Technical Ben

Jeb and Bob board the atmospheric shuttle. After Bill has attached the testing apparatus, Jeb lightly guides the craft away. Using the old station tender probe, they get into position for an atmospheric entry. Then deploy the parachutes and a gentle touchdown. Jeb presses the pod release button, and Bob gets all the samples needed. Looking over the rover, turns out the antenna unfolded into a rock, so it was not Hudsons fault after all.

Yep. I love 4.0. Some of the features of 5.0 sound good. But why oh why did they change the gui to that fisher price* Windows8 ethos copy I don't know. *English reference to a toy shop!

If it was a survival advantage, it would have that system already. Some animals avoid eating for long periods of time. Though I think we are mixing up "acquiring resources" and "acquiring energy". Uranium is great for energy, but useless for building materials. Thus as an animal is already eating for the building/repair materials, it can get energy at a much more efficient means than uranium. Such as solar (or sodium if in a cave) or other animals. There is a reason we use petrol, which is oil, which is a biological construction. Because it's energy density is amazing, plus it's storage is rather simple (so less waste on additional systems). As said, for an animal to require uranium power, it would need a massive size to offset it's additional bulk for the containment systems. Else it would need an energy requirement many orders of magnitude more than a city, which generally is not a worry for a fox or a deer. I'm not jumping to "irrelevant details". Quite the opposite. I'm thinking about what actually makes a different to the animal and systems, not what I wish will make a difference. There are things it certainly is impossible to develop. How do we know which is which? LN400, as said, it's already an observed fact that biology does what it does. Why is not part of the discussion I agree. But the fact of the matter is, it's as small as it could be, as efficient as it could be, etc. It's hard to argue we could make a "smaller/quicker/cheaper/more efficient" of any of it's versions of tasks and features.

We can make a lot of assumptions there, but that gives us little to no real data or idea. Your example of using existing biology is good. It misses one little point on the way though. Technology can be an opposite concept. A car built from the ground up is specifically different from a horse with a saddle. Both use technology, but one is absent of biology, the other reliant on it. Yes, biology does not use a nuclear reactor. Does it need one? There is no quick solution to the travelling sales man problem so to speak (it's an NP hard compute problem to find the solutions ). EG protein folding (biological problems) or sustainable fusion (technological problems). Effectively, saying "science can solve" or "technology can solve" problems is like saying a very very large hammer can solve problems, or a very big calculator can. None of these things solves problems, people and hard work does. - - - Updated - - -

Bill: "That's never going to work!" Hudson: "Is so. It's the best design I've ever made." Bill: "But it's got no fuel yet." Hudson: "Oh, ah, I'll pump it across quick then." The Kerbals make a basic orbital scanner and deployable rover: The probe is moved into position and starts mapping out the planet. There may be possible landing sites down there. Bob decides to risk it and uses the RCS to fling the rover at the planets atmosphere. However there seems to be some corruption in the data being transmitted back. Bob: "I cannot make out the landscape well. Is that sea, or land or a mountain?" Lars: "What happened to the camera? It's gone all blocky." Hudson: "I followed the instructions perfectly. Red cable into the blue socket... um..." Bob: "Must have been a high energy particle to scramble the memory array like that." Hudson: "Yes, a solar flare, that's what did it. Certainly not anything like a blow torch or laser cutter..." Bob: "I think I've managed to compensate for it." The rover starts to slow down in the atmosphere. Bob: "It's stopped transmitting." Jeb: "Already? Told you we should have gone down there first." Bob: "But then how would we know there is a there to go to?" Jeb: "Never stopped me before, I can go anywhere in a space rocket." Hudson: "Look, we got one last image, parachute deployed correctly. Did it also run the tests?" Bob: "If it did, it's not transmitting them back to us. The data is stuck on the planet..." Jeb: "Stuck? When we have all these rockets here. Pass the space suit, I'm going on an expedition!"

If there is no difference... I'd like to see how we consider producing something biological from "scratch". Slightly off topic joke: Scientist challenged God to show His existence, as they concluded they could make their own living organisms in the lab. "Ok", God replied, "I accept the challenge, first show I'm not needed by making something alive out of dirt." The scientist took to work and picked up a handful of dirt to take to the lab. "Oh no you don't." God interrupted, "You have to make your own dirt first!" But back on topic. If technology, using silicon and other materials, logic gates and transistors was a better method, then theoretically (on any side of the argument), biology would already be using these systems. That it is not already, suggests they are not the best solutions to the problems. If it was simply "survival at all costs" we could already make/program a computer/machine to do this. I don't see that as even possible! Though they may be better solutions from technology to different problems. Such as global communications, space travel, industrial energy production etc. They won't solve the problems biology tackles and faces. PS, ninja post beaten by Velocity. I'd love to see what/where you worked/studied. Great stuff on biology there!

Well, an attempt is as easy as some gene splicing (is it easy?). The existing lab costs, buildings and staff then the final successful attempt takes up the other 100 billion dollars not on the quote.

Have you seen biology? No, I mean for real. Up close. The intricate nitty gritty workings of it. Look close, real close. Like on the atomic scale. It works at that scale. That is where it all starts. It processes just above it, in the molecule (though often smaller as well) space. Take for example, the length of one single DNA strand in the human cell. The speed it's replicated. The error checking. The folding and construction mechanisms. That's all before we go on to build the rest of the cell and the person that it all makes up. Biology surpasses technology in it's finesse and efficiency at every solution. Though technology can hit harder, biology comes off victorious in the long run. What is the difference? Technology would have to be biology to even stand a fair chance. While we could comprehend (silicon) computers more powerful, it would be so big, bulky and power hungry it would fail to a cockroach getting stuck in it's cooling vent. To which we could try different types of technology. So upgrade to photonic transistors, or quantum computers (using silicon or other materials). But again, biology already surpasses that on the molecular levels it operates at and in the speed/concurrency of operation too.

Some industries, the top tier is just the bottom tier with some gold plating or some cheap paint (depending on how much they can get away with). The real "top tier" is, as you say, the model just below with all the hardware/tech/extras and a little less skimmed off the top for margin (profit). PS, love my Note 3. It's great. No real problems with it at all. Except it's battery is not lasting quite as long as before, no idea if I've a runaway app or let the battery get a bit overworked. But all phones get that at times, if you use it like I do (too much! ).

Then I would argue Solipsist does not exist. When they do, they can come back to argue their point. "Ok let's for a moment assume that it were possible to make an exact copy of someone. If we had two copies in two rooms. Then they should, if they are identical behave in an identical manner to identical stimuli." We defined the question, so that there is only one possible answer. "If I have a ton of feathers, how much do they weight?" So the original question is more like "what makes us what we are?" and that is more difficult to answer.

Not facepalm, but certainly confusing. Teacher asks our store for a "USB to HDMI cable". As it's technology, and not everyone knows everything, we are polite and say "sorry, they don't exist, as it's a different format. We do/other places do sell converters, but they are about the same cost as a new device. Which device do you have, does it have VGA/HDMI? We can help you find the correct cable." They answer "No, it's definitely USB to HDMI. I had one I used every day from my laptop to the school projector. I lost it/left it at home and need a new one". "Oh." We say, now having a little more info, but still rather confused as to what they need. "Do you mean VGA to HDMI? Or micro/mini HDMI to normal HDMI? As they certainly do not and have never made a USB to HDMI cable." They still reply with "No, I do have one, I just need another." To which we decide to get out examples and photos. As I consider it possibly being a mini/micro DVI or a firewire/displayport. "No, it looks exactly like the USB you showed me, not those other ones." They insisted. Now, we do not laugh at people like that usually, as we don't expect everyone to know everything. Even we don't know every cable to ever exist. But when someone says something that's impossible, and insists it's true, we might giggle a little and wonder if they really wanted a USB type B connector, but insisted we were wrong when we offered one (I finally guess it was a software driven projector, not a display driven, eg https://youtu.be/AxMAZYJABrM ). They never came back in, so I don't know if they ever did find the right cable.

I may be unable to define the sun. But for a matter of fact it exists. It's no "illusion". So being hard to define does not necessarily change the facts. But it does limit the restrictions we assume, the abilities we assume and the results we assume. If I assume the sun extinguishes each night, or assume it's made of coal, I'd be wrong. Tell me what conciousness is, before you say it's an "illusion", then I can test such a claim.

An exact copy of me in 2 locations breaks most other laws, so becomes a meaningless explanation. On the assumption it is possible, it also becomes possible to have 2 "me". Both would be equally me, while both being equally independent (could lead different lives going forwards, as an example, the same as normal "twins" that already exist). As the setup of the question forbids me to make a distinction, I cannot make one, so why ask the question? However, this is not the same as asking about a replication in the singular. As we already know people exist from one moment to the other, we can theoretically stop that moment, then continue it at a later date. It just depends on if we can (or other systems/laws of physics, time travel etc) possibly ever get to that level of detail to accomplish it. In which case, if we stop existing at one point, then continue at a later time, it continues to be us. Does it require atomic level, greater than or less than, accuracy? I don't know. We would first have to find out what makes a "person" in it's entirety. If we make a photo or a statue, it's not the real or full person. The answer is "no it's not me". If it's a "perfect copy", then yes it is me. It's anything in between that would be harder to know.

I think Hudson is getting too comfy with his tools. Made an entire workstation for building probes now! I wonder how easy it is to build in zero G. [i have also lost the ability to plan landings in map view. The planet rotation will not update in the map. So landing a rover will have to be done visually in flight, and by hand...]

Which leads us to only the theoretical. If we assume the information and experience of a human brain is the same as an OS running on a computer, then we solve the problems (by way of simplifying and assuming the result). If we are the same as an OS on a computer, we continue to be "us" to the point of divergence. If 2 perfect clones are made (as I can do with my PC), then both are "me", but each individual gets to continue being themselves as much as they need to be as they experience different things (being separated by space). A single reconstruction, continues to be "me", just as I continue day by day. It's the question that gives the answer. The exception being, as we don't know the full complexity of the human brain yet, we cannot consider it a given that we can make a perfect copy yet.

The answer is in the question. To understand reality, we have to ask a question, then observe the answer. Such as that the failure is in: "We have 2 exactly the same people in 2 rooms" makes the fallacy of presuming we have 2 exactly the same people. If we do, then we do and they are. No question or argument or philosophical discussion. However, the better question is "can we have 2 exactly the same people in 2 locations". I would argue that due to observation we cannot. As we cannot copy perfectly (either practically or theoretically), and we cannot have "the same" of anything separated by time or space due to natural change in those systems effected by those two dimensions.

I've watched spiders count. So I can say for certain it is not a "human" invention so to speak. It may require some form of intelligence (a spider has a brain), but for certain, it was not us who were the "first".

On my Interstellar mission, I parked up on my final destination, and made a satellite. Though I've had to resort to hyperedit, as conics and SOI seems to have started to bug out a lot (was causing CTD originally, not just fails to change SOI and leaves me in solar orbits. ).

[Conics and SOI have totally fallen apart, so have had to use hyperedit to get a capture, as when I hit the SOI for CZF30 the game decided to make me orbit Dolas instead. :/ ] "We made it! Used RCS to stabilize. Now in orbit, we can perform some basic tests" Bob: Now we are in orbit, we can collect some science in space around CZF30. But how are we to get it back to Kerbin?" Bill: What do you mean? We have a giant transmitter right here. Bob: I don't see anything capable of transmitting that kind data here. Our craft is only capable of small short communication bursts. We have Kerbabytes of data to transmit. Has space madness got to you? Bill: You don't see anything because it's a Totally Hidden Universal Dish. Or a "THUD" for short. Come on Hudson, give me a hand with the levers. Small motors whirl up and clams lock into place. Camshafts and pulleys extend arms and gantries. The interstellar craft transforms into... A space station and transmission post. Bill: We have plenty of RCS to run the coolant system, just give me the data and we will blast it through. Bob: Wow, the heatshield doubles as a dish? All we need now is the last of the data to send out! Hudson: Let's get to work building some rovers and probes and see if we cannot save Kerbin with the junk we have left!

....Crackle.... "Broadcast active" ....zzzzpppt.... "Emergency Broadcast, Mission Log Update. Sitrep to Kerbin KSC on extreme narrowband transmission." ....BEEP.... "All systems nominal. Collection of the last samples on scheduled. Prepare for in situ transmission. Possibility of sample return zero. We are OUT OF FUEL!" The Kerbals have one last planet to visit before they transmit the data back to KSC to help protect against Kerbins Solar flares. It looks like it's their last mission!

If it is microwaving the surroundings. Or if it is outgassing/expanding. Don't want this thing exploding in space. Much better to test on the ground first to rule it out.

I may have lost a few craft when KAC needed updating and I forgot what was flying where when. Oh well, if I forgot about them, they cannot of been important... right?

As much as travelling to the centre of Jupiter has trade offs compared to travelling to the centre of the sun.

Valentine is Jebs daughter. Only possible explination.

It's a very difficult one now I've put myself in the gravity well of Polo. Lesson learned would be to send a scout craft next time (similar to how I did the moon visits). I even had a drive section that would have let me do it too... :/ So now I have a two and a half hour burn, and I don't even know if we will make it! First rule of KSP... bring moar boosters!