Oh hell I can't remember the number of times I got the strap in school, but it did get the message across, pain is an excellent motivator for behavioral modification.
P.S. Kirk probably does have 50 Illegitimate Kids considering he'd go down on anything with a pulse.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Oh hell I can't remember the number of times I got the strap in school, but it did get the message across, pain is an excellent motivator for behavioral modification.
I remember my grandmother telling me to go outside and get a "switch" so she could tan my behind. Back in about 2000 I was in the commisary at EUCOM Patch Barracks in Stuttgart and I ran into a friend of mine. His daughter was about five I think. She was acting up, like young kids will do and he reached down and patted her on the butt saying "Behave!". I mean pat. It wasn't a hit or a swat. It was a gentle pat. The kid didn't cry, she just said "Ok, daddy".
The next day he tells me someone called Child Protective Services because they saw him beating his child in the Commisary. I couldn't believe it anymore than he could. Since I was there I had to give a statement about it, too. I mean, geez, I knew the guy...we worked together. He was a good guy. He didn't mistreat his kids, in fact all he talked about was how he loved having kids.
But this is a touchy subject, and best not continued here. It'll only get the thread closed when people get upset on any side of the argument.
That's part of the problem today with government interfering in child rearing without providing a backup plan while preventing parents from controlling their kids. But as you say this may not be the place for this.
Well it is Ten Forward so I'm not expecting problems.
Back on the subject I realize that Star Trek's moneyless economy sounds unrealistic, it does sound like communism but it's communism how it should be, not how it was perverted by our communists, there would be no working class providing and elite class reaping the benefits, everyone would be on the same level, it's hard to conceive of it living in the world we live in, we don't have the technology that would take care of the unpleasant drudgery without human involvement.
And it could be said that Star Trek's economy is a false one, humans living in luxury on a garden world while all of the backbreaking labor is handled off world in remote mining and manufacturing colonies. The society's dirty underside being hidden off world, but not eliminated.
There clearly would have to be some medium for barter and exchange, but imagine one where this currency represents only the value of goods and there is no 3rd party scrapping off the top accumulating wealth while producing nothing.
I know it's a dream but I can't say it would be bad living in a world where we are not indentured servants of the Rockefellers.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Back on the subject I realize that Star Trek's moneyless economy sounds unrealistic, it does sound like communism but it's communism how it should be, not how it was perverted by our communists, there would be no working class providing and elite class reaping the benefits, everyone would be on the same level, it's hard to conceive of it living in the world we live in, we don't have the technology that would take care of the unpleasant drudgery without human involvement.
And it could be said that Star Trek's economy is a false one, humans living in luxury on a garden world while all of the backbreaking labor is handled off world in remote mining and manufacturing colonies. The society's dirty underside being hidden off world, but not eliminated.
There clearly would have to be some medium for barter and exchange, but imagine one where this currency represents only the value of goods and there is no 3rd party scrapping off the top accumulating wealth while producing nothing.
I know it's a dream but I can't say it would be bad living in a world where we are not indentured servants of the Rockefellers.
I agree completely. Though someday we may have robots and AIs doing a lot of the dirty work.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
(I gotta read "I, Robot" again. Loved it as a kid)
Gotta love the three laws.
I love the movie, but haven't read the book yet. I've heard they're very different; is that true?
I don't think we should make our robots and AIs too intelligent. Just enough to take out the trash, or fix the plumbing, or other menial jobs like that.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
Well the movie I' Robot did a good job of invalidating the 3 laws, for whatever else you think of the movie, that robots could hold us captive and still not violate the 3 laws kind of proves the laws need work.
Automation doesn't necessarily mean those kinds of robots, a fully automated waste processing or recycling plant would almost resemble something biological if the physical and chemical processes were sufficiently advanced. Don't really want to go into the gooey details for obvious reasons.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
I love the movie, but haven't read the book yet. I've heard they're very different; is that true?
I don't think we should make our robots and AIs too intelligent. Just enough to take out the trash, or fix the plumbing, or other menial jobs like that.
The movie is nothing like the book. Its actually a collection of stories that are roughly connected. Its a good read, I will be bold enough to say I think you'll like it. (as I don't know you personally, I'm guessing you like sci-fi *go figure*...).
I was just joking about the cylon stuff. I've always had a thing for robots. But its probably because as a kid I grew up watching the original Astro Boy and Gigantor cartoons on TV.
Well the movie I' Robot did a good job of invalidating the 3 laws, for whatever else you think of the movie, that robots could hold us captive and still not violate the 3 laws kind of proves the laws need work.
Not really. The robots in the movie didn't obey the 3 laws at all.
