came from that movie. "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." in particular I would not have assumed to have any particular origin. Just something you say in those types of situations.I'm sure that similar words were said many times in the past (as well as many apologies for not being able to do something), but that specific phrasing is now nearly almost always used as a reference to 2001 in media.
Sounds like whether or not HAL is famous or recognizable, it was at the very least very culturally influential.
Not even something along the lines of: "I've got this pain in the diodes down my left side?"Nope.
I didn't, thus "include" and "like" (as bolded) to indicate this was a nonexhaustive list. I just wanted to present a couple more quotes and imagery to jog the memory of references to it that had never been recognized as references at all.Other widely known 2001 quotes include "good morning Dave," "open the pod bay doors, HAL," and "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." It also gave us a lot of indelible imagery, like the monolith, the protohumans fighting, bone becomes spaceship match cut, Dave's helmet cam, and probably some other stuff, but aside from HAL's optical sensor they don't have much to do with AI.And don't forget "Thus spake Zarathustra", the famous opening music. Not to mention watching the space station revolve to the Blue Danube waltz...
Well, I know "Thus spake Zarathustra" and "Blue Danube" but don't associate them with 2001, not having seen it. (I watched the beginning once because people rave about it, and was so underwhelmed by the "bone becomes spaceship match cut" that I gave up.)Ah, the insidious hype backlash. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HypeBacklash)
Ha fucking ha! I didn't know about that thigh-slapper, but it would be par for the course. After all, the spaceship is named after a Chinese scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsien_Hsue-shen) treated disgracefully by the US government.Freaky. Not two weeks ago I read his obituary that I had cut out of a newspaper (ikr?) and saved long ago, in the course of checking my folder of interesting articles to read and tossing ones that were no longer interesting. It was one of only four or five pieces that I read in its entirety and it was very frank about how badly we screwed him over. At least he didn't end up like Turing (in before mudslinging about who did what to which important scientist to screw them over.)
My father, who has read the book, says that most of what's confusing about the movie is explained by the book is explained by the movie and vice versa. I have neither seen the entire movie in one sitting nor read the book (I have it but have not yet read it) to confirm the veracity of that claim. I have however read up on it and seen all the parts at one time or another, so I recognize most cultural references that I encounter.I can not only confirm what your father has told you, but I can state that Arthur C. Clarke fully intended that this be so. I've seen clear statements to this effect in an interview. I wish I could offer a link, it is really rather fascinating. The relationship of book to film, and film to book changed somewhat during development, but the book cannot properly be called the original version, or the source material. They were developed in parallel.
That's what my dad said, although I didn't specifically mention he did. Mind you I didn't disbelieve my dad, but he taught me to confirm what even he says before claiming it as fact, so outside confirmation is still cool. That's what the veracity bit was about.My father, who has read the book, says that most of what's confusing about the movie is explained by the book is explained by the movie and vice versa. I have neither seen the entire movie in one sitting nor read the book (I have it but have not yet read it) to confirm the veracity of that claim. I have however read up on it and seen all the parts at one time or another, so I recognize most cultural references that I encounter.I can not only confirm what your father has told you, but I can state that Arthur C. Clarke fully intended that this be so. I've seen clear statements to this effect in an interview. I wish I could offer a link, it is really rather fascinating. The relationship of book to film, and film to book changed somewhat during development, but the book cannot properly be called the original version, or the source material. They were developed in parallel.
By the end of the project, the film and the book had been consciously crafted to complement each other. You only get the full picture by taking both in conjunction. This is part of why I find the film so unsatisfying. I also don't have much appreciation for scenes of vast visual beauty which are not relevant to the plot, so... that explains my distaste for the film. For me it just doesn't tell a story. It merely works as a visual and auditory companion work to the novel. Mind you, although it approaches blasphemy for me to say it, even if the narrative of film and book were presented in medium and style I could enjoy more, I find that Clarke has covered much of the same ground and in a more satisfying way in his other books.See, I disagree. A movie soundtrack can still be awesome without the movie, Garfield is even better when Garfield isn't speaking, and I've seen performance art pieces with music or vocals that would still be compelling without them. I figure at some point I'll read the book, then sit down and watch the movie while reading the book and get the full experience. Until then, I will probably never watch the movie as a whole piece, but I can still appreciate the separate scenes and join them in my mind with the silent parts on fast forward.
At the same time I have an immense admiration for Clarke and I can't help but admire the work even if I don't enjoy it.
It's an important and fascinating work, but I'll never be able to appreciate it.
See, I disagree. A movie soundtrack can still be awesome without the movie, Garfield is even better when Garfield isn't speaking, and I've seen performance art pieces with music or vocals that would still be compelling without them. I figure at some point I'll read the book, then sit down and watch the movie while reading the book and get the full experience. Until then, I will probably never watch the movie as a whole piece, but I can still appreciate the separate scenes and join them in my mind with the silent parts on fast forward.When I listen to music I'm normally doing something else as well. What gets to me about 2001 as a movie is that I have to just sit through all this stuff. I don't don't do very well at that. I like books and comics because I can advance them at my own pace. I get by with most visual media to the extent that the pace keeps up with my boredom threshold. Not everyone is the same, nor should they be. That's why the film doesn't work for me. It probably does work for people who are more comfortable with a slow pace.
But hey, everyone experiences things differently and your experiences are just as valid as mine.
Is it? That surprises me. The concept is pretty all inclusive. Does it not tell a story at all?I would say it does not. I would even say it makes no attempt to do so. Instead it attempts to present a series of visually stunning sequences which can be interpreted in conjunction with the novel to form a story, but no story is inherently present in the film.
No doubt many would disagree.
I will acknowledge that several individual scenes do effectively tell part of a story, but no overall story is formed and I genuinely believe it was not the intention that one should be. Regardless of this I still consider it a directorial masterpiece. I believe Kubrick achieved what he set out to do, which appears to have been the creation of an experience rather than a narrative.
There's an audience for that.
It just isn't me.
Aww... my postcount increased, and I'm not an Emoticontraindication anymore.
That's a bit convoluted, but do you follow what I'm saying?Yep.
Before I started to post about it here, I wasn't entirely cognizant of my own feelings regarding the film, so that was interesting...It's often the case that however much we may have mulled them over in our minds, our ideas and conceptions still change greatly when expressed.
Why do all the other AIs have similar chassis to the one Pintsize has? I thought he had a rare military grade model (with a super laser, since removed), and even Marigold mentioned that the chassis looked strange in her debut comic. Is this a combination Apple store/military surplus warehouse?His chassis is just an ordinary default, like the way that most computer towers look virtually the same. The military thing was the equivalent of making what looks like an ordinary tower, but has a titanium case and liquid cooling with LEDs/ a frikkin laser beam. He still has the titanium case, but no piping and lights.
... What's the red thing in the third panel? ...
Eye spye a Cylon (toasters)
Meh.2001 isnt exactly a very enjoyable movie, it drives modern watchers nuts with its slowness.Speak for yourself! Regardless of the merits of 2001, quotations from HAL's dialogue are instantly recognisable to the point of cliché (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=59) more than 40 years after the movie was released. I can't think of anything that Data or C3PO said that has the same recognition now, and we'll have to wait to determine how much they're remembered after 40 years. Actually, the only other AI/robot lines I can think of that approach HAL's for recognition in pop culture would be "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"
[Geth do not intentionally infiltrate.]All of the above, and... Is that a Transformer in the bottom right of the last panel? Is Charlotte's super-neat hair a shout-out to AI? And Charlotte demonstrates that Pintsize is not the only robot filled with mischief.
Being picky, I would have thought the personality was an aspect of the installed AI rather than the chassis.
