|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 3, 5:13*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:18:23 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away, Al made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Apr 3, 9:15 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote: We will have to agree to disagree on that one, I have been part of the ISS program for 20 years now and the cooperation with ESA, JAXA and Canada, from my experience has been totally worthwhile and amiable I didn't say it wasn't. *I just said that it didn't save us money. We have had this argument before, we did not have to build the ATV or the HTV , or Columbus or Kibo, ESA and JAXA are providing control and training centers for these modules at their expense, bunch of stuff would not have been on the station if they had of not provided it. Or we could have provided it ourselves, if we did things more effectively, without having to spend as much as we did. *In any event, once again, this is beside the original point, which is that we can't afford to do this by ourselves, which is of course utter nonsense. *We can easily afford it. *We simply choose not to. But, we have had this argument before, seems your stance is that International Cooperation will never work.... No, that's not my stance. *I guess that you have to argue with straw men, since you seem to be unable to respond to anything I actually write.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am afraid your response passed beyond my understanding , a long time ago. Do you have have , now, a new solution? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 3, 5:15*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Al wrote: On Apr 3, 4:55 am, Sylvia Else wrote: Al wrote: vehicle. (BTW, I always assumed that the 2001 launcher was SSTO). It was not needed for the narrative in the film, but Clarke makes it very clear in the novel that the Orion III was the second stage of a Two Stage To Orbit vehicle. Mind you, the 2001 hardware wasn't entirely credible - why would the lunar transit vehicle have a retractable landing gear? It just adds to the mass for no useful purpose. One explanation that has been given is that the Aries vehicle was stored at the station and at the lunar base in a volume that required a smaller space , so retractable gear, seems a small stretch , but plausible. Not to me, I'm afraid. We see vast open spaces inside the lunar base when Aries lands and then descends on a lift. Whatever technology was being deployed on the moon, digging didn't seem to be a problem. As I said, retractable landing gear adds to the mass. In a space vehicle, every gram of mass has to be justified, and convenient storage on the moon base just doesn't cut it. Anyway, even if it were retractable for storage on the moon, why retract it in transit? It just creates a risk that it won't deploy when needed. Sylvia.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, yeah, well retractable more because of storage on the station , than not the Moon, but to me, as an engineer, it is a nit, artistic license, and I never minded ... it is not jarring, lord how many SF films before and after made such mockery of actual physics of engineering? Kubrick within the confines of cinema aesthetics did more than an amazing job. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:57:18 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away, Al
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Apr 3, 5:13*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:18:23 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away, Al made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Apr 3, 9:15 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote: We will have to agree to disagree on that one, I have been part of the ISS program for 20 years now and the cooperation with ESA, JAXA and Canada, from my experience has been totally worthwhile and amiable I didn't say it wasn't. *I just said that it didn't save us money. We have had this argument before, we did not have to build the ATV or the HTV , or Columbus or Kibo, ESA and JAXA are providing control and training centers for these modules at their expense, bunch of stuff would not have been on the station if they had of not provided it. Or we could have provided it ourselves, if we did things more effectively, without having to spend as much as we did. *In any event, once again, this is beside the original point, which is that we can't afford to do this by ourselves, which is of course utter nonsense. *We can easily afford it. *We simply choose not to. But, we have had this argument before, seems your stance is that International Cooperation will never work.... No, that's not my stance. *I guess that you have to argue with straw men, since you seem to be unable to respond to anything I actually write.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am afraid your response passed beyond my understanding , a long time ago. Do you have have , now, a new solution? A new solution to what problem? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 3, 5:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:31*pm, Al wrote: On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 3, 8:41 am, wrote: BTW, I have no doubt that Clarke understood the difference between hardware and software -- but vast majority of moviegoers did not. There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the notion of hardware and software. Also, it is not the responsibility of the filmmaker to have every member of the audience be trained in a sense to understand his or her film. The best that they can do is enlighten and in hopes of that they have the viewer do further reserach on things. I believe that Clarke did that for computers in 1968. In the novel there is an interesting passage by Clarke: "Probably no one would every know this: it did not matter. In the 1980's had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically -- self-replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program. Artificial