#politicaldebate - 2016-05-04 - AustNet Archive Project

// #politicaldebate — 2016-05-04

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
« 2016-05-03 2016-05-09 »
05:00 <Warren1984> scoutings primary purpose is to find resources
06:00 <Arbition> on random maps, this is a thing, but I'm thinking SC 2 again lol
06:00 <Warren1984> when vs Tigger_ I need to find a way to control most of the resources esp gold and stone and fight him off
07:00 <Arbition> This is AoE II HD edition on steam I take it?
07:00 <Warren1984> to block his workers from accessing most of the resources
07:00 <Warren1984> yes
07:00 <Arbition> I have that, I might join you guys some time
07:00 <Warren1984> but the same applies to SC 2
07:00 <Warren1984> you need to get men to most of the resources and fight off any workers sent
08:00 <Warren1984> then use those resources
08:00 <Arbition> Well in SC2 the resources are laid out for one collection point
08:00 <Arbition> unlike AoE II
08:00 <Warren1984> It's a heart thumping activity to do
08:00 <Warren1984> and requires very quick, organized thinking
09:00 <Warren1984> If you own over 50% of the resources then you are more likely to win
09:00 <Arbition> Planetary Annihilation is more like SC2 in being fast paced
09:00 <Arbition> Only if you spend them appropriately
09:00 <Arbition> and that is still late game thinking
09:00 <Warren1984> yeah AOE 2 is more slow paced
10:00 <Arbition> then again iirc AoE 2 has multiple speeds, and competitive SC2 is always done at fastest
10:00 <Arbition> but campaign can be done at any speed
11:00 <Arbition> or custom matches for that matter
11:00 <Warren1984> the problem is if Tigger_ sends down some military to fight me off at most of the resources, then the game becomes hard
11:00 <Arbition> that is the nature of competition
11:00 <Warren1984> yeah true
16:00 <BlackDevil> did joel go back to prison?
36:00 <thestig> tep
38:00 <Tigger_> who is joel?
40:00 <nuthin> who is thestig
40:00 <nuthin> fuck you thestig
41:00 <thestig> thats not nice limpydog
41:00 <nuthin> ive had a bee in my bonnet about you for quite some time
41:00 <nuthin> :D
43:00 <Tigger_> <Warren1984> the problem lies in the fact we are too efficient  <- I've sometimes wondered if you could have cars powered by food, or even grass
50:00 <Arbition> uh what
50:00 <Arbition> Someone went to prison
50:00 <Arbition> Tigger_: Well there is biodiesel and ethanol for petrol replacement
50:00 <Arbition> not directly food
51:00 <Tigger_> yes, though I mean directly food, which is digested by the car, like an animals, such as you empty your lawn clippings in
51:00 <Arbition> Ethanol driven engines would have different operating parameters, you'd increase the compression
51:00 <Arbition> Requires too much space I'd say
51:00 <Arbition> bioreactors are pretty big
51:00 <Tigger_> it would, it's not a practical idea
51:00 <Arbition> I mean, have one at home maybe
51:00 <Arbition> but not on the car itself
52:00 <nuthin> thestig
52:00 <Tigger_> unless you have a hybrid organic/mechanical engine
52:00 <nuthin> loser
52:00 <Arbition> wha?