I don't know what to make out of the fact that I noticed the most prominent difference between the regular and the de luxe models in the first panel only on my third reading. :psyduck:
I don't know what to make out of the fact that I noticed the most prominent difference between the regular and the de luxe models in the first panel only on my third reading. :psyduck:
Perhaps we are enlightened males, those of us who are male. :angel:Speak for yourself. For all my erudition I'm also an inveterate lecher and no plans to change.
Also, what's with Charlotte / the last chassis design's hair?
Actually, the first thing that I thought when I saw the toasters was Red Dwarf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Red_Dwarf_characters#Talkie_Toaster)Eye spye a Cylon (toasters)
Something else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brave_Little_Toaster_(film)) comes to mind as well...
That would certainly explain why my first thought was how odd that style looks on a fembot.Also, what's with Charlotte / the last chassis design's hair?
I'm not 100% sure, but my first thought was that it is the hairstyle from Jude Law's character in the movie A.I.
Gah.. don't wanna be nitpicking like this, but wouldn't a robot body like that consume massive amounts of energy? Providing it doesn't run on some kind of atomic battery.
Gah.. don't wanna be nitpicking like this, but wouldn't a robot body like that consume massive amounts of energy? Providing it doesn't run on some kind of atomic battery.
Processing power is no more than in the little robots, so the majority of that huge torso is battery storage and power recovery hardware so that unplugged operating time is maximized...
I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sounds good.
Not only cheeper, but plentiful as well. Think of the energy available to the Vespabot? Or Pintsize's (now deactiveated) laser?He probably means it would be extremely expensive to power the robot each day, unless we're assuming energy in the QC world is much cheaper.Gah.. don't wanna be nitpicking like this, but wouldn't a robot body like that consume massive amounts of energy? Providing it doesn't run on some kind of atomic battery.Processing power is no more than in the little robots, so the majority of that huge torso is battery storage and power recovery hardware so that unplugged operating time is maximized...
I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sounds good.
Being picky, I would have thought the personality was an aspect of the installed AI rather than the chassis.She meant aesthetically. Cars have personality for example, whether it's a homey van or a lean mean sports car. A home can feel cramped or airy. A chassis can be bland and uninteresting. Tova explained it well too.
Either way you're disgressing because the argument is about who is the most famous AI and HAL 9000 definitely isnt it.And you base that well supported analysis on... Seriously, don't use absolutes on a matter of opinion. Also, it's a discussion, not an argument.
Is that a Transformer in the bottom right of the last panel? Is Charlotte's super-neat hair a shout-out to AI?I just saw a wheel, and a hair style seems like a really vague way to make a reference.
She's gonna want the Number 8 model (comes with Tahmoh Penikett's phone number).Tell us how he reacts when someone gets airlocked (yes pedants, it's a verb now. Battlestar Galactica made it one). :-P
The toaster reference did it for me - my wife and I have been introducing our 12 year old to BSG....
My favorite solution would Marigold getting a chassis like she had in this comic (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658). That one was really cute.No no, stopping now.
Oh, and I didn't get what "deluxe" was about either. I think its mostly because those tits are simply grossly oversized. Marigold already has the biggest size that is still looking natural and the "deluxe" model has like 2-3 times bigger ones. That's nothing that's still attractive.
i could have sworn the Brave Little Toaster was from the early 90's.Something else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brave_Little_Toaster_(film)) comes to mind as well...Actually, the first thing that I thought when I saw the toasters was Red Dwarf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Red_Dwarf_characters#Talkie_Toaster)
I can understand how Momo is done with the whole Japanese schoolgirl look, (not to mention the scary realities as to why that model is VERY popular). Regardless of her maturity the schoolgirl look hinders her efforts at being taken seriously, and while a Miko design may be cute, it wouldn't help her case. Then of course there is the question of gender, but I don't think Jeph will change that.I don't think that she doesn't want to be a schoolgirl, she just doesn't want to be that particular character. Where did miko come in? I see no mention of Shinto shrine maidens.
That would certainly explain why my first thought was how odd that style looks on a fembot.It's fine on a gynoid, it's just an old style that women today don't use. Darned if I know hair style names though- is it a bob?
They probably have induction coils in their butts and/or backs and better and safer batteries than we do. They probably have induction pads all over the place, like we should have (cue examples and images of things with wired power in the QC verse.)Gah.. don't wanna be nitpicking like this, but wouldn't a robot body like that consume massive amounts of energy? Providing it doesn't run on some kind of atomic battery.Processing power is no more than in the little robots, so the majority of that huge torso is battery storage and power recovery hardware so that unplugged operating time is maximized...
I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sounds good.
He probably means it would be extremely expensive to power the robot each day, unless we're assuming energy in the QC world is much cheaper.Carl didn't mean that he didn't understand VonKliest, he meant that he wasn't sure his explanation worked. He understood the point: how do the human sized models stay active for extended periods of time, not how are they paid for. And it's not like energy is expensive for us.
I don't know what to make out of the fact that I noticed the most prominent difference between the regular and the de luxe models in the first panel only on my third reading. :psyduck:
She's gonna want the Number 8 model (comes with Tahmoh Penikett's phone number).Tell us how he reacts when someone gets airlocked (yes pedants, it's a verb now. Battlestar Galactica made it one). :-P
The toaster reference did it for me - my wife and I have been introducing our 12 year old to BSG....
But I thought the Major was entirely fabricated (from the opening credits of the original movie), and it's only her ghost that gets transferred from model to model. It's the series (SAC and 2nd Gig) that establishes she's a cyborg, in that continuity anyway.That's just her body (or shell) being manufactured. One of the reasons they suspected the Puppet Master had taken the cyborg body that was spontaneously manufactured and hit by the truck was because there were no organics in it. That's why her merger with the Puppet Master is of interest, because she's a human feeling more and more artificial, and it's an AI that feels more and more natural, so if they merge, what will be the result? The manga, the first continuity with the two movies being second and the tv series being third, also regularly refers to her as a cyborg (and most of the first movie is based off of the first volume). After that the second movie and the series take some stuff from the manga but rarely so directly base a plot on it again and go off in different directions, thus their establishment as three separate universes.
</nerd cred>
Ah, shopping hijinks QC style. They never get old. I guess Jeph is spending time making Momo 2.0 something memorable.I can sort of imagine that... although honestly Marigold is a bit shy in groups to want to show it off to more than a couple of people at a time.
Come to think of it, I think that's what Jeph is going to use #2000 for. The introduction of Momo 2.0 to the readers. Seriously, tomorrow will be Marigold and Momo picking out the upgrade, but we won't see it. Then #2000 will be the grand unveiling of the new chassis to everyone at CoD or something like that. Complete with Pintsize totally ruining the moment in his own personal style.
in the last panel, what happened to Marigold's purse? It was on her left shoulder, and at least the strap should be visible.
Tell us how he reacts when someone gets airlocked (yes pedants, it's a verb now. Battlestar Galactica made it one). :-PIf we're going to be pedantic, I heard "airlock" used as a verb by my petrol-head cousins and their friends (wrt fuel-system usually) well before BSG 2.0 came out.
And how about Faye Williams and Marten Alenko?...Wouldn't that mean one of them has to die?
I am going to miss that kawaii little chassis if it goes.
I am hoping this arc will end with Momo realising she is happy just the way she is, after all. :)
Pintsize wants to be a sex toy: 396, 1602.
It's a logical extrapolation that some people in the QC world practice robosexuality, and that most other people would prefer to pretend they don't exist.http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=428
Well at least she keeps the Toasters amused. Remember, bored Toasters turn feral and try to exterminate everyone.
Pintsize wants to be a sex toy: 396, 1602.
You also forgot 1812 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1812).
I am going to miss that kawaii little chassis if it goes.
