The end of the world as we know it
by Tim Faircloth on Aug 27, 2008, 12:14 pm
5 Scientific Experiments Most Likely to End the World
I love the articles on Cracked. They always take on topics like this with a tongue-in-cheek approach.
Though I have formulated a possible solution to the #1 risk on the above list (nanotechnology).
Let’s assume that mass production can only be achieved using self-replicating robots. I propose these sets of rules as possible solutions to the over-population problem. In each case, no nanobot is allowed to change its own programming, and they are very restricted on the programming that they can change in the next generation.
Solution 1: The Queen
- the “Queen” robot has but one duty: to create drones.
- The queen can only be built with human interaction.
- The queen has a homing beacon and is easily deactivated.
- Drones are unable to self-replicate.
This is probably the safest bet since it should be easy to find and destroy the queen if things get out of hand. The problem is that this type of production would be quite slow, though arguably you could create as many queens as you needed.
Solution 2: Slow replication with a single weak link
- Each robot can only create one other exact clone, after which it moves on to a task at hand.
In this scenario, the nanobots are not changing any programming in the next generation, it’s a “slow” reproduction, and in order to cull the herd we only need to kill one robot — the one producing the next generation. This solution has the same problem as solution 1.
Solution 3: Limited life
- Each robot can only replicate twice.
- Each robot has a built-in “self destruct” that allows it to work until a new generation is ready for work.
The problem with this solution is that it can get out of hand quickly since replication is unbounded. On the upside, you’ll only have to deal with the latest generation of bots if you face an uprising.
Solution 4: Generation decay
- The first generation of robots is limited to X offspring.
- In further generations, each robot is limited to one less offspring than its parent robot.
At some point, regeneration stops altogether and you just have nanobots working. The problem with this solution is the fact that a parent bot is changing the programming of the next generation… what happens if the (human) builder of the first generation makes a programming error and allows subsequent generations to produce more instead of fewer robots?
Solution 5: Limited range
- Each robot can reproduce as much as it wants.
- Robots must stay within range of a beacon — if they wander outside the range too long they self-destruct.
- Each robot must devote X percentage of time to work.
Another one of the best solutions in my opinion — it’s fairly safe, allows for quick fabrication, and probably fairly easy to write code for. This way the bots can only produce so many until they run out of space and start dieing as they expand past the range of the beacon. Even if they find a way to start moving the beacon, they are still confined to a finite space. The only problem I see with this solution is crowding. You’d have to tailor the percentage of work they’re forced to do based on the range of the device, otherwise they’d get in each other’s way.
Just a few random thoughts on the matter.
GSW Celebrity Watch
by Tim Faircloth on Aug 22, 2008, 2:41 pm
Apparently, we’ve got a rash of celebrity doppelgangers here at Georgia Southwestern. First, we had a computer science teacher that looks like Masi Oka (that’s Hiro Nakamura from Heroes), and now we have a president that looks like James Cromwell (Farmer Author Hoggett from Babe).
Here’s our GSW President, Dr. Kendall Blanchard (couldn’t find a bigger picture):
…and here’s actor James Cromwell:
Weird, no? Every time I see Dr. Blanchard (he’s a pretty cool guy for a university president), I resist the urge to say “That’ll do, pig”.
The grammar nazi strikes again
by Tim Faircloth on Aug 12, 2008, 9:45 am
So I was reading the wording of my last post, and I noticed a mistake that I’ve noticed a lot of people making recently. At the bottom of the image, you’ll see the words:
Even though you buy legit DVDs, F.A.C.T. still think you’re:…
Did anybody else catch it? “…F.A.C.T. still think…”
What, are we regressing to caveman grammar now? TARK LIKE PIE! TARK GO GET WOMAN! TARK KILL TIGER — HE ARE GOOD HUNTER!
The argument in this case is that though the subject (“F.A.C.T.”) is a singular noun, it represents a group of people. All over the place I see “Company A are looking out for you” and “Company B have an account at the local bank”. You people need to learn about subject-verb agreement. Yes, you may be talking about a group, but you’re using a singular noun. F.A.C.T still thinks. Company A is looking out for you. Company B has an account at the local bank.
The confusion comes in place when we think of words like “people” or “we”, which are a plural nouns, not representations of a group. Some people are stupid. A group of people is stupid.
Think of it as you would the noun “sand”. Is it “The sand are hot” or “The sand is hot”? That’s right. The sand is hot. The grains of sand are hot. You see what I did there? I changed the plurality of the subject by making my original subject the object of a prepositional phrase. Though I’m saying the same thing, I’m actually using a different subject in those two sentences.
I'm watching a movie. I must be a pirate.
by Tim Faircloth on Aug 12, 2008, 9:16 am
It’s good to know I’m not the only one that feels this way:
As the watermark shows, this image was shamelessly commandeered from BrokenTV
New gaming rig
by Tim Faircloth on Aug 11, 2008, 11:31 am
So, I’m thinking of saving up for a new computer — an awesome gaming rig. For those of you that are interested here’s a newegg wishlist of the components that I plan on using.
Now I just need to get up $1500 (plus another $250 or so for an “oops, I forgot that part” budget), and some sort of justification for buying another computer that I likely won’t use too often since I have an XBox. I think it’s more so I can flex my geek muscles. It’s been a while since I’ve built a computer.
Tell me what you think, folks.
Apples vs. Lemons
by Tim Faircloth on Aug 8, 2008, 10:27 am
Should you pay twice as much for a Mac?
