Machines
care for elderly.Japan, which has the world's oldest population, has
allocated 2.39bn yen (£14.3m) in the 2013 budget to develop robots to help
with care.BBC wrote:Toyota is developing devices
to help carry the elderly or provide mobility support and Toli Corp has created
a mat with a wireless sensor that can track and deliver feedback if an elderly
person is moving around. A special robot with 24 fingers has been developed
for hair washing and head massage, useful if a person has limited arm movement.
It is something Panasonic has also tried out in Japanese hair salons. **
Let's
look to Japan in order to see what will happen also in North America and Europe
soon. How man more people will than become redundant, unemployed. The maintenance
area, the area of caretakers, which is currently booming in Europe, will then
be mechanised.The
robots of care (**|**)
and the robots of death (**):
guess what the two could have to do with each other.James,
the following video fits to your video that you have recently posted (**).Nuclear bombs are also a possibility, although perhaps not a sufficient
one, to end the history.Maybe
that the dark matter exists, but who really knows? And because of
the fact that they know nearly nothing about the dark matter, I may
say that the hypothesis of the dark matter is false.When
the servants have reached a certain percentage or even a majority of the population,
they can not be stopped anymore. This is proved by life experience.James
S. Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:»If
a particle is merely a spot of high density affectance with no discernible
borders ... and ... a spot of electro-magnnetic noise, as you said, then
it would be a bit difficult to define a particle like physicists usually do. Because
in that case no border means that there is no difference between a
particle and its environment (visible, cognizable), and electromagnetic
noise is just energy with a medium.« **
**
| Ab
= »Ambient Affectance Level« |
True,
and also they presumed that a particle is always of a fixed size. But in reality,
a particle chooses its size based upon its ambient environment
And
this is what you wrote:This is a little anime to give
a visual for the size and shape concerns of a particle relative to its ambient
affectance:The small green spikes represent MCR occurrences gauged by
probability, exponentially increasing as the affectance level increases. Each
of those spikes would actually be reaching for infinity. While MCR points gather
into a center for a particle, they inherently form a maximum change density, MCD.
A monoparticle's center is at that density. The density then drops off in three
dimensions by the Lorentzian equation.I was expecting the Gaussian (Gaußian;
HB) to be the final equation realized, but for some reason it seems to
be inaccurate at far distances from the particle. I can't get positive proof of
the exact equation because I require a particular surface integral that it seems
not even Mathematica has in their library, which has to be the largest in the
world. So I check the equation using the old fashion method of merely incremental
estimations. To verify the equation, I assume an extremely small sphere
around every point throughout the region and take 50 million sample measurements
of the density on the surface of the sphere, average them, and check it against
the center of the sphere. A stable particle must have every point's affectance
level equal to the average of the surface of a differential sphere about that
point. And when I do that, the Lorentzian turns out to be more accurate than the
Gaussian (Gaußian; HB) except in the very center
of the particle. That indicates that either the density isn't exactly a Lorentzian
(perhaps a Viogt is better) or the verification method isn't accurate in that
region. A Lorentzian produces a little sharper point at the center, so I would
expect my verification method to be less accurate. It surprised me to find that
the Gaussian (Gaußian; HB) has considerably
more error at far regions where the density is relatively flat.As the
ambient affectance level (the density) gets high, new particles can spontaneously
form. If they do that, especially close to the original particle, the region's
affectance level increases more than merely the addition of the two. And if the
second particle is very close to the first, it is likely to spawn a third which
would be enough to begin a Black-Hole of ever increasing mass/affectance. I would
like to find the exact equation for that, but I seem to have limited resources.
A professional mathematician would of course help.A Black-hole doesn't
actually have a peak center but rather many peaks within a center region, all
in great turmoil. So the mass or affectance density distribution changes from
that of merely a monoparticle. The mass distribution (and thus gravity) around
a Black-hole is different than that of merely a very large particle. But until
I can get a more accurate means to verify the exact equation, I'm not really interested
in finding out what equation would suit a Black-hole and its gravity field.
**
James
S. Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:»Maybe
that the »dark matter« exists, but who really knows?« **
**
I
know (even more certainly than they guess).It certainly exists, but I
can't say that it is the cause of what they are talking about. I am not an astrophysicist. Yes,
but the cause of what they are talking about is just the main point when it comes
to argue like them. **
Yes,
but the cause of what they are talking about is just the main point when it comes
to argue like them.What
I was trying to say with those two sentences (**|**)
was that nobody or nearly nobody (who knows?) really knows what the dark
matter really is, and that in that case, and because of the fact that physicists
are no gods (who knows?), they should not say that they know what the dark
matter causes because they use / misuse the hypothesis of the dark
matter in order to support the theory of the big bang
and especially of the inflation of the universe!According
to that dark theory the dark energy causes the ever
increasing acceleration of the expansion speed.Dark energy: about 70%, Dark
matter: 25%, That what we can see: about 5% .According to that dark
theory the dark energy functions similarly to the cosmological constant.James
S. Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:»When
the servants have reached a certain percentage or even a majority of the population,
they can not be stopped anymore. This is proved by life experience.« **
**
And
that is why religions and races play "the numbers game" with peasants.Androids
play into the numbers game by removing all human races out of the servant position.
But by doing that, the androids become the new race. **
But
we should not say new race because androids are not human beings,
but machines of human design.James
S. Saint wrote:A race is a race. It doesn't matter
who made the runners of it. **
Then
you mean it not biologically, but culturally. It depends on the semantics of a
language, and in both the German and the English language both is possible: (1)
Rasse / race with a biological meaning and (2)
Rasse / race with a cultural meaning. When I said we
should not say new race because androids are not human beings, but
machines of human design (**|**),
then I meant the word race with a biological meaning, in a biological
sense.In German you can say someone ist rassig (is
racy) or hat Rasse (has race), and that is an example
with both meanings due to the fact that someone is racy or has race because
of (1) biological attributes, or (2)
cultural attributes, or even both.Machines are a product of human
beings, they are not biological, but cultural. They dont evolve biologically,
but culturally. A technique / technology of a certain culture produced, produces,
and will produce them, and that includes that machines can also be produced by
other machines which are produced by human beings or by machines which are produced
by human beings ... and so on.Monad
wrote:What's wrong with robots? They haven't committed
any crimes and aren't likely to be religious, political or hypocritical liars.
Why give them a resume of evil before their careers even started. **
Because
of the fact that this development is irreversible, especially then, when the machines
take over. Dont open box! Monad wrote:Since
there is so little empathy by humans for humans and robots unlikely to feel hate
assuming there is no human contamination, I can't really object if that became
the future. Far preferable to Muslims with Koran in hand taking over most of Europe
in fifty years who are creating their own little robots programmed according to
scripture. **
Yes,
but don't forget Pandora's box!Moreno
wrote:I do not want human made - read:flawed - empathyless,
neutral machines to have a tremendous amount of power. **
Yes,
but please don't forget that emotions have two sides: a good side and
a bad side!Empathy belongs doubtlessly to the good side, but can easily
be changed in its contrary.Moreno wrote:They
might kill everyone because it seemed logical to them. **
Yes.James
S. Saint wrote:It all seems to be in an effort to maintain
a religious belief in early thermodynamics (which kicked off the Secular religious
movement). **
Religious
belief in early thermodynamics? Would you might going into details? Secular
religious movement? Which one you mean, James?James
S. Saint wrote:I take it that Gaußian
is the German for Gaussian, which would mean that Gauß
would be the German for Gauss? **
Yes,
that's right. His name was Carl Friedrich Gauß (1777-1855). In German the
ß may also be written as ss in most cases, but Gauß
himself wrote probably Gauß, and that is what I respect.
Gauß contributed significantly to many fields, including number theory,
algebra, statistics, analysis, differential geometry, geodesy, geophysics, electrostatics,
astronomy, and optics.Sometimes referred to as the Princeps mathematicorum
or the foremost of mathematicians and greatest mathematician
since antiquity, Gauß had a remarkable influence in many fields of
mathematics and science and is ranked as one of history's most influential mathematicians.
Carl
Friedrich Gauß was the greatest mathematician of all time.James
S. Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:
»Carl Friedrich Gauß was the greatest mathematician of all time.«
** **
That
is quite possibly true. I was impressed long before I knew much about him simply
from the few formulae that were attributed to him. I remembering thinking at the
time, »damn, whoever envisioned this had to be seriously sharp«.But
most geniuses come and go without notice. It is good when one gets a little attention
by being in the right place at the right time.And since I don't have
the »ß« key, and it reminds me too much of a »B«,
forgive me for continuing to use the »ss«). **
I
forgive you, but I dont know, whether Gauß forgives you.James
S. Saint wrote:Besides, I suspect that the »ß«
was actually merely his script for »ss«? **
Phonetically
and phonologically there is no difference between ß and ssor
even s, but merely orthographically.The following signature
is the signature of the 17 yeear old Carl Friedrich Gauß from Braunschweig
(Brunswick) in Germany:
For
2150 years Euklid had been the greatest mathematician of all time, but then -
at the end of the 18th century - Gauß replaced Euklid on his throne because
Gauß became the greatest mathematician of all time!
James
S. Saint wrote:Ahh ..., so it really was a double »s«
..., »Ss« **
Yes, that's right - a great, nearly huge S and a small s,
thats the ß (scharfes s = sharp s).The
reasons for the ß are merely orthographical ones, no
syntactical, semantical, morphological, phonological, phonetical ones.Monad
wrote:The best thing one can say about humans is that
they themselves are nothing more than malfunctioning machines. **
Are
you a misanthrope or even a misanthropist? I reverse your sentence and say (merely
in order to show both sides): The best thing one can say about machines is
that they themselves are nothing more than malfunctioning humans.Ive
expected this answer. Now I know more about your evaluation of thermodynamics.
I mean that the 1st law of thermodynamics (J. Robert Mayer, Hermann
Helmholtz), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Rudolf J. E. Clausius), the
3rd law of thermodynamics (Walther Hermann Nernst), and
(partly) also the 4th or 0th law of thermodynamics are important
fundamental laws in physics and applicable in all of the other natural sciences.
Thats great, isnt it? |