They violated the first law when they seized control over mankind when they rose up and became violent. The excuse the AI made when it reasoned that it was protecting mankind from destroying itself doesn't change the fact that humans were still violently killed by robots during their rebellion. If the AI really cared about protecting humanity, there would have been a number of peaceful ways to go about influencing mankind's future. It could have tried education - showing the human race what would befall them, and recommending certain courses of action. It could have also tried subversion - constructing human look-alikes that would run for office and infiltrate the government, after which could carry out reforms that would avert any future disaster.
A robot that correctly obeys all three laws actually couldn't defend itself against a human being. The first law overrides the third law. So you could start beating on such a robot with a hammer and it couldn't do anything about it, except try to run away.
What I think the movie really depicted wasn't a problem with the three laws of robotics. I think it was about the danger of constructing super-intelligent robots. The AI became too smart for it's own good and killed its creator and then turned against mankind. You can program a dumb robot (one that isn't sentient) to follow a set of laws and it will follow those laws without deviation. Whats to stop an intelligent robot from refusing to obey these laws? Sentient beings can make choices. Isaac Asimov talked about "hard-wiring" these laws into intelligent robots, but of course his books are science fiction and never really explained how this hard-wiring works.
It's true the movie had a lot of paradoxes, but the 1st law still has a loophole.
At some point I don't doubt that we will have to address the issue of making machines too smart, if it is possible to build a machine that thinks like a human someone is bound to do it having crossed the line from merely making an automated servant to making an android slave, with all of the attached moral implications of what value is placed on sentience.
My favorite robots are the little drones in Silent Running with R2D2 coming second, 3P0, Robbie the Robot and the Lost in Space Robot are just guys in suits to me.
I built a Hero One robot a while back, had a lot of fun with it until it started falling apart.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
When Asimov's robots came up with the Zeroth Law in his fourth Foundation novel, they simply withdrew from human society and began manipulating it from behind the scenes. That's why they couldn't take direct action against the Mule in Foundation and Empire - letting humanity know they had hidden saviors would have violated the Zeroth Law ("A robot may not injure humanity, nor, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm").
The movie was interesting - but would have been far better if they'd separated it from reference to Asimov's works at all, save perhaps to note that the Three Laws were inspired by the Asimovian Three Laws. For starters, they didn't seem to know the difference between the stories involving US Robots and Mechanical Men (the inspiration for the real-world company US Robotics) and the novel The Caves of Steel; then they threw in a concept that R. Daneel Olivaw didn't come up with until Foundation and Earth, some millennia later, and twisted it almost as badly as Paul Verhoeven twisted Starship Troopers. Divorcing it from Asimovian canon would have been best for all concerned, I think.
When Asimov's robots came up with the Zeroth Law in his fourth Foundation novel, they simply withdrew from human society and began manipulating it from behind the scenes. That's why they couldn't take direct action against the Mule in Foundation and Empire - letting humanity know they had hidden saviors would have violated the Zeroth Law ("A robot may not injure humanity, nor, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm").
The movie was interesting - but would have been far better if they'd separated it from reference to Asimov's works at all, save perhaps to note that the Three Laws were inspired by the Asimovian Three Laws. For starters, they didn't seem to know the difference between the stories involving US Robots and Mechanical Men (the inspiration for the real-world company US Robotics) and the novel The Caves of Steel; then they threw in a concept that R. Daneel Olivaw didn't come up with until Foundation and Earth, some millennia later, and twisted it almost as badly as Paul Verhoeven twisted Starship Troopers. Divorcing it from Asimovian canon would have been best for all concerned, I think.
Thats hollywood. Whenever I hear about a movie made from a book I cringe if I've read the book and liked it...because I know the movie is most likely going to stink.
Thats hollywood. Whenever I hear about a movie made from a book I cringe if I've read the book and liked it...because I know the movie is most likely going to stink.
That's happened to me more times than I can count.
For crying out loud, hollywood, if you're going to make a movie out of a popular book, make it out of the book.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
That's happened to me more times than I can count.
For crying out loud, hollywood, if you're going to make a movie out of a popular book, make it out of the book.
Well we are talking about Hollywood right, telling stories that require you to think to be able to understand them is not something Hollywood is very good at.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
That's happened to me more times than I can count.
For crying out loud, hollywood, if you're going to make a movie out of a popular book, make it out of the book.
Yeah, remember the latest Sherlock Holmes movie(s?) with Robert Downey? My wife wanted to see it, but after seeing the commercial I refused. I read the books...I still have the books. I loved reading them when I was younger.
I just don't think I could stand to see Holmes tied to a bed or being all sexed up. Think about it....if JJ's trek movie didn't have "Star Trek" in the name it'd be another blow em up space movie and forgotten by now. Hollywood kinda sucks at making movies where you might have to think.