I am hoping this arc will end with Momo realising she is happy just the way she is, after all. :)
Do they call it 1812 because Pintsize made an overture to Marten?
Better than eels, I suppose.Don't think about it. A long while I ago I did that, and got to wondering if 76 should have had someone blow up like a volcano. Or 1812. Or 1884. Or- augh, it's infected me again!
Also, looking at the poll, it occurs to me: DORA! DORA! DORA! should have been Strip 1941.
Do they call it 1812 because Pintsize made an overture to Marten?
Also, looking at the poll, it occurs to me: DORA! DORA! DORA! should have been Strip 1941.
Well at least she keeps the Toasters amused. Remember, bored Toasters turn feral and try to exterminate everyone.
So THAT explains it.
They ask for "more personality", and get one with a bigger rack-mount server? The only difference between the regular and the deluxe is the (ahem) buffer size?
Also, what's with Charlotte / the last chassis design's hair?
So ranchers must have lots of personality, and the US Government has the biggest personality of all! :-DThey ask for "more personality", and get one with a bigger rack-mount server? The only difference between the regular and the deluxe is the (ahem) buffer size?If Pintsize is to be considered as norm; robots equates personality with huge...... tracks of lands.
Also, what's with Charlotte / the last chassis design's hair?
I kind of want to make a t-shirt with the lil' toaster dude saying "I make bread FUN!"
I'm begginning to like Charlotte now.
I hope Jeph brings her into the regular cast!
Who woulda thunk that the healthiest most well-adjusted character in QC would be a robot!
Hopefully it's explained why Charlotte still works there, because singing and scaring customers aren't part of her job description. Currently she hurting her employer by being selfish. If she can't take her job seriously then she needs to be put down, her memories lost in time like tears in rain.We all have insufferable co-workers. They are annoying as hell, but somehow do their job well enough to stay employed.
Or maybe they could just, you know, fire her...
This is a sentient, intelligent being we're talking about here, and you think it's appropriate to snuff her out of existence because... she doesn't take her job seriously?
Really?
Really?
This is a sentient, intelligent being we're talking about here, and you think it's appropriate to snuff her out of existence because... she doesn't take her job seriously?Robots arent sentient, though. Jephs robots act like no reallife robot would act. Computers are mathematical machines, if they "show feelings" then its because an algorithm tells them to, not because there is the slightest hint of feeling in the machine. Just as an example, reallife robots do not get bored. Ever. They compute pi to the ten power n number of digits just fine, without ever wondering why they're doing it.
I would like to say that Momo comforting the sad toaster is adorable. Also, "I make bread fun" for some reason is heard in my head with creepy voice.
Isn’t that slavery?
Imagine an AI that is programmed to handle the air traffic control needed for the vast amount of flying car traffic we will have in the future. Or an AI designed to perform brain surgery.We use free sentient beings for air traffic control and brain surgery today. The results are widely viewed as acceptable.
Didn't Jeph say one time that the primary difference between QC and the real world was that in QC they lever lost that drive for exploration, which fueled most of the technological advancements? (I don't remember where he said this, but I want to say a news post, likely somewhere around the time of Hannelore's first mention of her father). This would make the divergence maybe something like 50 years ago. There may be some timeline you could guess at for APCs based on that and the fact that 20-30+ years ago a man bought/built a space station. This man may have been influential in AI tech, too, FWIW.
Finally, kudos for the well-placed Spongebob reference.
Didn't Jeph say one time that the primary difference between QC and the real world was that in QC they lever lost that drive for exploration, which fueled most of the technological advancements? (I don't remember where he said this, but I want to say a news post, likely somewhere around the time of Hannelore's first mention of her father). This would make the divergence maybe something like 50 years ago. There may be some timeline you could guess at for APCs based on that and the fact that 20-30+ years ago a man bought/built a space station. This man may have been influential in AI tech, too, FWIW.
If that's what he said, he has a grossly oversimplified view of the difficulties of space travel. It's not that we lost interest it's that orbital velocity is incredibly hard and escape velocity is even harder. Until a breakthrough in propulsion or materials comes along we're going to be stuck on one planet.
Is it? That surprises me. The concept is pretty all inclusive. Does it not tell a story at all?
You'd better tell that to Branson, Bigelow et al., people who are developing space capabilities on their own time and their own dime.
This is a sentient, intelligent being we're talking about here, and you think it's appropriate to snuff her out of existence because... she doesn't take her job seriously?
Robots arent sentient, though. Jephs robots act like no reallife robot would act. Computers are mathematical machines, if they "show feelings" then its because an algorithm tells them to, not because there is the slightest hint of feeling in the machine. Just as an example, reallife robots do not get bored. Ever. They compute pi to the ten power n number of digits just fine, without ever wondering why they're doing it.
This is a sentient, intelligent being we're talking about here, and you think it's appropriate to snuff her out of existence because... she doesn't take her job seriously?Robots arent sentient, though. Jephs robots act like no reallife robot would act. Computers are mathematical machines, if they "show feelings" then its because an algorithm tells them to, not because there is the slightest hint of feeling in the machine. Just as an example, reallife robots do not get bored. Ever. They compute pi to the ten power n number of digits just fine, without ever wondering why they're doing it.
I think physics does a much better job of making these points than I do. I think SpaceShipOne was very impressive for both of its flights. Nowhere near what Yuri Gagarin did 40 years earlier, but still not bad.
I'm looking forward to when SpaceShipTwo does ... something. It won't be reaching orbital velocity anyway, so calling it a spaceship is a little like calling a rowboat an ocean liner.
Is it? That surprises me. The concept is pretty all inclusive. Does it not tell a story at all?
It's very straightforward and simple.
Extraterrestrial super beings (acting through their monolith omni-machines) instill the spark of intelligence in proto humans, then stick two more monoliths in the Solar system in order to test us.
One is on the Moon since they know we'd go there first. The second they leave in orbit around Jupiter (or Saturn if you read the book). When a human makes it to the one in orbit around the gas giant they kidnap him, download his thoughts and memories, remake him into a super human and send him/it back to Earth.
On the trip to Jupiter the ship's computer succumbs to logical contradictions caused by executive meddling and tries to kill everyone. But it's ultimately a side issue.
That's it.
Jeph's explanation in the newspost is that the adoption fee is refunded if the AI walks out on you.
I also don’t understand the business model of freeing a slave, as the store currently operates on. I could pay $30,000 to “buy” a robot, only to have it turn around the next day and say “Well, I’m outta here, bye!”. Why am I buying a robot if I have no control over it? More importantly, why are robots even sold if they have free will? Isn’t that slavery? Maybe I'm missing something here.
Yes, but for the same reason that if my vacuum wasn't working correctly I'd take it back and get a new one, or just throw it away. I don’t subscribe to the notion that a robot life is as important as a human one, even if their advanced programming creates the illusion that they are. If I had to save the life of a human or a toaster, I would choose the human every time.
I also don’t understand the business model of freeing a slave, as the store currently operates on. I could pay $30,000 to “buy” a robot, only to have it turn around the next day and say “Well, I’m outta here, bye!”. Why am I buying a robot if I have no control over it?And yet people continue to have children.
I also don’t understand the business model of freeing a slave, as the store currently operates on. I could pay $30,000 to “buy” a robot, only to have it turn around the next day and say “Well, I’m outta here, bye!”. Why am I buying a robot if I have no control over it?And yet people continue to have children.
Yes, but for the same reason that if my vacuum wasn't working correctly I'd take it back and get a new one, or just throw it away. I don’t subscribe to the notion that a robot life is as important as a human one, even if their advanced programming creates the illusion that they are. If I had to save the life of a human or a toaster, I would choose the human every time.
You weren't referring to a "this or that" scenario, though. Choosing to save a human life over a robot doesn't exactly equate to putting down a robot that seems to be less interested in it's work than it is simply living. If anything, it's even more heinous.
Jeph's explanation in the newspost is that the adoption fee is refunded if the AI walks out on you.
I also don’t understand the business model of freeing a slave, as the store currently operates on. I could pay $30,000 to “buy” a robot, only to have it turn around the next day and say “Well, I’m outta here, bye!”. Why am I buying a robot if I have no control over it? More importantly, why are robots even sold if they have free will? Isn’t that slavery? Maybe I'm missing something here.
You have the kind of control over the AI that you would over a human in the same role. The cast exercises parental discipline over their AnthroPCs, for example Winslow not being allowed to watch television. Install one in your Navy submarine, and it has to follow military discipline.
I would like to say that Momo comforting the sad toaster is adorable. Also, "I make bread fun" for some reason is heard in my head with creepy voice.
And yet they're hard to control and they will eventually head out on their own. The point was that people don't need a sound investment or good odds or control in order to "buy" something. Just needs to be an appealing option to them somehow.I also don’t understand the business model of freeing a slave, as the store currently operates on. I could pay $30,000 to “buy” a robot, only to have it turn around the next day and say “Well, I’m outta here, bye!”. Why am I buying a robot if I have no control over it?And yet people continue to have children.
People have children because it's a part of them, among many other things. However, from what you cited it isn't relevant since a child can not legally choose to head out into the world. If found, it will be returned. You do own your child until they are of age.
You do own your child until they are of age.
If I lived in the QC world I would...
All I can conceive of is a 'chinese wall' type AI -- good enough to fool us, but the computer has no 'soul' / 'spark' / 'ghost' / what-have-you. Just enough of programmed responses to social stimuli to fool humans and even other AI's.The very existence of a "soul" is highly speculative. Historically the possession of a soul, or at least an equal soul to that possessed by the privileged observer, frequently has been denied by humans to other humans of the wrong race, wrong religion, or wrong gender for centuries, and this continues to this day. Attitudes regarding non-human sentients as property are pretty much identical to those of a white plantation owner toward his slaves in the 18th century, or many men towards their wifes today, and supported by much the same argument: "We are special because we are special; they are not special because they're not."
in the end that to be accepted as a human, he must be prepared to `die'.
Harry said, "I thought of my absolute rejection of death as the natural order."I must say I don't get the notion that one would need to accept death in order to live, either. Care to explain?
Surely a sentient robot might easily gain some rights: e.g. a minimum salary, a bank account, copyright to its creations,...Megaman ZX. Humans and reploids finally reach a truce. The terms of agreement were that the humans receive cybernetic upgrades allowing them to function on a similar level to the reploids, whereas the reploids took on mortality instituting something similar to a biological clock making their lifespan finite.
But in The Bicentennial Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bicentennial_Man) the robot realized in the end that to be accepted as a human, he must be prepared to `die'. I think that the good Dr Asimov caught something essential there. I mean, if I were in a jury deciding whether a sentience deserves to be called a human being...
I must say I don't get the notion that one would need to accept death in order to live, either. Care to explain?
You left out the et al.
Personally, I can't quite buy into the whole 'strong AI' concept, no matter what. All I can conceive of is a 'chinese wall' type AI -- good enough to fool us, but the computer has no 'soul' / 'spark' / 'ghost' / what-have-you.
This is a sentient, intelligent being we're talking about here, and you think it's appropriate to snuff her out of existence because... she doesn't take her job seriously?Robots arent sentient, though. Jephs robots act like no reallife robot would act. Computers are mathematical machines, if they "show feelings" then its because an algorithm tells them to, not because there is the slightest hint of feeling in the machine. Just as an example, reallife robots do not get bored. Ever. They compute pi to the ten power n number of digits just fine, without ever wondering why they're doing it.
EDIT: Spider Robinson said that in his view anyone who says "Excuse me" is human.
Anyway, if Charlotte's job is to help potential customers see robots as fun pals to hang out with rather than machines or a menace, then there is no possible way she could do that job more effectively.
We know that Pintsize wants to play or be an instrument, so AnthroPC bands are imaginable.
Odd, one would think that Pintsize would have given her the best advice for protection from porn browsing related problems given that he seems to live in it.
"That's the last time I look up thethy(?) Yaoi Files for you"
"That's the last time I look up thethy(?) Yaoi Files for you"I believe the phrase is meant to be “sexy yaoi sites” but I'm interpolating here.
Just out of curiosity... What's the word I missed?
Also, I wonder why the fingers and arms don't show any "lines", I guess this version is a bit more expensive.
To celebrate 2000 episodes of QC, hereby the top 20 of nr. of appearances of characters:humm... the wiki disagrees with you: http://questionablecontent.wikia.com/wiki/Count_of_character_appearances :psyduck:
1. Faye (1137)
2. Marten (1114)
3. Dora (839)
4. Hannelore (443)
5. Pintsize (290)
6. Steve (174)
7. Sven (160)
8. Raven (157)
9. Angus (137)
10. Marigold (134)
11. Tai (129)
12. Penelope (124)
13. [Guest Comic] (82)
14. Winslow (67)
15. Ellen (63)
16. Momo (46)
17. Veronica Reed (46)
18. Wil (41)
19. Cosette (34)
20. (Yelling Bird) (31)
I notice that the chassis Momo wanted to try out has smoother skin than the ones in the earlier strips and the salesgirl's (higher priced model?)It is rather a nice touch that the hair-colour on Momo's trial body became brighter and more saturated as she brought it to life.
Real operating systems store their configuration in plain text files... :laugh:
Real operating systems store their configuration in plain text files... :laugh:
You left out the et al.
Also covered by physics.
Look, I'm not trying to be a naysayer or a dick, ...
"That's the last time I look up thethy(?) Yaoi Files for you"
Just out of curiosity... What's the word I missed?
Unlike, say, a system that only runs on hardware that will be permanantly damaged or destroyed if deprive of one specific chemical element for more than a few seconds?
And to the person who thought "empty" Momo looked sad, that's funny because I read this with my friend and he said the same thing :lol: (it is a little unsettling)
And to the person who thought "empty" Momo looked sad, that's funny because I read this with my friend and he said the same thing :lol: (it is a little unsettling)
I found it a whole lot unsettling. Transfering software to new hardware is a risky process to begin with. When the process fails (as with this example) you have to back off, repair the fault and try again.
With Moma's personality stuck "somewhere in-between" it is more than just sad.
I believe the phrase is meant to be “sexy yaoi sites” but I'm interpolating here.Yeah, sexy yaoi sites seems to be the case :)
There are bound to be some disagreements, because, for instance, it is not entirely clear when Angus first appeared. Also whether voices off are counted or not, and stuff like that.
Doekman's figures being mostly larger (sometimes by quite a lot), I'm going to guess that they include guest comics, or possibly spoken references.
Unlike, say, a system that only runs on hardware that will be permanantly damaged or destroyed if deprive of one specific chemical element for more than a few seconds?
I believe that particular model though also has the self-repair function that can make it fairly resilient.
I believe the phrase is meant to be “sexy yaoi sites” but I'm interpolating here.Yeah, sexy yaoi sites seems to be the case :)
Unlike, say, a system that only runs on hardware that will be permanantly damaged or destroyed if deprive of one specific chemical element for more than a few seconds?
Charlotte could be the singer for the band! Has anyone already said that? Oh gosh I can't be arsed to go back and check! What do I do? :psyduck:
CURSE IT ALL I POST ANYWAY
CHARLOTTE COULD BE SINGER FOR DEATHMOLE!
They can do everything better than us if they want,
So... this (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658) is definitely going to happen then?
They can do everything better than us if they want,
No they can't.
How so? Physically there's no question, they can be placed in a body that's designed for any task. Mentally, they would compute problems like a computer, efficiently and without distractions. They never die, only getting more proficient as hardware and software improves. Whatever you do, a robot could do it better. It'd be like Neo from the Matrix..."I know Kung Fu!". Instantly they are trained at whatever took you years to perfect.
Whatever you do, a robot could do it better
So... this (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658) is definitely going to happen then?What I can't understand is why she didn't look at that one first. She clearly already knew which one was her choice. I admit I've done something simillar - browsing all around the store for the 'perfect' laptop or phone, even though I have it in mind already. Difference is, I went and had a long, lustful, covetous look (and if possible a hands-on demo) at the one I had in mind first, so as to make it clear to myself what these other ones are competing with.
Odd, one would think that Pintsize would have given her the best advice for protection from porn browsing related problems given that he seems to live in it.
Odd that you'd think a AnthroPC that loves to shock people with pics of Goatse (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1829) would even impart such advice.
I thought it might have been "filthy" yaoi sites, as if you say filthy out loud with your tongue outside your mouth, the l isn't so easy to pronounce. And as the "k" sound in such words as "sketchy" or "sexy" doesn't nessecarily need use of the tongue, and can come from the back of the throat, it seems unlikely those would be the case.I believe the phrase is meant to be “sexy yaoi sites” but I'm interpolating here.Yeah, sexy yaoi sites seems to be the case :)
I'm with iduguphergrave on this one - I'm pretty sure it's "sketchy yaoi sites".
Sketchy as in unreliable, like the title, which has a .cx (christmas island) domain extension...
Having a life-size anthro-PC could be really really interesting... I hope Marigold fixes those registry files and decides to keep the new chassis.
They can do everything better than us if they want,No they can't.
They can do everything better than us if they want,No they can't.
Yes they can, yes they can, yes they CAAANNNNNNNNNN!
(If you recognize THAT meme, you're older than dirt.)
How so? Physically there's no question, they can be placed in a body that's designed for any task. Mentally, they would compute problems like a computer, efficiently and without distractions. They never die, only getting more proficient as hardware and software improves. Whatever you do, a robot could do it better. It'd be like Neo from the Matrix..."I know Kung Fu!". Instantly they are trained at whatever took you years to perfect.
Because technical proficiency in music is not a hallmark of success. In fact, even today, the technical best players are often not the most well recognized, famous, or even the most lauded by critics. There are other qualities that are necessary, such as ingenuity, charisma, and maybe sheer audacity.
Not to say that, in the QCverse, AI would be incapable of competing musically (or in any creative format) just that many qualities that create a good artist are personality based. Just as not every human is a good artist, nor could every AI be a good artist. There is no algorithm for creative success.
Whatever you do, a robot could do it better
In principle, one day, perhaps (first we have to define "better", which is not always trivial). But not in the here and now - nor, as far as I can see, in the QCverse.
There is an algorithm for everything, just because it seems impossible to comprehend the human algorithm doesn't mean it isn't there.
I'll keep my optimism, thanks.
And to the person who thought "empty" Momo looked sad, that's funny because I read this with my friend and he said the same thing :lol: (it is a little unsettling)
There is an algorithm for everything, just because it seems impossible to comprehend the human algorithm doesn't mean it isn't there.
Er, see Gödel after class. Then read up on computability. Also there are algorithms which can be described, but which are not executable in this universe.
I'll keep my optimism, thanks.
I'm very much an optimist. I am simply saying the reason things have slowed down is not due to a lack of desire. What's holding us back is a non-trivial technical hurdle -- that's all. If anyone's a pessimist it's Jeph who seems to think we stopped going into space because it was boring.
I firmly believe real human spaceflight is right around the corner, possibly within the next few decades. I believe that we just need a major advancement in propulsion or materials science and bam we'll be building orbital colonies and Moon cities like mad. Now that they can make big sheets of carbon nanotubes I'm betting on a space elevator and/or tethers.
Why are you comparing our universe with one that has many scientific breakthroughs?
A lot fo the reason is cost/benefit. Our country, along with most others, is having huge money issues. How much time and money can we throw into a future that many of us won't see when people are struggling to find work right now? We aren't bored, we're just prioritizing.
Why are you comparing our universe with one that has many scientific breakthroughs?
Scientific advance cannot change the basis of mathematical and computational theory.
A lot fo the reason is cost/benefit. Our country, along with most others, is having huge money issues. How much time and money can we throw into a future that many of us won't see when people are struggling to find work right now? We aren't bored, we're just prioritizing.
Contrary to popular belief, NASA's budget isn't that large. It's been at or below one percent of total Federal expenditures (PDF file) (http://www.richardb.us/nasa.pdf) since 1976.
That doesn't help the public perception problem, but still.
There is an algorithm for everything...
I'm suggesting no more that what the QC universe has currently shown us, and then mixing in technology we already have.
Please tell me, based on what we have seen in QC, that a robot could not be programmed to do a task or express an emotion.
There is an algorithm for everything...I'm suggesting no more that what the QC universe has currently shown us, and then mixing in technology we already have.
Riight.
Please tell me, based on what we have seen in QC, that a robot could not be programmed to do a task or express an emotion.
I'm not saying that they can't. However, this is only a starting point; to produce the full complexity of a human being is another matter. It may be (and I conjecture, because I don't know, any more than you do) that the task of emulating a human would bring us up against the limits of computability in such a way as would explain the uncertainty in the results in the case of humans themselves - thus possibly providing a basis for free will.
A hilarious comic #2000...I'd say that's a good birthday present.Considering she's basically human-sized in this chassis, all they'd have to do is order a cosplay costume or something.
That being said, the chassis is remarkably similar to 1658, especially if she can change clothes.
Also, anyone else notice that while the shop keep is like that, Momo's new chassis doesn't have those lines on the joints? She looks more like a normal human then a robot.
I won't be terribly surprised if they leave without the chassis,I hope they don't leave without it. I've always loved Momo but, and it may seem odd, but I've always felt weird saving images of her as is. Now I wouldn't.
Considering she's basically human-sized in this chassis, all they'd have to do is order a cosplay costume or something.Why cosplay? If you ask me by her reaction to that other one, she doesn't like the whole schoolgirl look anymore. Maybe she'll start wearing normal clothes. Though I hope she doesn't stick with those default clothes, kinda bland.
I'm not saying that they can't. However, this is only a starting point; to produce the full complexity of a human being is another matter.
Hmm, we may get our Sven fanservice yet, then. ;D
OIC: "dubs" as in "double-u"Yep. Is it ok if I call you that? It amuses me.
I firmly believe real human spaceflight is right around the corner, possibly within the next few decades. I believe that we just need a major advancement in propulsion or materials science and bam we'll be building orbital colonies and Moon cities like mad. Now that they can make big sheets of carbon nanotubes I'm betting on a space elevator and/or tethers.
Considering she's basically human-sized in this chassis, all they'd have to do is order a cosplay costume or something.Why cosplay? If you ask me by her reaction to that other one, she doesn't like the whole schoolgirl look anymore. Maybe she'll start wearing normal clothes. Though I hope she doesn't stick with those default clothes, kinda bland.
Kimono? What? When was this?Considering she's basically human-sized in this chassis, all they'd have to do is order a cosplay costume or something.Why cosplay? If you ask me by her reaction to that other one, she doesn't like the whole schoolgirl look anymore. Maybe she'll start wearing normal clothes. Though I hope she doesn't stick with those default clothes, kinda bland.
I think Marigold got her the current getup she has after she "bought" her, since her first one was a kimono. She looks better with the "schoolgirl" look.
I think Marigold got her the current getup she has after she "bought" her, since her first one was a kimono. She looks better with the "schoolgirl" look.Kimono? What? When was this?
...well there's porn of that.
Huh, what do ya know. I remember that now. Especially the disturbing eel line.I think Marigold got her the current getup she has after she "bought" her, since her first one was a kimono. She looks better with the "schoolgirl" look.Kimono? What? When was this?
[http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1298]When we first meet Momo[/url] (1298, 702 strips ago).
When we first meet Momo (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1298) (1298, 702 strips ago).Wait, if Momo was the newest model then, and she's 2 years & 8 months old now (per #1995), does that mean a couple of years have passed in the past 700 strips? I know there's a couple of time jumps in there, but the idea that QC even approaches "real time" Does Not Compute.
Scientific advance cannot change the basis of mathematical and computational theory.
Besides, mathematical and computational theory is just that, theory. There are huge possible advances such as P=NP that have not been proven or disproven, and then there are accepted laws that are possibly changing, such as the speed of light not being a constant. Nothing is impossible, especially in the QC world.
1. They've been waiting for that major advancement for years. Right along side Mr. Fusion and Transflux Capacitors.
2. You want someone to start heading to the moon like it's no one's business? Have them discover one of two things up there: Gold or Oil.How about a planet made of diamond? (http://news.yahoo.com/astronomers-discover-planet-made-diamond-180427124.html)
If this is a religious belief of yours I'll back off.
We aren't magical. If it can be done with wetware it can be done with hardware/software.
OIC: "dubs" as in "double-u"Yep. Is it ok if I call you that? It amuses me.
If this is a religious belief of yours I'll back off.
We aren't magical. If it can be done with wetware it can be done with hardware/software.
No, not religious. Just forty-five years in programming and other aspects of computing (mostly in a medical environment), plus a detailed awareness of genetics and the like,
makes me feel that the mismatch between our capabilities and what's required is still almost inconceivably wide.
It may be (and I conjecture, because I don't know, any more than you do) that the task of emulating a human would bring us up against the limits of computability in such a way as would explain the uncertainty in the results in the case of humans themselves - thus possibly providing a basis for free will.To me the above sounds vague and superstitious, like a "meddling in God's domain" hand-wave rather than an assessment of when computers will be up to it.
The real basis of most Sci-Fi is the concept that one, seemingly overwhelming and impossible to overcome, problem has been figured out. Time travel, AI robotics, faster-than-light travel, genetics - it's usually one little thing that makes the difference.
I'm not going to challenge your claim of being a 55-or-older computer programmer and genetics expert, but ... you know how that sounds, right?
To me the above sounds vague and superstitious, like a "meddling in God's domain" hand-wave
Evolution is a lot of things, but it's neither an efficiency expert nor an intelligent designer.
Evolution is a lot of things, but it's neither an efficiency expert nor an intelligent designer.
It's actually rather good at producing the "good enough" result, though, and that's why some effort has been put into trying to emulate some aspects of it in self-improving software.
A friend of mine in gradd school was in Nuclear Engineering. He was constantly upset that the only work that recieved grants was for power generation and weapons, when all he wanted to work on was a propulsion device.
[...]
@Boradis: I think that most if not all commercial nuclear reactors generate electricity by first turning water into steam that then turns turbines. I may be wrong about this as I only read about this somewhere last spring during the Fukushima incident. I don't know how the reactors at nuclear powered submarines do it.
Not really; eugenics had become unfashionable well before I was born. All I'm saying is that I have seen many so-called breakthroughs come and go.
Quite the opposite - I see the possibility that we might come up against the limits of strict computability within a finite physical space in trying to solve this problem, and a resort to technologies that involve probability and uncertainty then gives scope for variable answers without recourse to such flummery.
It's actually rather good at producing the "good enough" result, though, and that's why some effort has been put into trying to emulate some aspects of it in self-improving software.
Whenever studying biological systems, I'm always amazed at how efficient evolution has made them.Evolution just plain sucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISg6j7BF02Q). I know this is his rant about intelligent design, but it also makes a good case for how incredibly inefficient, sloppy and haphazard evolution is. Not that it isn't amazing and all that, but anything that seems efficient only looks that way if you overlook the fact that it took about four billion years to arrive at that configuration. A good point WRT us comes up at the four minute mark in the above video where he points out we eat, breath and drink through the same hole, thereby guaranteeing a percentage of us will choke to death yearly. That's not efficient.
[...]
@Boradis: I think that most if not all commercial nuclear reactors generate electricity by first turning water into steam that then turns turbines. I may be wrong about this as I only read about this somewhere last spring during the Fukushima incident. I don't know how the reactors at nuclear powered submarines do it.
It's all of them (including ships and subs). All nuclear reactors are are pretty expensive kettles. ;-)
But what I meant was that the act of claiming seniority and credentials mid-discussion in a medium that does not allow for verification tends to sound convenient at best and like BS at worst.
I too have professional experience that qualifies me to discuss these topics -- but since I'm not going to go into where I've worked why should you believe me?
"Good enough" is another way of saying "sloppy as all hell." This little wad of meat in my skull thinks, therefore it is. But whatever processes gets it there are guaranteed to be so roundabout, inefficient and retarded that, when understood, emulation will be a lot simpler than it currently looks.
I get so fed up with this old chestnut. The only difference between a binary file and a text file is how easily a human can read it at a superficial level.Heh... Yes, and also edit it with simple, stable tools. But of course you are right, it's good or bad implementation that makes the difference.
I find speciesism in operating systems almost as annoying as you find racism in humans...Hmm... A response that, not unnaturally :wink:, gave me serious food for thought. I guess you're right, if you assign the same moral value to inanimate objects as human beings. Does preferring Holden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden) cars over Ford have the same logic as regarding Europeans as superior to Asians? Is there an issue of "exterior viewpoint", since people are not cars? Of course OSism would definitely become an issue on that level, if one ascribed "sentients' rights" to beings like Momo.
(I'm not saying that it is as harmful, but the underlying "logic" is pretty much the same, actually.)
Consider that if we ever do manage to perfectly simulate a human mind, the initial result will be a blank-slate sociopath with strong inherent desires that it can only communicate in the simplest terms, mostly by acting out... i.e., any newborn baby.Or Pintsize.
Consider that if we ever do manage to perfectly simulate a human mind, the initial result will be a blank-slate sociopath with strong inherent desires that it can only communicate in the simplest terms, mostly by acting out... i.e., any newborn baby.
I would hope that the AI mind would be fundamentally different from the human mind in some choice ways. After all, if we can perfectly emulate the human mind, then it seems it would at that point be appropriate to improve on the design since we understand this all so well.
Evolution just plain sucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISg6j7BF02Q). I know this is his rant about intelligent design, but it also makes a good case for how incredibly inefficient, sloppy and haphazard evolution is. Not that it isn't amazing and all that, but anything that seems efficient only looks that way if you overlook the fact that it took about four billion years to arrive at that configuration. A good point WRT us comes up at the four minute mark in the above video where he points out we eat, breath and drink through the same hole, thereby guaranteeing a percentage of us will choke to death yearly. That's not efficient.
It's all of them (including ships and subs). All nuclear reactors are are pretty expensive kettles. ;-)
Whenever studying biological systems, I'm always amazed at how efficient evolution has made them.Evolution just plain sucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISg6j7BF02Q). I know this is his rant about intelligent design, but it also makes a good case for how incredibly inefficient, sloppy and haphazard evolution is. Not that it isn't amazing and all that, but anything that seems efficient only looks that way if you overlook the fact that it took about four billion years to arrive at that configuration. A good point WRT us comes up at the four minute mark in the above video where he points out we eat, breath and drink through the same hole, thereby guaranteeing a percentage of us will choke to death yearly. That's not efficient.
[...]
@Boradis: I think that most if not all commercial nuclear reactors generate electricity by first turning water into steam that then turns turbines. I may be wrong about this as I only read about this somewhere last spring during the Fukushima incident. I don't know how the reactors at nuclear powered submarines do it.
It's all of them (including ships and subs). All nuclear reactors are are pretty expensive kettles. ;-)
That's exactly my point. You can't turn that into a rocket.
On the whole I prefer the native plurals to the original (e.g. forums, not fora). However, I instinctively say automata rather than automatons, and I imagine that even you say data rather than datums.Not to mention media instead of mediums, unless referring to people who claim to speak to the spirits of the dead. Except many (perhaps most) people use "data" and "media" as if they were singular. Plural forms of nouns are so unnecessary in any event. English-speakers are not confused by sheep, deer or salmon, and millions of Chinese and Japanese people do without plural forms entirely.
If that's what he said, he has a grossly oversimplified view of the difficulties of space travel. It's not that we lost interest it's that orbital velocity is incredibly hard and escape velocity is even harder. Until a breakthrough in propulsion or materials comes along we're going to be stuck on one planet.I've been thinking about this since you posted it, and I'm not sure that I buy it. I know that climbing out of the gravity well is very difficult, but it hasn't become any more so since Apollo 17 brought crewed spaceflight beyond Earth's orbit to an end. In 1972. Nearly 40 years ago. Using technology developed back in the 1960's. I was thinking about this when the final Space Shuttle mission ended. The Space Shuttle first made an orbital flight more than thirty years ago. The Russian Proton rocket first flew in 1965. I don't doubt that Proton, like the Shuttle, has undergone development since its first flight (the latest model first flew a decade ago), but could we not do better today if we only wanted to? Compare the pace of progress in space-launch technology with that in areas we really do care about, like mobile phones and killing people.
Campaign Against Plural Nouns would be CAPN. Say "Yes, CAP'N!" :-D
That's leaving aside words in which some or all of the popular "plural" forms are actually completely wrong - like octopi (octopuses or octopodes) or virii (viruses - virus has no plural in Latin).As for "-us" nouns, it depends on whether or not it's a second declension or a fourth declension noun. (Most nouns are the first three declensions, fourth and fifth ones are rare). For second declension, singular plural is -us/-i, for fourth declension, it's -us/-es. It's not that virus doesn't have a plural, it's that it's a fourth declension noun. That being said, while English isn't a Romance language, a lot of our words come from Latin. Unless there's an actual reason (like viruses), it makes sense for -us to turn to -a by default. Also, there are three genders in Latin (masculine, feminine, neuter), and all neuter plurals end in -a.[/classics major]
Nuclear propulsion for the really hardcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion))There are proposals for surface-to-orbit nuclear (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/enginelist.php#ntrgasclosed) rockets (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#id--GCNR_Liberty_Ship) that are less loopy than Orion, but they're well beyond our engineering capabilities (and certainly well beyond my capacity to evaluate properly). Maybe, if Carl-E's friend could have got some funding to work on them...
well beyond my capacity to evaluate properly
If your computer is sentient, and can be damaged by sketchy web sites, is it domestic violence to expose it to them?It occurs to me to wonder exactly how far this goes in explaining Pintsize.
Why was she using Momo for that, anyway? She has the other computer, with a monitor, so she can see the pretty pictures...
It's not that virus doesn't have a plural, it's that it's a fourth declension noun.
The Roman grammarian Priscian (fl. 500 A.D.) states that some claim the word is indeclinable (i.e., has only one form for all the cases in the singular); others, apparently more accurately, that it is declined in the singular according to the second declension neuter and cite two passages from the poet Lucretius in substantiation. All of the ancient grammarians are in agreement, however, that the word is used in the singular only, which indeed appears to be true, for no plural forms are attested in extant Latin works.
well beyond my capacity to evaluate properly
I'd be stunned if there's anyone in the world who can evaluate them properly. The real killer in high-risk technical projects is finding out, the hard way, answers to the questions you didn't know you should ask. There is a lot of terra incognita in those designs.
Which, maybe, are in use in the QC world? Hannerdad's space station is big enough to spin for 1-g without making everyone sick, and big enough that they use golf carts to get around (based on Hannelore's Formspring). That's a lot of material to lift if all you have are chemical rockets. Maybe there's a space elevator? They do seem to have made more progress than we have on carbon nanotubes.
(Or maybe it's all a joke by a webcomic author, but that hypothesis is no fun).
I'm no nuclear engineer. I have no idea what kind of revolutionary propulsion system he had in mind, and neither do you. Just because you can't adapt existing reactor systems to spaceflight doesn't mean there isn't some neutron-shedding reaction that will push a rocket through space!
Nuclear propulsion for the really hardcore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion))
I've been thinking about this since you posted it, and I'm not sure that I buy it. I know that climbing out of the gravity well is very difficult, but it hasn't become any more so since Apollo 17 brought crewed spaceflight beyond Earth's orbit to an end. In 1972. Nearly 40 years ago. Using technology developed back in the 1960's.
When I wrote (http://www.space.com/846-top-10-apollo-hoax-theories.html) these articles (the "Beanie Baby Satellite" story) (http://files.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/text/20001120.txt) I spoke with rocket scientists (http://utstaging.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/antimatter_sail_021029.html) routinely. It's not like they're sitting on their butts about things like this. They'd like nothing better than to put up more spacecraft. There's also a lot of money just waiting for someone to find a better way into space, even without there being oil on the Moon or whatever.But that's the thing. We don't even have the same capability we had in 1968. There are no Saturn V rockets any more, never mind anything better using modern materials. We've gone backwards in our ability to lift payload into orbit, not forwards, for all the non-butt-sitting your rocket scientists have been doing. That isn't because the technical challenges became any greater, but because of political/managerial decisions.
When I wrote (http://www.space.com/846-top-10-apollo-hoax-theories.html) these articles (the "Beanie Baby Satellite" story) (http://files.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/text/20001120.txt) I spoke with rocket scientists (http://utstaging.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/antimatter_sail_021029.html) routinely. It's not like they're sitting on their butts about things like this. They'd like nothing better than to put up more spacecraft. There's also a lot of money just waiting for someone to find a better way into space, even without there being oil on the Moon or whatever.But that's the thing. We don't even have the same capability we had in 1968. There are no Saturn V rockets any more, never mind anything better using modern materials. We've gone backwards in our ability to lift payload into orbit, not forwards, for all the non-butt-sitting your rocket scientists have been doing. That isn't because the technical challenges became any greater, but because of political/managerial decisions.
Am I the only one who's a little surprised that anthro chassis as indistinguishably human as this new Momo one are actually allowed in the QCverse?
She could be a real girl (as distinct from a RealGirl™) with dyed hair and contacts.
This has Consequences®.
But that's the thing. We don't even have the same capability we had in 1968. There are no Saturn V rockets any more, never mind anything better using modern materials. We've gone backwards in our ability to lift payload into orbit, not forwards, for all the non-butt-sitting your rocket scientists have been doing. That isn't because the technical challenges became any greater, but because of political/managerial decisions.The technical challenges have remained the same, and you're right about the funding cuts. But the real bottom line, IMO, is that the technical challenge -- in other words the propulsion problem -- are a pretty big deal.
You don't irradiate the launch site if the nuclear rocket is an upper stage.
Am I the only one who's a little surprised that anthro chassis as indistinguishably human as this new Momo one are actually allowed in the QCverse?
Am I the only one who's a little surprised that anthro chassis as indistinguishably human as this new Momo one are actually allowed in the QCverse?
She could be a real girl (as distinct from a RealGirl™) with dyed hair and contacts.
This has Consequences®.
Actually, no, considering Eve from AppleGeeks has shown up in the strip. She's essentially a home-built APC made from Mac parts, and she does look realistic.
What I don't get is why an AI would want to look like a human. Soft, weak, bags of meat.
Even if our economy was booming to the degree it was in the 50s/60s the reason we haven't gone back to the moon is right there in the design of the Saturn V. By my eyeball estimate it looks like 275 feet of fuel to send and return 10 feet of crew/cargo (I'm kind of handwaving over the LEM and Control Module).I'm a numbers kind of girl, and the Saturn V had the capacity to lift 119000kg to Low Earth Orbit, or 4.9 times the Space Shuttle's capacity. Or to put it another way, you'd need five Shuttle launches to equal one Saturn V launch. I've found it pretty much impossible to find non-rubbery figures for the cost per launch of either Saturn V or Shuttle, so it is very hard to work out how the cost-to-orbit-per-kilogramme compares. There is a school of thought that argues (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/146/1) that heavy lift capacity is actually a bad thing that would discourage space exploration in the long term, but I'm not so sure.
Contrary to popular belief, NASA's budget isn't that large. It's been at or below one percent of total Federal expenditures (PDF file) (http://www.richardb.us/nasa.pdf) since 1976. That doesn't help the public perception problem, but still.
The thing is launching a single Saturn V which was, a DISPOSABLE rocket and launched 3 people in cramped conditions to the moon cost after inflation 1.11 Billion US Dollars.Then US operations in Iraq and Afganistan cost (http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/gwot_spending_burn_rate/) something like ten Saturn V launches per month. It's all a matter of priorities.
Another factor in the turning away from the Lunar missions was what was going on in South-east Asia, and the events surrounding them. One wonders what might have happened had Kennedy not gotten murdered in Dallas and the events post that had not gone as they had.Who know? But Kennedy was the president who said, after meeting Khrushchev in Vienna, "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/goldzwig.htm)", increased the number of US military personel in Vietnam from under 1000 to over 16000 before his death, and connived at the coup that toppled Ngo Dinh Diem, so probably not much would have been different. Kennedy was reluctant to commit US combat forces, resisting Robert McNamara's suggestion that six divisions be sent to Vietnam, but the coup pitched South Vietnam into chaos, reducing rather than enhancing its ability to resist, and had he lived St. Jack would have faced the same pressure that Johnson did to "raise or fold". I've never been able to buy into the "if Kennedy had lived, everything would have been different" school of US historical hagiography.
I dont really get your posting.If that's what he said, he has a grossly oversimplified view of the difficulties of space travel. It's not that we lost interest it's that orbital velocity is incredibly hard and escape velocity is even harder. Until a breakthrough in propulsion or materials comes along we're going to be stuck on one planet.I've been thinking about this since you posted it, and I'm not sure that I buy it. I know that climbing out of the gravity well is very difficult, but it hasn't become any more so since Apollo 17 brought crewed spaceflight beyond Earth's orbit to an end. In 1972. Nearly 40 years ago. Using technology developed back in the 1960's. I was thinking about this when the final Space Shuttle mission ended. The Space Shuttle first made an orbital flight more than thirty years ago. The Russian Proton rocket first flew in 1965. I don't doubt that Proton, like the Shuttle, has undergone development since its first flight (the latest model first flew a decade ago), but could we not do better today if we only wanted to? Compare the pace of progress in space-launch technology with that in areas we really do care about, like mobile phones and killing people.
I think there is something in Jeph's idea that we, or at least our rulers, just lost interest. The technical hurdle has not grown any higher, but we're achieving less in leaping it than we did in 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8). The political motivation for Apollo was primarily international dick-waving, and using space-flight for that just went out of fashion, until arguably my homeland started treading the same path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_spacecraft).
Use of kerosene / hydrogen peroxide engines has been a particularly British trait in rocket development, there being few comparable engines (such as the LR-40) from the USA.[4]
The combustion of kerosene with hydrogen peroxide is given by the formula
CH2 + 3H2O2 → CO2 + 4H2O
where CH2 is the approximate formula of kerosene (see RP-1 for a discussion of kerosene rocket fuels). This compares with the combustion of kerosene and liquid oxygen (LOX)
CH2 + 1.5O2 → CO2 + H2O
showing that the exhaust from kerosene / peroxide is predominantly water. This results in a very clean exhaust (second only to cryogenic LO2/LH2) and a distinctive clear flame.[5] The low molecular mass of water also helps to increase rocket thrust performance.[6]
The oxidizer used with Gamma was 85% High Test Peroxide (HTP), H2O2. Gamma used a silver-plated on nickel-gauze catalyst to first decompose the peroxide.[7] For higher concentrations of H2O2 another catalyst would have been required, such as platinum. No ignition source was required since the very hot decomposed H2O2 is hypergolic (will spontaneously combust) with kerosene. Due to the high ratio (8:1) of the mass of H2O2 used compared to the kerosene, and also its superior heat characteristics, the H2O2 may also be used to regeneratively cool the engine nozzle before combustion. Any pre-combustion chamber used to power the pump turbines needs only to decompose H2O2 to provide the energy. This gives the efficiency advantages of closed cycle operation, without its usual major engineering problems.
All of these characteristics lead to kerosene / hydrogen peroxide engines being simpler and more reliable to construct than other liquid propellant chemistries. Gamma had a remarkably reliable service record for a rocket engine. Of the 22 Black Knight and 4 Black Arrow launchers, involving 128 Gamma engines, there were no engine failures.[6]
Chemistry has a simple property: the most powerful reaction of all chemistry is the one of hydrogen and oxygen.Whilst it's adorable that you stated that like its a fact, please stop. :psyduck:
Probably the most famous British rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow)
If your computer is sentient, and can be damaged by sketchy web sites, is it domestic violence to expose it to them?It occurs to me to wonder exactly how far this goes in explaining Pintsize.
Britain's rocket research program (yes, we had one :P) used a kerosene/peroxide mix (yes, that's right, our rockets were powered by blonde).
If your computer is sentient, and can be damaged by sketchy web sites, is it domestic violence to expose it to them?It occurs to me to wonder exactly how far this goes in explaining Pintsize.
I would like to go into it, but i'm remotely afraid it'll cross the line into the whole "No Shipping" rules in effect.
I think things would be pretty different if Kennedy had lived, but not that Kennedy. If RFK hadn't been assassinated, and went on to win the general election in 1968, I'm pretty sure that would've changed some things significantly.
If your computer is sentient, and can be damaged by sketchy web sites, is it domestic violence to expose it to them?It occurs to me to wonder exactly how far this goes in explaining Pintsize.
I would like to go into it, but i'm remotely afraid it'll cross the line into the whole "No Shipping" rules in effect.
Really? I don't see this as shipping, unless you're suggestuing that Marten abnd Pintsize...
Oh. Nevermind.
I don't remember this at all, but I'll take your word for it. That would at least produce more precedent. But there are still a lot of weird issues that go along with this to think about.Am I the only one who's a little surprised that anthro chassis as indistinguishably human as this new Momo one are actually allowed in the QCverse?
She could be a real girl (as distinct from a RealGirl™) with dyed hair and contacts.
This has Consequences®.
Actually, no, considering Eve from AppleGeeks has shown up in the strip. She's essentially a home-built APC made from Mac parts, and she does look realistic.
Quote from: MEActually, no, considering Eve from AppleGeeks has shown up in the strip. She's essentially a home-built APC made from Mac parts, and she does look realistic.I don't remember this at all, but I'll take your word for it. That would at least produce more precedent. But there are still a lot of weird issues that go along with this to think about.
I don't see this as shipping, unless you're suggestuing that Marten abnd Pintsize...