brains could be *grown *by a process strikingly analogous to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be millions of times too complex for human understanding." A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back, 2005, bottom page 92 - top page 93). Clarke is almost giving the description of an AI that is 'grown' and not pieced together and then programed. Almost as if one simulated biological evolution on a very fast time scale, not surprising that HAL's emotions where not programed but arose from some complex process in analogy with human consciousness, thus HAL could have gone bonkers for no good reason at all! But did he go bonkers or did he decide that for the best outcome of the mission the humans had to go? Surely when humans see other humans or anything else killing humans they equate the killer with being nuts (war excepted). But from HAL's perspective was he nuts or just being mission-oriented? Clearly HAL did not have Asimov's "robot rules" programmed into him. However he was a spaceship computer on a mission.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is true, Asimov was upset, but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI, and I have always wondered if Clarke and Asimov reconciled this? After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him) was a bit stuck in the past. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, Al wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:38 pm, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 3, 5:31 pm, Al wrote: On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 3, 8:41 am, wrote: BTW, I have no doubt that Clarke understood the difference between hardware and software -- but vast majority of moviegoers did not. There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the notion of hardware and software. Also, it is not the responsibility of the filmmaker to have every member of the audience be trained in a sense to understand his or her film. The best that they can do is enlighten and in hopes of that they have the viewer do further reserach on things. I believe that Clarke did that for computers in 1968. In the novel there is an interesting passage by Clarke: "Probably no one would every know this: it did not matter. In the 1980's had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically -- self-replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program. Artificial brains could be grown *by a process strikingly analogous to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be millions of times too complex for human understanding." A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back, 2005, bottom page 92 - top page 93). Clarke is almost giving the description of an AI that is 'grown' and not pieced together and then programed. Almost as if one simulated biological evolution on a very fast time scale, not surprising that HAL's emotions where not programed but arose from some complex process in analogy with human consciousness, thus HAL could have gone bonkers for no good reason at all! But did he go bonkers or did he decide that for the best outcome of the mission the humans had to go? Surely when humans see other humans or anything else killing humans they equate the killer with being nuts (war excepted). But from HAL's perspective was he nuts or just being mission-oriented? Clearly HAL did not have Asimov's "robot rules" programmed into him. However he was a spaceship computer on a mission. That is true, Asimov was upset, Being a long time reader of SF and of Asimov, I would like to have a citation to that point. I have just re-read the 1968 portion of his autobiography and I found no such mention. but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI, and I have always wondered if Clarke and Asimov reconciled this? Why would Asimov have insisted that Clarke's work follow his ? After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him) was a bit stuck in the past. Given that Asimov wrote successful robot stories well past 1968, this doesn't quite follow... Andre |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
Andre Lieven wrote:
That is true, Asimov was upset, Being a long time reader of SF and of Asimov, I would like to have a citation to that point. I have just re-read the 1968 portion of his autobiography and I found no such mention. I don't have a citation, I'm afraid, but I do have a recollection (almost as good) of Asimov describing how he loudly exclaimed "They broke First Law!" after HAL did the crew in. It might well have been in the introduction to one of his F&SF essays in the late 1960's/early 1970's. IIRC, he explained that his extreme aversion to depictions of intelligent machines running amok stemmed from his reluctance to see the public's Frankenstein complex fed. (Lord only knows how he reacted to The Terminator almost twenty years later :-) -- Dave Michelson |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 6, 12:04*am, Andre Lieven wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, Al wrote: That is true, Asimov was upset, Being a long time reader of SF and of Asimov, I would like to have a citation to that point. I have just re-read the 1968 portion of his autobiography and I found no such mention. I distinctly read that in maybe F&SF or heard Asimov say it at a Worldcon, what I remember was he said he was initially annoyed but on further thought said he did not mind. but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI, and I have always wondered if Clarke and Asimov reconciled this? Why would Asimov have insisted that Clarke's work follow his ? After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him) was a bit stuck in the past. Given that Asimov wrote successful robot stories well past 1968, this doesn't quite follow... I am afraid I am not found of many of Asimov's works of fiction after 1968, robot or other wise. His works from the 40's and 50's are gems ..., he did not go as badly into the dumper as Heinlein's later works, but younger SF writers had and were leaving them behind. Except for Rendezvous with Rama even Clarke's fiction into decline. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 6, 10:16 am, Al wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:04 am, Andre Lieven wrote: On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, Al wrote: That is true, Asimov was upset, Being a long time reader of SF and of Asimov, I would like to have a citation to that point. I have just re-read the 1968 portion of his autobiography and I found no such mention. I distinctly read that in maybe F&SF or heard Asimov say it at a Worldcon, what I remember was he said he was initially annoyed but on further thought said he did not mind. Its interesting that that thought didn't make it into his autobiography, which was quite... extensive. but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI, and I have always wondered if Clarke and Asimov reconciled this? Why would Asimov have insisted that Clarke's work follow his ? After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him) was a bit stuck in the past. Given that Asimov wrote successful robot stories well past 1968, this doesn't quite follow... I am afraid I am not found of many of Asimov's works of fiction after 1968, robot or other wise. His works from the 40's and 50's are gems ..., he did not go as badly into the dumper as Heinlein's later works, but younger SF writers had and were leaving them behind. He often felt as much, even in the 60s, and a friend, IIRC, Judy Lyn Del Ray bucked him up back them by telling him " Asimov, when you write SF, you are the field. " Except for Rendezvous with Rama even Clarke's fiction into decline. I'm not sure that I would agree. I grant that he did a lot of collaborations later in his life, but I liked many of those, as well, especially The Light Of Other Days, with Stephen Baxter. For all of the Big Three, no matter what one can say about their later works ( And, with Heinlein, I found The Number Of The Beast to be quite awful. ), their earlier works defined the field of SF for a long time, and for that work, they all well earned their Grand Master status. With us who are still here understanding that the field doesn't stop for any writers... Andre |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 3, 1:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the notion of hardware and software. What baffles me the most is that HAL didn't even try to stop Bowman from reentering Discovery. All HAL needed to do was slightly reduce the speed of the carousell. Conservation of angular momentum would have caused Discovery to flip end over end -- as seen in 2010 (though it should have been a horizontal spin, not a vertical one). Good luck getting into the emergency airlock of a non-cooprerative spacecraft, Dave. Imagine how much fun the Shuttle or ATV would have if the station decided to play games with its gyros during final approach. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 5, 11:16*pm, Al wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 3, 5:31*pm, Al wrote: On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 3, 8:41 am, wrote: BTW, I have no doubt that Clarke understood the difference between hardware and software -- but vast majority of moviegoers did not. There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the notion of hardware and software. Also, it is not the responsibility of the filmmaker to have every member of the audience be trained in a sense to understand his or her film. The best that they can do is enlighten and in hopes of that they have the viewer do further reserach on things. I believe that Clarke did that for computers in 1968. In the novel there is an interesting passage by Clarke: "Probably no one would every know this: it did not matter. In the 1980's had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically -- self-replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program. Artificial brains could be *grown *by a process strikingly analogous to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be millions of times too complex for human understanding." A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back, 2005, bottom page 92 - top page 93). Clarke is almost giving the description of an AI that is 'grown' and not pieced together and then programed. Almost as if one simulated biological evolution on a very fast time scale, not surprising that HAL's emotions where not programed but arose from some complex process in analogy with human consciousness, thus HAL could have gone bonkers for no good reason at all! But did he go bonkers or did he decide that for the best outcome of the mission the humans had to go? Surely when humans see other humans or anything else killing humans they equate the killer with being nuts (war excepted). But from HAL's perspective was he nuts or just being mission-oriented? Clearly HAL did not have Asimov's "robot rules" programmed into him. However he was a spaceship computer on a mission.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is true, Asimov was upset, but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI, and I have always wondered if Clarke and Asimov reconciled this? After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him) was a bit stuck in the past. The only problem there is how utimately does the decision for a robot to kill a human become justified? It is an ethical dilemma akin to euthanasia and abortion but even moreso because the question lies in, which human programmed a computer to kill another human and what gave him that right? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey | Al | History | 97 | May 9th 08 09:05 PM |
Congratulations Proton on its 40th Anniversary! | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | July 15th 05 09:37 PM |
Kubrick 2001: The Space Odyssey Explained | Scott M. Kozel | History | 10 | March 6th 05 10:50 PM |
Kubrick 2001: The Space Odyssey Explained | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 7 | March 6th 05 10:50 PM |