52:00 <Tigger_> I'm talking about a technology that doesn't exist
53:00 <Warren1984> bbl going to buy lunch
53:00 <Arbition> oh, so essentially artificial muscles
53:00 <Tigger_> yes, and digestive system
54:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> hrmmm
54:00 <Arbition> Well, the human body has a lot of organs, and many of them contribute in some way to digestive function, so space woudl still be an issue
55:00 <Arbition> Lungs could probably be easily optimised, but digestion, not so much
55:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> it would never be practical, such as you would need a surgeon rather than a mechanic to fix such a vehicle
56:00 <Arbition> idk about that
56:00 <Arbition> its still a question of engineering, I doubt you'd copy biological systems exactly
56:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> biological systems would be designed to interface with mechanical systems
56:00 <Arbition> muscles as pistons
57:00 <Arbition> thats about the only interface there is imo
57:00 <Arbition> Well, with my current thinking anyway
57:00 <Arbition> Perhaps there is some kind of rotary muscle you could develop lol
58:00 <Arbition> but a muscle as a piston would be very simple and accessible
59:00 <Arbition> Interesting, there have already been some rudimentary artificial muscle like materials. Wound polymers which contract when heated
00:00 <Arbition> that was supposed to say interestingly, because I didn't just look that up
01:00 <Arbition> don't think I could have really looked it up so quickly given how much I was talking
01:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> come to think of it, a biological system is largely self repairing, which is why you can get 70 years or so out of a human, but mechanical systems fail long before that
02:00 <Arbition> well, mechanical systems could potentially have some self repairing mechanisms (ie micromachines) but they haven't been developed yet
02:00 <Arbition> well nano
02:00 <Arbition> w/e
02:00 <Arbition> protien folding is essentially nanomachines as it is
02:00 <Arbition> so yeah, we could borrow that
02:00 <Arbition> it would restrict us to whatever that provides though
03:00 <Arbition> in the long run though, would it be more efficient to be externally repaired or internally repaired/
03:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> ongoing, self-regulated internal repair would be the most efficient
04:00 <Arbition> not neccessarily, the process of digestion is pretty inefficient
04:00 <Arbition> compared to a common capital base
05:00 <Arbition> the self repair systems would go through many conversion steps
06:00 <Arbition> Another thing worth considering, is the specific energy of biological systems is very low, mechanics fail because of the very fast mechanical rate changes that occur
06:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> that is macro efficiency compared to the localised efficiency of your bio-mechanical car
06:00 <Arbition> yes, and it is worth comparing
06:00 <Arbition> Perhaps if you push a biological system to that level of activity, its requirement for repairs might be tremendous
07:00 <Arbition> either that, or just be too heavy, because its specific energy is too low for the required output
08:00 <Arbition> and the heavier it gets, the more motive force it requires to move it, and thus energy
08:00 <Arbition> sorry, specific power, not specific energy
09:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> some animals, like fish, are expending energy permanently.  I can't think of any mammals that do
09:00 <Arbition> they're also much smaller
10:00 <Arbition> they use similar muscular systems, and the specific power required means they are relatively efficient
10:00 <Arbition> I think, for the kind of power levels we're talking about, we would be comparing it to hummingbirds
11:00 <Arbition> who have to replenish energy every 15 minutes or die, unless they go into a hibernatory state as they do when they sleep
12:00 <Arbition> they also have a diet of basically pure sugar
12:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> another thing to consider is that a bio-mechanical car would be optimised to operate only a few muscle types, and for them to do the same operation over and over, most animals have a wide range of muscle function
12:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> that's interesting
12:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> I've never really read anything about hummingbirds
13:00 <Arbition> if we had that level of optimisation available to us, we probably would change a lot of the biological system design anyway, and would make things like pure carbon parts etc
13:00 <Arbition> and be able to move around metals
13:00 <Arbition> it'd be a significantly different system to pre-existing animals
13:00 <Arbition> at that point, we wouldn't be far of nanomachine design anyway
16:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> my main interest in nanobots is as part of the solution to mortality, such as a nanobot pill that targets cancer and so on
16:00 <Arbition> I'm sure self repairing mechanics will also be along wiht it
16:00 <Arbition> it is a pretty obvious solution
16:00 <Arbition> I'm still not so sure about the onboard digestive system though
17:00 <Arbition> hummingbirds as I said have a diet of basically pure sugar, which requires little digestion, allowing them the required specific power. A broader digestive system would be too cumbersome
17:00 <Warren1984> DaylightSlavingTime lets game soon
18:00 <Arbition> I imagine that you'd have an offboard digestive system at home or wherever still
18:00 <Arbition> which feeds the vehicle a high energy compound
19:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> I expect that mechanical systems will always be a better solution, but bio-mechanical will have the advantage of being fully localised, not depending on a broad support infrastructure
19:00 <Warren1984> well DaylightSlavingTime
19:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> Warren1984, ok
19:00 <Arbition> Depends on application
20:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> Warren1984, give me 10 minutes
20:00 <Arbition> If we get to the state of programmable nanomachines, everything becomes an issue of programming and energy input
20:00 <Arbition> infrastructure would become largely redundant except for that which is so in demand that its just more efficient to have it
20:00 <Arbition> ie raw material
20:00 <Arbition> and communications
21:00 <Arbition> so the question is then, what about licencing/Intellectual property? Will that even be a thing still?
22:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> I have wondered about that, such as in a world where everything can be manufactured locally with 3D printing, perhaps the only remaining property issue will be IP
23:00 <Arbition> By that time, it would be practically impossible to restrict production of weapons
23:00 <Arbition> government would be largely redundant
24:00 <Arbition> At that time I think it would be pretty much anarchy
24:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> yes, that is inevitable, though I don't expect gun crime to increase
24:00 <Arbition> IP isn't a thing when there is no enforcement
24:00 <Arbition> Crime would have litle meaning at that point
24:00 <Arbition> because enforcement would be so weak
24:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> there will be localised enforcement, either by the individual or the community
24:00 <Arbition> simply because no one is interdependant anymore
25:00 <Arbition> Which is problematic, because it reverses specialisation
25:00 <Arbition> A lot of people wouldn't be impartial or unbiased enough to make reasonable judgements
26:00 <Arbition> Think, Jerome, as an enforcer
26:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> there is a theory that one of the causes for the reduction in crime is that everyone is carrying a videocamera these days, so when a crime is committed everyone whips out their phones. this of course does not prevent the most impulsive from committing crimes
27:00 <Arbition> standards for evidence would be highly variable anyway, without a full system of law
27:00 <Arbition> It also doesn't do anything for crimes of trust
27:00 <Arbition> in private places
28:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> the solution would be intentional communities, where everyone agrees to an explicit set of rules
28:00 <Arbition> Unless things are surveilled to 1984 levels
28:00 <Arbition> aaand that is a government
29:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> we are reaching 1984 levels of surveillance through ad-hoc, private operators
29:00 <Arbition> its just a question of scale then
29:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> now we have a market for surveillance optimised hard drives
30:00 <Arbition> I disagree. Until you are surveilled in your private home at all times, it is not 1984 level
31:00 <Arbition> its not so much a matter of capability, but intent for that
32:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> yes, not in the private sphere, where it's optional.  also in 1984 people were being surveilled in real time, the archive and rewind functions didn't seem to occur to Orwell, we have the additional dimension of archiving
32:00 <Arbition> It didn't need to though, they had enough people watching
32:00 <Arbition> archiving is only neccessary if you don't have the manpower to monitor everything
33:00 <Arbition> AI could do this, it could then just decide if something is relevant and if it is worth keeping
33:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> I always thought that was a bit implausible, though I recall Orwell saying that most cameras were not monitored, but you just didn't know which ones
34:00 <Arbition> hmm I don't recall that
34:00 <Arbition> In that case, it'd still need a critical mass of people, or the probabilities of being surveilled are too low to worry about
35:00 <Arbition> It might need one surveillence officer per 100 people
35:00 <Arbition> at a guess
35:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> for them all to be monitored, you'd need to split the population into 50% the monitored, and 50% the monitors
36:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> East Germany had a ratio of about 1 spy for 86 people I think
36:00 <Arbition> I guess that'd do it
36:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> whereas Soviet Russia it was about 1 per 3,000
37:00 <Arbition> humans can't keep track of more than about 100 people in their heads anyway
37:00 <Arbition> it is frequently said that is about the limit to the number of friends any one person can keep
37:00 <Arbition> the rest are aquaintences, no more
38:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> the German film "The Lives of Others" has a dissident playwright who is being monitored by a Stasi agent, but then the agent becomes sympathetic to his subject, and starts to protect him
38:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> it was based on a true story too
40:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> I'm probably a bit different, I'd find it very difficult to keep 100 people in my head, 10 is pushing it
40:00 <Arbition> that is given as the upper limit
40:00 <Arbition> they acknowledge that this number varies
42:00 <Arbition> You'd probably have to be quite the social butterfly with limited other interests to manage that full number
43:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> extroverts are fast thinkers, so can switch train of thought in an instant
44:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> which is what you'd have to do with so many people
00:00 <Warren1984> well DuckDodgers
00:00 <Warren1984> DaylightSlavingTime
00:00 <Warren1984> lets play
01:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> Warren1984, did you get your lunch?
01:00 <Warren1984> remember to pause your download
01:00 <Warren1984> yes
01:00 <Warren1984> finished it as well
01:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> what did you get?
01:00 <Warren1984> salami and vita-weats
01:00 <Warren1984> wasn't a nice salami
01:00 <Warren1984> they ran out of the good one
01:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> salami = bad, vita weets = good
02:00 <Warren1984> I might just brush my teeth
02:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> ok
02:00 <Warren1984> I was getting a sore tooth before
05:00 <DaylightSlavingTime> tell me when you're ready
Search this day's buffer: