Depending on how they serve these clips (do they save them locally etc.) the point could be to take load off the internet archive.
The other point might be to provide better search capabilities than IA, also taking load off. Sometimes verifying something actually is Public Domain on IA can be work in itself, putting more work on a primary resource. In short it seems to me these people are doing a good thing.
T2 the war has already happened and Skynet sends the T-100 back in time.
T3 Skynet already exists and is hunting John Connor down
I wanna see the conference room meeting where they decide to push an unfinished, unstoppable technology. I guess T1 is the closest as it happens when Skynet "gains intelligence"
In T2 "it's people against the machines fighting people who think the machines will be a net positive."
it's people (Sarah and her son John who are against the coming skynet machines) fighting people who think the machines will be a net positive (the scientist making machines) AND
it's people (Sarah and her son John and the scientist they convinced the machines are bad) fighting people who think the machines will be a net positive (the company of the scientist which they break into to destroy)
It's time travel, so "already happened" is not well defined.
> I wanna see the conference room meeting where they decide to push an unfinished, unstoppable technology. I guess T1 is the closest as it happens when Skynet "gains intelligence"
This is the mid-point of T3. From the Wikipedia plot summary:
General Brewster is supervising the development of Skynet for Cyber Research Systems (CRS), an autonomous weapons developer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pressures him to activate Skynet to stop an anomalous computer virus from invading servers worldwide. Brewster fails to discover that the virus was Skynet becoming sentient. John, Kate, and the Terminator arrive too late to stop him from activating it. The T-X appears, fatally injures Brewster, and controls weaponized CRS T-1 and HK drones to kill other employees.
But we can generally assume that the people who built and understand some technology will have the same desires and worries as us, and are bound by the same laws. For instance, if it was a team of strangers who designed the terawatt fusion plant, we can still assume with some confidence that they care about safe plant shutdown, failure recovery, ensuring there are no toxic side effects of operation, etc. Can we say the same when it is machines doing everything?
conceivably you could say humans took over 6000 years ago.
At any rate it can't be a new step in the history of evolution, as AI did not evolve in the same way as other species did and AI is not a species nor alive.
There's really no knowing why the Greeks chose liver, or some specific Greek chose liver.
It could have been because the liver was regenerative and they were using the titan with the regenerating liver as another reference to humanity, or it could have been as someone pointed out because predators like to eat the liver first, or it could have been that you can take damage to the liver and live for hours afterwards in agony whereas the same amount of damage to the heart or lungs is apt to cause death to come much quicker.
Perhaps there are undiscovered variants out there were the eagle or a serpent or some other animal attacks his genitals, or his eyes.
But at any rate the Eagle ate his liver, it means nothing in particular, and at the same time it means every particular interpretation we can place on it.
Whatever the actual reason for choosing the liver was, we can be certain it wasn't its regenerative property, since such proprerty was unknown to the Greeks at the time.
Probably not, I don't think I ever read Galen mentioning it, but then again people would get injured in the liver and recuperate better than other injuries I suppose, which makes me think it is surprising if he didn't.
Just went and checked, evidently he never said anything about it.
old American translation of Galen and Hippocrates for anyone interested, as it can be
difficult to find otherwise
Can you prove to me that the price of human intelligence is going up? At best it is as it always has been, intelligence in some fields is going up.
It's generally true that the rarer something is the more valuable that is, but only if there are enough potential buyers of the thing that can recognize it. If there is an ever-decreasing amount of intelligence there is probably an ever-increasing amount of stupidity - so will the stupid be smart enough to reward the intelligent with high paid positions?
What I suppose is actually that human intelligence will become more monetizable, by allowing those with it to better take advantage of their unrecognizable ability. But only if the interlocking systems of humanity do not fall apart and destroy the world due to there not being enough intelligent people left to make things work, as per various works of science fiction on the subject.
That's the issue. No one can really systematize "discovery".
How many "group thinkers", "creatives", "non-group thinkers", "nihilists", "anarchists", "contemplatives" in the last - say, 500 years, 5000 years, whatever - have been occasioned by the fall of an Apple? Or the fall of a branch? Or a leaf? Or what have you?
Why did it spark a new flame in the mind of Newton? Science can't explain. If we could, we'd teach everyone to be that sort of contemplative.
There isn't any good evidence of how many times Joplin played at the Midway. Most of the evidence is from interviews decades later. Similarly, we actually don't know what kind of music his band was playing. It could have been early rags, but if they were, they didn't make waves the way lots of other art and ideas that debuted at the fair did. Certainly, ragtime was not associated with the Fair in subsequent memory.
In next week's post I am actually going to discuss the way the fair is considered the beginning of certain ideas (in urban planning specificalyl) that already existed—but maybe need a big white puffy outfit to truly debut.
Since Maple Leaf Rag wasn't published until 1895 maybe they felt it wasn't ragtime until then? Although my understanding, which I thought was pretty conventionally agreed on, has always been that Joplin appearing at the fair was what helped make ragtime a national pop phenomenon of his time. But maybe I should reconsider that because ragtime didn't become big until after 96-97.
So, how many fields are there that cannot be used for other things? It seems reasonable to position solar panels over things that are already serving some purpose and the quality of that service will not be negatively affected by a solar panel placement above it.
The other point might be to provide better search capabilities than IA, also taking load off. Sometimes verifying something actually is Public Domain on IA can be work in itself, putting more work on a primary resource. In short it seems to me these people are doing a good thing.
reply