My favorite robots are the little drones in Silent Running with R2D2 coming second, 3P0, Robbie the Robot and the Lost in Space Robot are just guys in suits to me.
I built a Hero One robot a while back, had a lot of fun with it until it started falling apart.
Vincent would kick all their asses.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
I think it all comes down to one problem. As of now we are missing an infinite, cheap, clean energy source provided to everyone on the planet for free.
if we manage to get that, everything is possible.
Doesn't just apply to books - look at the likes of Titanic and Pearl Harbor. Both movies which ignored established history in favour of telling a cliche love story that's basically been done hundreds of times before. I, personally, find Titanic particularly offensive since it depicts some of the Titanic's crew as being snivling cowards, or evil, when history records quite the oposite of those people.
And both absolutely suck (in my opinion).
There was a movie I saw about the Enigma Code machine where a team of American soldiers captured it in WWII. It was so historically inaccurate I remember being very annoyed. I can't even remember the name of the flick.
Things like that bother me also, because kids probably think thats actually what happened, rather than the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if some people really believe Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter.
Name something you enjoy doing. Chances are there's a workplace equivalent (or close) somewhere. So you can enjoy your job, not have to worry about supporting yourself, and be satisfied that you're doing your part in keeping humanity alive and peaceful.
I enjoy watching TV with ma hands in ma pants. Where can I apply for a job?
This is an interesting topic. I would highly recommend checking out the series, Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible hosted by Dr. Michio Kaku (theoretical physicist).
He looks at a lot of the topics discussed here ("warp" drive / FTL travel, invisibility, anti-matter etc.)
I have more queries on how they handle the time dilation issues more than anything.
On a side note, what we also have to remember is that our understanding of physics is not complete. We don't have a unified theory and much of what happens in the universe is still a mystery. As we learn and discover more, new laws are written and existing laws amended. This could open up a lot of possibilities in the future or perhaps none at all.
I think it all comes down to one problem. As of now we are missing an infinite, cheap, clean energy source provided to everyone on the planet for free.
if we manage to get that, everything is possible.
Cold Fusion looks promising. If it ends up working, it would provide a much cheaper (and safer) alternative to the current energy sources.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
Comments
P.S. Kirk probably does have 50 Illegitimate Kids considering he'd go down on anything with a pulse.
I remember my grandmother telling me to go outside and get a "switch" so she could tan my behind. Back in about 2000 I was in the commisary at EUCOM Patch Barracks in Stuttgart and I ran into a friend of mine. His daughter was about five I think. She was acting up, like young kids will do and he reached down and patted her on the butt saying "Behave!". I mean pat. It wasn't a hit or a swat. It was a gentle pat. The kid didn't cry, she just said "Ok, daddy".
The next day he tells me someone called Child Protective Services because they saw him beating his child in the Commisary. I couldn't believe it anymore than he could. Since I was there I had to give a statement about it, too. I mean, geez, I knew the guy...we worked together. He was a good guy. He didn't mistreat his kids, in fact all he talked about was how he loved having kids.
But this is a touchy subject, and best not continued here. It'll only get the thread closed when people get upset on any side of the argument.
Well it is Ten Forward so I'm not expecting problems.
Back on the subject I realize that Star Trek's moneyless economy sounds unrealistic, it does sound like communism but it's communism how it should be, not how it was perverted by our communists, there would be no working class providing and elite class reaping the benefits, everyone would be on the same level, it's hard to conceive of it living in the world we live in, we don't have the technology that would take care of the unpleasant drudgery without human involvement.
And it could be said that Star Trek's economy is a false one, humans living in luxury on a garden world while all of the backbreaking labor is handled off world in remote mining and manufacturing colonies. The society's dirty underside being hidden off world, but not eliminated.
There clearly would have to be some medium for barter and exchange, but imagine one where this currency represents only the value of goods and there is no 3rd party scrapping off the top accumulating wealth while producing nothing.
I know it's a dream but I can't say it would be bad living in a world where we are not indentured servants of the Rockefellers.
I agree completely. Though someday we may have robots and AIs doing a lot of the dirty work.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Until the cylons....I mean, robots...revolt.
Don't forget the three laws of Robotics!
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
(I gotta read "I, Robot" again. Loved it as a kid)
Gotta love the three laws.
I love the movie, but haven't read the book yet. I've heard they're very different; is that true?
I don't think we should make our robots and AIs too intelligent. Just enough to take out the trash, or fix the plumbing, or other menial jobs like that.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Automation doesn't necessarily mean those kinds of robots, a fully automated waste processing or recycling plant would almost resemble something biological if the physical and chemical processes were sufficiently advanced. Don't really want to go into the gooey details for obvious reasons.
