I think the shooting of random civilians was included in the general idea... Jinjuro was talking about Skynet (from the Terminator films) becoming sentient, so that's what he would do.  What will you do if the controlling program of the drones are somehow hacked, and they are made to attack the same people who created it? If Skynet becomes real, then Jinjuro will also be targeted. Hmm, I'm guessing you didn't see the movies? Skynet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29), was a self-aware artificial intelligence that had as a goal the extermination of the human race. So yes, Jinjuro and the rest of us would be killed if it was up to Skynet...  In here: We will be doomed once skynet become sentience and started printing millions of drones and robots.  Jinjuro is basically saying that once Skynet becomes active, and being a true AI, able to control those drones and robots by itself, we would all be dead. |
|
|
|
the technology exists to make the drones control themselves. I suspect the time passes the need for operators will be obsolete @bryant_coleman
Oh god... that will be so lame. You want to insert artificial intelligence in the drones? I don't want the drones shooting random civilian targets and triggering civil war. I think the shooting of random civilians was included in the general idea... Jinjuro was talking about Skynet (from the Terminator films) becoming sentient, so that's what he would do. |
|
|
|
I don't believe the Daleks would have what it takes for the job, but the Timelords could be a worthy contender. But coming against other highly advanced species, that on top of everything were able to easily control others (like the ones from Babylon 5, the Third space), I don't think they would stand a chance. Didn't Daleks almost wipe the Timelords out, quite easily? Also Replicators > Daleks. To be honest, I didn't see all the Doctor Who series, only a little of the most recent one. Still, as far as I know, they lost in the end, and didn't have any particularly strong points in relation to other species already mentioned here. As you stated yourself, the Replicators would very likely be stronger. On the other hand, the Timelords' ability to easily move through time could make them a dangerous enemy, though I don't believe they are the strongest mentioned in this thread. |
|
|
|
Hi guys, i would love to play on a MineCraft server where you can earn BitCoins.
I was wondering if you guys knew of any.
Tnx
You mean, something like this: http://www.minecraftcc.com/index.php?threads/get-paid-to-play-minecraft.4613/? EDIT: I should say I haven't actually tried it myself though, but only discovered the site a few months ago. EDIT2: first person to send 0.50 ppc to me on 12/25/2014 wins 16 BTC!!:
PU4ULkEBSrERQAD6BQBcTLSYVTwEFy5f4j
Hmm, and would you be willing to put those 16 btc in escrow? |
|
|
|
I'm using Opera one of the fastest browser out there with lots of cool features.
I used Opera for sometime (until version 15 I think). The feature I liked most was having the ability to group tabs - very useful when you have many open at the same time... I haven't been able to find an add-on for Firefox that does the same unfortunately.  |
|
|
|
It would be between the TimeLords and the Daleks, in an endless time war. And the universe would go into the poo-poo train, destination: DEATH!!!!!!
(BTW, these two species are from Doctor Who)
I don't believe the Daleks would have what it takes for the job, but the Timelords could be a worthy contender. But coming against other highly advanced species, that on top of everything were able to easily control others (like the ones from Babylon 5, the Third space), I don't think they would stand a chance. |
|
|
|
and let's not forget that the new testament, at the very least, was re-written to suit or "convert" romans.. and it wasn't written by "god" but only man who claimed himself to be god.
No, the bible wasn't written by Jesus; the several books that make up the "bible" were written through time, after his death. Then the books that were convenient to the church were chosen and put together, forming the bible we now know. Many decades after his death, in fact. Several generations forgot about jesus, then suddenly people were able to remember ever detail about him. Again -  Yep, pretty much... maybe 40 to 120 years later apparently. This interview with Reza Aslan in The Young Turks goes into some detail about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL6E4eMX-4k. EDIT: i can see how you came to that conclusion.. i wasn't clear. what i meant is that people wrote the pretty much all of the bible.. in god's name, so that it could suit whatever the fuck they want. the bible is just a clusterfuck.. if you are a christian and want to justify your actions, just look to the bible.. and interpret it according to your needs.
Yeah, couldn't agree more. And if you are the church and you can define what the "correct" texts that make up the bible are, you can easily define the world view that is convenient for you. |
|
|
|
and let's not forget that the new testament, at the very least, was re-written to suit or "convert" romans.. and it wasn't written by "god" but only man who claimed himself to be god.
No, the bible wasn't written by Jesus; the several books that make up the "bible" were written through time, after his death. Then the books that were convenient to the church were chosen and put together, forming the bible we now know. i didn't imply that jesus wrote the new testament. im saying human beings did, with their own "interpretation" of it. Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's what I understood you said from "it wasn't written by "god" but only man who claimed himself to be god". |
|
|
|
and let's not forget that the new testament, at the very least, was re-written to suit or "convert" romans.. and it wasn't written by "god" but only man who claimed himself to be god.
No, the bible wasn't written by Jesus; the several books that make up the "bible" were written through time, after his death. Then the books that were convenient to the church were chosen and put together, forming the bible we now know. |
|
|
|
I think evolutionists do not understand the intelligent design of the world very well.  My point is that we do not see order come from chaos. That is not something that is observed in our world. But we do see great signs of intelligence. The fact that we are intelligent as humans proves we had to have had someone or "something" more intelligent program us to work the way we do. It is just logical. To have intelligence come from nothing is not observable in our world. The whole universe is a proof that order comes from chaos. At first there was the highly chaotic Big Bang, then chaotic galaxies formed, which gave birth to stars, which organized more complex matter, which made unchaotic planets, and so on What can we observe scientifically that shows order from chaos? A big bang could not have left the universe in an orderly state based on observable science. Nothing we observe exploding leads to order and creation of anything new does it? A "big bang" could not have led to human intelligence and the amazing design of our bodies. There are just too many variables at play for everything to have happened by random chance. The position of the earth in relation to the sun, water on the earth, the way our bodies work, etc. There are just too many things that for them to have happened by chance it is mathematically impossible even adding the "millions and billions of years" to the problem. The big bang wasn't an "explosion" as such, and based on "observable science" it very likely did leave the universe in the "orderly state" it now exists. Sorry, but you need to read up on it. And you're looking at the creation of life the wrong way around... the conditions you go on to mention gave rise to life as you know it. It's not that life can't possibly exist in other forms, having started from different initial conditions: it's just that it's the only life we've seen so far, nothing more. |
|
|
|
The order you see is already mostly explained by the laws of physics; simply adding a god to it doesn't help in any way, shape or form, we gain no new understanding, and it limits the questions we can ask about the world, because the answer is an arbitrary "god willed it so".
And what you go on to describe, it basically comes down to the old "Watchmaker analogy", which hasn't been seriously considered ever since the mechanisms for evolution of species were discovered; in no way does it follow that the existence of DNA proves there had to be a designer.
To think that order comes from chaos is problematic and can limit how we see the world and lead to problems in scientific thinking. Just something to think about. I'm not sure what you mean by chaos and order in this context; care to elaborate? But to further my point in the previous post, and paraphrasing Dawkins: things might look complex at first, and you might be tempted to believe there is no other way for them to have arisen; until you look closer. He goes on to give an example of the laryngeal nerve, which in some animals (giraffes for example) can be detoured by as much as 4.6 meters, instead of going by its most direct route. If anything this should be considered a "design flaw", but it's exactly what you would expect after billions of years of evolution. For your reference, the video in which he gives this example is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U, at about 21 minutes in, but I highly recommend the whole thing if you have time. |
|
|
|
You have to admit, accepting something unquestioningly, something for which there is no evidence and which offers no greater understanding of how the world around us works, does seem a bit irrational.
As for this universe coming from nothing or a "big bang", that is the best explanation science has come up with; but even if it isn't the whole story, contrary to religion, it allows us to make predictions and gain a deeper understanding. In short, it allows us to make more rational choices in relation to our environment. Religion on the other hand doesn't evolve, doesn't adapt to new knowledge.
"Religion" or on a more basic level, the belief in intelligent design gives me the basis in which to see that there is order and a design in which the world operates. To me a world without an intelligent designer would be as irrational as having a computer operate without any software. The computer could perhaps have "evolved" from nothing and just be a chunk of metal, but there had to be an intelligent creator of the software that gives the program the design it needs to operate. Even changing one piece of code, or taking code out causes the program to fail (kind of like what happens when there is an "error" in our DNA code which causes problems in our bodies with mutations and so on.) The fact that we have DNA shows that there was some planning or "information" that took place to begin with. In a way, information in our world and in our structure proves intelligence and a "designer." So it is logical to think that there was a plan. Without that the world might exist but we would not have intelligence at all. The order you see is already mostly explained by the laws of physics; simply adding a god to it doesn't help in any way, shape or form, we gain no new understanding, and it limits the questions we can ask about the world, because the answer is an arbitrary "god willed it so". And what you go on to describe, it basically comes down to the old "Watchmaker analogy", which hasn't been seriously considered ever since the mechanisms for evolution of species were discovered; in no way does it follow that the existence of DNA proves there had to be a designer. |
|
|
|
Is it rational to think that this life is all there is? Is it rational to think that everything in our world that is so complex and orderly and beautiful came from nothing or a "big bang?" I am not sure who the "irrational" ones are sometimes. You have to admit, accepting something unquestioningly, something for which there is no evidence and which offers no greater understanding of how the world around us works, does seem a bit irrational. As for this universe coming from nothing or a "big bang", that is the best explanation science has come up with; but even if it isn't the whole story, contrary to religion, it allows us to make predictions and gain a deeper understanding. In short, it allows us to make more rational choices in relation to our environment. Religion on the other hand doesn't evolve, doesn't adapt to new knowledge. |
|
|
|
Where's the 'lol religion' option?  there should be a "I don't religion" option Well, that's called atheism right? Not necessarily. You could be a theist or believe in a god but also believe in 'lol relgions' too . Unless "lol religions" stands for "Lucifer our lord" based religions, I don't see how that could work... How couldn't it. You think all religions are bullshit but believe in a god, hence 'lol religions'. I suppose you're right; I was going by the broad definition of religion, that is "belief in spiritual beings", but it's probably more correct to consider all the social interactions and rituals that usually come along with it. |
|
|
|
Where's the 'lol religion' option? there should be a "I don't religion" option Well, that's called atheism right? Not necessarily. You could be a theist or believe in a god but also believe in 'lol relgions' too . Unless "lol religions" stands for "Lucifer our lord" based religions, I don't see how that could work... |
|
|
|
Where's the 'lol religion' option? there should be a "I don't religion" option Well, that's called atheism right? |
|
|
|
LostDutchman, I'm started to think you're one kool kat; am I right?
Why thank you, I am not certain that what you suggest is so but it could be, right? Are you saying that it's possible that you are a cold cat typing on a keyboard? |
|
|
|
Ah, oh well that sux  Well, if you don't post a lot, it's actually one of the best campaigns around. But if you do something like over 100 posts a month, it might pay to look elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Do we get an extra amount if we go above and beyond 50 posts in 1 month???
As you can see in the first post, no. You only get paid the base amount of 0.04 btc if you're a Full Member, or 0.08 btc if you're a Senior or Hero Member. EDIT: Up to 0.08BTC per month for 50 posts! Our offer:
- 0.04BTC per month for posting with our signature as Full Member
- 0.08BTC per month for posting with our signature as Senior or Hero Member
- Currently the offer is limited to 100 participants
- You get paid 30 days after signing up. (dates are on the list)
|
|
|
|
Next they will be printing cars, robots, airplanes, tanks and ships. 3D Printers will decide who win the war in the future.
Actually, I think the US navy is already considering printing drones aboard their ships: http://rt.com/usa/3d-navy-drones-printers-960/ (and notice that article is almost 1 year old). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