So, now that Apple computers run on Intel processors and fully support running Windows via Bootcamp (or through various virtualization software packages), what’s the one thing keeping you from buying a mac?
The price.
On average, a Mac costs twice as much as a PC. There are many excuses given for Apple’s pricing:
- Apple uses superior hardware.
- Apple provides excellent support.
- There is no competition as far as “supported Mac hardware” goes (except for a few rogue cloners).
- “The high price model works” — which means when you buy a Mac it’s like saying “I have money to throw away because I value stability in an operating system”. Basically Apple is catering to a higher-class “elite” clientèle.
To me, none of these excuses work; that last one even sounds kinda snobbish.
In my opinion, price is the only thing keeping Macs from dominating the world market. When Vista came out, they should have dropped their prices and forced Microsoft out of business… so why didn’t they? Do they consider themselves ethical for not taking advantage of a weakened opponent, or are they just confident enough that they welcome competition?
In my opinion, Apple should level the playing field and lower prices… but I guess that’s just me.
Why So Serious?
by Tim Faircloth on Aug 6, 2008, 11:06 am
I got to see The Dark Knight about a week ago. I have to say it was a brilliant film, and I left the theater with the same feeling I had when I went to see Batman Begins. I’m glad to see that Hollywood is finally making quality sequels now.
I was truly impressed with Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker — truly cracked, unforgiving, and psychotic. In my opinion he did an even better job than Jack Nicholson back in 1989.
Batman is often touted as “the superhero with no powers”, but very often people ignore the fact that the villains are just as crafty and “super” when they themselves have no superpowers (unless you consider insanity a super power).
The Joker in Dark Knight is especially chilling, and every aspect of his visage helps to portray his mental condition. His clothes, despite being custom made, are bedraggled and dirty. His hair is wild — long and poorly colored (green of course). He wears makeup “to scare people”, and it’s always smudged and comes off easily.
Perhaps his most notable physical characteristic is the set of scars which extends his mouth, twisting it into a permanent crooked smile. He uses his scars to further terrorize his victims by telling stories about how he got them.
There may be a spoiler or two below, so if you haven’t seen the movie you may want to proceed with caution.
The first time he tells a story, he has a mobster in his grasp and he’s got a knife in his face. The story he tells paints him as a horrified child with a drunken father, and almost makes the listener feel sad for him.
You wanna know how I got these scars?
My father was a drinker and a fiend. One night, he goes off a little crazier than usual. Mommy grabs the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn’t like that. Not. One. Bit.
So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. He turns to me and he says “why so serious?”
He comes at me with the knife — “Why so SERIOUS?”
He sticks the blade in my mouth. (The Joker forces the goon’s mouth open and sticks the blade of the knife between his teeth.) “Let’s put a smile on that face!” and… (The camera pans out and we’re looking at the Joker’s back as he draws his arm out quickly and dramatically to his side. The goon falls to the side, apparently dead.)
…why so serious?
The chilling part of this story is that it’s so believable, and it bridges a gap between a psychotic killer and the common man.
He tells the second story to Rachel (Bruce Wayne / Batman’s love interest) as he has her at knife point.
Well hello beautiful! You must be Harvey’s squeeze. Mmm… and you are beautiful!
You look nervous. Is it the scars? You wanna know how I got ‘em? (Rachel turns her head to the side brashly.)
Come here. Hey, look at me! (The Joker jerks her head forward so she’s looking at him.) So I had a wife — beautiful, like you — who tells me I worry too much; who tells me I’ve got to smile more; who gambles, and gets in deep with the sharks.
One day they carve her face. We have no money for surgeries. She can’t take it. I just want to see her smile again. I just want her to know that I don’t care about the scars. So, I stick a razor in my mouth and do this (The Joker points the blade of his knife to his scars) to myself, and you know what? She can’t stand the sight of me! She leaves.
Now I see the funny side; now I’m always smiling.
When he starts telling the second story, the audience realizes that he’s most likely making these stories up as he goes just to taunt his prey… or is he? Are either of the stories true? It’s also possible that both stories are true. Maybe his father didn’t actually cut him, but his mind was twisted by the childhood trauma and the event with his wife pushed him over the edge and turned him into the psychotic killer he is today.
At the end of the movie, the Joker is captured, but still alive. I don’t think we’ve seen the last of him, and I can only hope the next person to play him does as good a job as Heath Ledger.
Video Game Violence
by Tim Faircloth on Aug 5, 2008, 11:01 am
Video games can’t be blamed for humanity’s problems
I know you’re all tired of hearing about this over the years, but I realized today that I haven’t made a post about violence in video games in some time (if at all).
I’m willing to bet that a great majority of people that have played video games have acted out some part of some video game they’ve created, but they still know the difference between right and wrong. Maybe when you jump you bend one leg at the knee like Mega Man, or when you’re driving down the interstate after passing a large group of cars you worry about that dang blue shell or look out for banana peels.
However, I’ll bet the number of people that act out violent video game scenes is incredibly small. On the order of a tiny fraction of a percent. The author of the article points out that millions of copies of GTA IV have been sold, but you can count on one hand the number of incidents blamed on the game.
Then again, there’s this quote from a Nintendo executive from some time ago:
If video games affected kids they would be running around in the dark, dancing to repetitive electronic music and popping magic pills.
I guess Pac Man was a raver… but still one could argue that such an act is not violent, it’s just self-destructive.
My point is that most people realize the difference between right and wrong, and video games don’t really have much of an effect on that judgment. Video games are just a convenient scapegoat.