The movie is nothing like the book. Its actually a collection of stories that are roughly connected. Its a good read, I will be bold enough to say I think you'll like it. (as I don't know you personally, I'm guessing you like sci-fi *go figure*...).
I was just joking about the cylon stuff. I've always had a thing for robots. But its probably because as a kid I grew up watching the original Astro Boy and Gigantor cartoons on TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmAaz3irJVQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlWaTAZUxUQ
Not really. The robots in the movie didn't obey the 3 laws at all.
They violated the first law when they seized control over mankind when they rose up and became violent. The excuse the AI made when it reasoned that it was protecting mankind from destroying itself doesn't change the fact that humans were still violently killed by robots during their rebellion. If the AI really cared about protecting humanity, there would have been a number of peaceful ways to go about influencing mankind's future. It could have tried education - showing the human race what would befall them, and recommending certain courses of action. It could have also tried subversion - constructing human look-alikes that would run for office and infiltrate the government, after which could carry out reforms that would avert any future disaster.
A robot that correctly obeys all three laws actually couldn't defend itself against a human being. The first law overrides the third law. So you could start beating on such a robot with a hammer and it couldn't do anything about it, except try to run away.
What I think the movie really depicted wasn't a problem with the three laws of robotics. I think it was about the danger of constructing super-intelligent robots. The AI became too smart for it's own good and killed its creator and then turned against mankind. You can program a dumb robot (one that isn't sentient) to follow a set of laws and it will follow those laws without deviation. Whats to stop an intelligent robot from refusing to obey these laws? Sentient beings can make choices. Isaac Asimov talked about "hard-wiring" these laws into intelligent robots, but of course his books are science fiction and never really explained how this hard-wiring works.
At some point I don't doubt that we will have to address the issue of making machines too smart, if it is possible to build a machine that thinks like a human someone is bound to do it having crossed the line from merely making an automated servant to making an android slave, with all of the attached moral implications of what value is placed on sentience.
My favorite robots are the little drones in Silent Running with R2D2 coming second, 3P0, Robbie the Robot and the Lost in Space Robot are just guys in suits to me.
I built a Hero One robot a while back, had a lot of fun with it until it started falling apart.
The movie was interesting - but would have been far better if they'd separated it from reference to Asimov's works at all, save perhaps to note that the Three Laws were inspired by the Asimovian Three Laws. For starters, they didn't seem to know the difference between the stories involving US Robots and Mechanical Men (the inspiration for the real-world company US Robotics) and the novel The Caves of Steel; then they threw in a concept that R. Daneel Olivaw didn't come up with until Foundation and Earth, some millennia later, and twisted it almost as badly as Paul Verhoeven twisted Starship Troopers. Divorcing it from Asimovian canon would have been best for all concerned, I think.
Thats hollywood. Whenever I hear about a movie made from a book I cringe if I've read the book and liked it...because I know the movie is most likely going to stink.
That's happened to me more times than I can count.
For crying out loud, hollywood, if you're going to make a movie out of a popular book, make it out of the book.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Yeah, remember the latest Sherlock Holmes movie(s?) with Robert Downey? My wife wanted to see it, but after seeing the commercial I refused. I read the books...I still have the books. I loved reading them when I was younger.
I just don't think I could stand to see Holmes tied to a bed or being all sexed up. Think about it....if JJ's trek movie didn't have "Star Trek" in the name it'd be another blow em up space movie and forgotten by now. Hollywood kinda sucks at making movies where you might have to think.
Vincent would kick all their asses.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Astro Boy.
if we manage to get that, everything is possible.
There was a movie I saw about the Enigma Code machine where a team of American soldiers captured it in WWII. It was so historically inaccurate I remember being very annoyed. I can't even remember the name of the flick.
Things like that bother me also, because kids probably think thats actually what happened, rather than the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if some people really believe Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter.
Wait until the 24th century...then it'll be everybody's job.
He looks at a lot of the topics discussed here ("warp" drive / FTL travel, invisibility, anti-matter etc.)
I have more queries on how they handle the time dilation issues more than anything.
On a side note, what we also have to remember is that our understanding of physics is not complete. We don't have a unified theory and much of what happens in the universe is still a mystery. As we learn and discover more, new laws are written and existing laws amended. This could open up a lot of possibilities in the future or perhaps none at all.
For some cool YouTube channels on physics, check out the following
Veritasium
Minute Physics
Vsauce
Cold Fusion looks promising. If it ends up working, it would provide a much cheaper (and safer) alternative to the current energy sources.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone