Arminius
May 16, 2015, 12:14pm
1607
Probably we have to wait until Zinnat will have learned that “trick”.
What is “it”?
So according to you the definitions are “happening all around automatically”, or what?
No.
There are more than two scales - for example 20 metric prefixes (SI prefixes). Excuse me, but I think you have no idea.
No. You are telling nonsense. “Nano” is well defined and used as unit prefix meaning one billionth.
Which things do you mean?
That is again nonsense. There are six prefixes which mean less than nano (billionth), namely: pico (trillionth), femto (quadrillionth), atto (quintillionth), zepto (sextillionth), yocto (septillionth). For example: a proton has a diameter of about 1.6 to 1.7 femtometres.
For instance, nonstick taflon coating on the utensils is now claimed to be done by nanotechnology. Tennis rackets are being claimed to be made by nanotechnology. But, strictly speaking, all these claims are false.
When we are unable to make and control even a single nano thing in normal circumstances so far, how these things can be claimed as being made by using nanotechnology!
But, the problem is that most of the people do not understand this. They get the false impression of the reality.
Most of the people do not understand many things anyway - that is unfortunately normal. So there is not another problem but the same old problem, Zinnat.
Arminus -But why do you not tell us your definition of “observation”? If you do not do it, then we have and are going to go on with our definition.
Sanjay - I have been given already. Perhaps you did not notice. Here it is again -
Here in this thread, observation is slightly different or one step ahead from what we understand in science. Scientific observation means gathering the information and process it. But, here observation includes cognitive effects too.
Like, a robot can observe and analyze the loss if one of its leg would break but that incident would not manifest any feeling in it. On the other hand, if the same would happen to anyone of us, we would observe the pain also besides our other physical damages.
Yes, but that does not change anything of the definitions. The definitions of (for example) “observation”, “cognition”, “informnation”, “process” can remain as constant as before.
The film Ex Machina … selling horny little boys on building AIs til they die.
The film Chappie selling more love-thy-android and “hope to be uploaded into one” for the young South African masses. A remake of the 1986 film Short Circuit with “Number Five is alive” (selling to the little American boys and girls).
Arminius:
The film “Ex Machina” - little boys?
The film “Chappie” - little boys and girls?
Well, Ex Machina is for boys and young misandristic femi-larvae in the West.Chappie is for simple rebellious authority hating youth in South Africa.
Both are design to instill endearment of the androids involved and a deep urge to fight for their cause of having equal to superior rights (much the same as the feminist movement). Hollywood is entirely psycho-engineering.
Arminius
May 31, 2015, 10:00pm
1612
Arminius:
The film “Ex Machina” - little boys?
The film “Chappie” - little boys and girls?
Well, Ex Machina is for boys and young misandristic femi-larvae in the West.Chappie is for simple rebellious authority hating youth in South Africa.
Both are design to instill endearment of the androids involved and a deep urge to fight for their cause of having equal to superior rights (much the same as the feminist movement). Hollywood is entirely psycho-engineering.
The goal of Hollywood is obvious.
Arminius
June 5, 2015, 9:58pm
1613
Nanorobot race.
In the same ways that technology development had the space race and nuclear arms race, a race for nanorobots is occurring. There is plenty of ground allowing nanorobots to be included among the emerging technologies. Some of the reasons are that large corporations, such as General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Synopsys, Northrop Grumman and Siemens have been recently working in the development and research of nanorobots; surgeons are getting involved and starting to propose ways to apply nanorobots for common medical procedures; universities and research institutes were granted funds by government agencies exceeding $2 billion towards research developing nanodevices for medicine; bankers are also strategically investing with the intent to acquire beforehand rights and royalties on future nanorobots commercialization. Some aspects of nanorobot litigation and related issues linked to monopoly have already arisen. A large number of patents has been granted recently on nanorobots, done mostly for patent agents, companies specialized solely on building patent portfolio, and lawyers. After a long series of patents and eventually litigations, see for example the Invention of Radio or about the War of Currents, emerging fields of technology tend to become a monopoly, which normally is dominated by large corporations.
What do you think about that?
DARPA is funding a great many such incentives for technological advancement through competition (causing it to be even less controlled).
Arminius
June 8, 2015, 12:39pm
1615
Is DARPA really “independent from other military research and development and reports”?
That’s kind of a tricky question. DARPA (used to be ARPA) is funded by grants and is a think-tank organization (depicted on TV in the series Eureka ). Congress disallows all of the research to be military defense so that the “Defense Budget” (around $800 bln) doesn’t include DARPA’s billions of dollars, a portion of which comes through corporate funding. They develop basically all of the super-high tech (unseen by the public) advances as well as the public’s much lesser advance “new technology”. Many projects are about exactly how to manipulate the public … into favoring more technology from DARPA.
DARPA is the science team behind the one-way mirror. Their advancement is expontial compared to the public because they see (and limit) everything the public develops plus invents their own secret projects that lead to much higher developments that the public is not allowed to know about. Then those developments lead to even higher developments which, over the years, lead to even higher developments so that the secret developments are always growing exponentially compared to what the public ever sees. All “UFO” concerns (for example) are merely DARPA projects at this point, probably 50-100 years ahead of what the public is allowed to develop.
RM:AO is actually for DARPA.
Example projects vary greatly:
Robots for … emm … “disaster response”
Earlier this year, DARPA became a key participant in a new federal initiative called Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN), to better understand and map the human brain. The White House is contributing $100 million in funding in the first year of the program, half of which will come from DARPA. Building on that effort, DARPA announced plans in October to spend more than $70 million over five years to develop implants that could monitor the human brain, and created a program called Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (SUBNETS).
SUBNETS will investigate therapies that use near real-time recording, analysis, and stimulation in next-generation devices inspired by current deep brain stimulation (DBS), which involves implanting electrodes within specific areas of the brain.
Self-patching network defense system
Human Peripheral Interfaces
Hydra undersea network
Content-based mobile edge networking
Hollow-core optical fiber
Microscale vacuum pumps
Rapid threat assessmentMicrophysiological Systems program, which is building “human-on-a-chip” technology.
Those just a few that the public are allowed to know about.
Arminius
June 8, 2015, 2:36pm
1617
RM:AO is actually for DARPA?
How many times have I told you … it is really only for thinkers (at this stage). What you would call “the future” is actually already going on behind closed doors in the form of isolated communities and labs. A country can’t develop secretive highly advanced technologies without implementing them so as to see what develops next. In the long run, when it is deemed necessary, a small device or strategy is released to the public either for gaining more psychological effect, or perhaps to treat a newly developed social situation. In the mean time, the developing grows and grows and grows behind closed doors.
The future is predictable merely because it is being manufactured (quite a number of films on that issue as well). But that makes it harder to predict for those not making the manufacturing decisions.
Arminius
June 8, 2015, 2:57pm
1619
Is or was ARPANET (the precursor of the INTERNET) the net of ARPA, later known as DARPA?
Sure. Who didn’t know that?
During the late 1960s, with the transfer of these mature programs to the Services, ARPA redefined its role and concentrated on a diverse set of relatively small, essentially exploratory research programs. The agency was renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 1972, and during the early 1970s, it emphasized direct energy programs, information processing, and tactical technologies.
Concerning information processing, DARPA made great progress, initially through its support of the development of time-sharing (all modern operating systems rely on concepts invented for the Multics system, developed by a cooperation among Bell Labs, General Electric and MIT, which DARPA supported by funding Project MAC at MIT with an initial two-million-dollar grant).[17]
DARPA supported the evolution of the ARPANET (the first wide-area packet switching network), Packet Radio Network, Packet Satellite Network and ultimately, the Internet and research in the artificial intelligence fields of speech recognition and signal processing, including parts of Shakey the robot .[18] DARPA also funded the development of the Douglas Engelbart’s NLS computer system and The Mother of All Demos; and the Aspen Movie Map, which was probably the first hypermedia system and an important precursor of virtual reality.
The individual inventor actually has zero chance of the old idea of getting rich by inventing … well … anything. When you hear that some women has recently invented … whatever … it is merely more PR for feminisation (same ole, same ole – “Propaganda”).
Once upon a time, if you wanted money to build humanoid robots , you basically had to get it from the military — specifically, the high-risk, high-reward technology lab known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.
“Google and DARPA are entangled in a shotgun marriage”
That changed late last year when Google’s own high-risk, high-reward technology lab — Google X — bought a string of companies that make robot legs, arms, eyes, wheels, and brains, with the apparent goal of building something like an android. It’s a win for roboticists, who now have a nonmilitary patron with deep pockets. But two of Google’s new rock star robotics companies, Boston Dynamics and Schaft, still have obligations to DARPA — meaning Google and DARPA are entangled in a shotgun marriage, forced to share parental duties for at least a year.
Google and DARPA have a lot in common — they both try to anticipate the future and make big bets on emerging technologies. Google even has a history of snapping up DARPA-funded technology — the self-driving car came from a DARPA-sponsored competition — and poaching its employees.
That doesn’t mean the two innovation houses want to work together, however. Google isn’t interested in taking money from DARPA because its ambitions are in the more lucrative consumer market, and any association with DARPA leads to headlines like, “What the heck will Google do with these scary military robots?” DARPA doesn’t want to give Google money because it wants to use its $2.7 billion budget to fund startups with scarce resources, not Goliath tech companies, and its investments are supposed to seed technology that can one day be purchased by the Pentagon for national defense, which Google is unlikely to play along with.
The tension came to a head over the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC), a $2 million competition for robot rescue workers that requires the machines to perform athletic feats like opening a door and going up and down a ladder. Google never signed up for the DRC, but it’s now intimately involved. Five of the eight teams that qualified through the DRC Trials in December are using Atlas, a humanoid made by Boston Dynamics. Boston Dynamics has a $10.8 million contract to provide Atlas robots and tech support for the DRC.
“Google never signed up for the DARPA Robotics Challenge , but it’s now intimately involved”
Google also happens to own the team that is most likely to win the DRC. Schaft, a Japanese robotics startup that was founded explicitly to compete in the competition, got 27 out of 32 possible points at the qualifying round in December, beating the runner-up by seven. Schaft received $2.6 million from DARPA to compete.
It now looks like Google and DARPA are trying to extricate themselves from each other a little early, however. DARPA is considering adding more teams to a track in the competition where teams build their own robot without DARPA funding, and any newcomers will use a different platform such as NASA Johnson Space Center’s Valkyrie robot instead of Atlas, in order to prevent further entanglement with Boston Dynamics. Google will also move Schaft to the unfunded track and forfeit future DARPA money, which will be reallocated to non-Google-owned teams.
Google actually gives DARPA a bit of a challenge in the field of human interface technology and information mining (the larger portion of AI). But DARPA is allowed to spy on Google and even covertly intervene. So in the long run, Google can never do anything that DARPA hasn’t already permitted to happen.
Arminius
June 8, 2015, 11:26pm
1623
I know. Unfortunately I forgot that you had already mentioned DARPA several times - although I was quite sure that it had something to do with ARPA and ARPANET, the precursor of the INTERNET, but then I thought: “Why am I not asking James S. Saint, the one who wants to be asked?” At that time I had already read the following text:
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet switching network and the first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.
The ARPANET was officially shut down February 28, 1990.
Once upon a time, if you wanted money to build humanoid robots , you basically had to get it from the military — specifically, the high-risk, high-reward technology lab known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.
“Google and DARPA are entangled in a shotgun marriage”
That changed late last year when Google’s own high-risk, high-reward technology lab — Google X — bought a string of companies that make robot legs, arms, eyes, wheels, and brains, with the apparent goal of building something like an android. It’s a win for roboticists, who now have a nonmilitary patron with deep pockets. But two of Google’s new rock star robotics companies, Boston Dynamics and Schaft, still have obligations to DARPA — meaning Google and DARPA are entangled in a shotgun marriage, forced to share parental duties for at least a year.
Google and DARPA have a lot in common — they both try to anticipate the future and make big bets on emerging technologies. Google even has a history of snapping up DARPA-funded technology — the self-driving car came from a DARPA-sponsored competition — and poaching its employees.
That doesn’t mean the two innovation houses want to work together, however. Google isn’t interested in taking money from DARPA because its ambitions are in the more lucrative consumer market, and any association with DARPA leads to headlines like, “What the heck will Google do with these scary military robots?” DARPA doesn’t want to give Google money because it wants to use its $2.7 billion budget to fund startups with scarce resources, not Goliath tech companies, and its investments are supposed to seed technology that can one day be purchased by the Pentagon for national defense, which Google is unlikely to play along with.
The tension came to a head over the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC), a $2 million competition for robot rescue workers that requires the machines to perform athletic feats like opening a door and going up and down a ladder. Google never signed up for the DRC, but it’s now intimately involved. Five of the eight teams that qualified through the DRC Trials in December are using Atlas, a humanoid made by Boston Dynamics. Boston Dynamics has a $10.8 million contract to provide Atlas robots and tech support for the DRC.
“Google never signed up for the DARPA Robotics Challenge , but it’s now intimately involved”
Google also happens to own the team that is most likely to win the DRC. Schaft, a Japanese robotics startup that was founded explicitly to compete in the competition, got 27 out of 32 possible points at the qualifying round in December, beating the runner-up by seven. Schaft received $2.6 million from DARPA to compete.
It now looks like Google and DARPA are trying to extricate themselves from each other a little early, however. DARPA is considering adding more teams to a track in the competition where teams build their own robot without DARPA funding, and any newcomers will use a different platform such as NASA Johnson Space Center’s Valkyrie robot instead of Atlas, in order to prevent further entanglement with Boston Dynamics. Google will also move Schaft to the unfunded track and forfeit future DARPA money, which will be reallocated to non-Google-owned teams.
Google actually gives DARPA a bit of a challenge in the field of human interface technology and information mining (the larger portion of AI). But DARPA is allowed to spy on Google and even covertly intervene. So in the long run, Google can never do anything that DARPA hasn’t already permitted to happen.
There was a campaign aginst Google some months ago. It seems that DARPA is able to knock out Google if it wants to. But DARPA itself is also not absolutely independent.
DARPA took over the NASA projects and the issues between Google and DARPA are like the old issues between NASA and individuals attempting space flight. In the end, the governance controls all things (bunch of Godwannabes).
Arminius
June 9, 2015, 2:48pm
1625
I guess you do not mean the US government but the world government as the world rulers. The US government depends on the world rulers. Think of, for example, the money that the members of the US government need for their elections and re-elections.
Is that an argument?
With love,
Do you not think it might be irony?
