Give me one good reason why I won't be able to become a

because this isn't a dumb cartoon you fucktard

>>>/x/
>>>/mlp/
>>>/trash/

>>7947672

I'll bite, assuming we were able to reach the hardware and software level to make a perfect copy of "you" in your life time, would you consider this being a continuation of you or is this just a being that behaves like you with the same memories?

Imagine being cut perfectly in half (vertically) and kept alive, with each half taken to each room, which part of the half is you?

>>7947698

It will happen gradually not some instantaneous tech thing.

>>7947672
Let's take it in steps: let's say you could make a computer simulation of yourself. And let's say it can remote control a cloned cyborg body that people can't easily distinguish from your original flesh.

When you buy a new video game, would you be satisfied with knowing that your simulated copy gets to play it?

When you cook a good meal, would you be satisfied with knowing that your simulated copy gets to eat it?

When you find the girl of your dreams, would you be satisfied with knowing that she has fallen in love with your simulated copy and your simulated copy gets to be with her?

If you get your arms and legs cut off, and live in terrible pain and humiliation, would you be satisfied with seeing your simulated copy be healthy and free?

Or would you prefer to have all of these things for your real self?

If you wouldn't be satisfied with your simulation getting the things you want while you're still alive, why would you feel that having a simulation of you running after you die would be the same as surviving?

Don't be a simcuck.

>>7947701

Never argued otherwise, that's not the point, the point is that it wouldn't allow "you" to live forever, it would allow a copy of you.

>>7947672
You would never be able to afford it, poorfag.

>>7947714

>implying money is still going to be relevant when 3d nanoprinters can turn a small pile of dirt into an apple.

>>7947710

As long as I still maintain my train of conscienceless, it's still me.

>>7947679

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that you were smarter than Ray Kurzweil. Better tell google you would make a better director of engineering, someone let a crazy person in.

>>7947707
All that, and yet people continue to have children.

>>7947722
>implying money is still going to be relevant when 3d nanoprinters can turn a small pile of dirt into an apple.
The guys owning that tech will make sure of it. Don't you worry.

>>7947707

It wouldn't be a simulation it would be nanobots in your brain uploading you into the Matrix.

>>7947727

>the guys

You mean the thousands of different tech companies all making it?

>>7947710
you could replace yourself incrementally, not making a copy as such

>>7947744
This

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

electric bill

Waste of space

File: there is no cloud.jpg (71KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x960px

>>7947672

>>7947753

Every second earth is hit with enough solar rays to power the planet for a year 50 times over.

Energy is not going to be an issue.

>>7947765

>nut thins

Disgusting

>>7947766
Earth won't exist in a trillion years.

>>7947772

By then I'll be in my own private section of the universe making planets and role playing ancient astronauts theories. .

>>7947770
I just saved the pic off of twitter, calm your autism senpai.

>>7947672

because you're gay and computers aren't

>>7947814

Pretty sure computers are going to be smart enough to not be bigoted xenophobes

File: bogart.jpg (157KB, 1291x1600px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1291x1600px

>>7947818

yes, yes, professor, it looks and acts very human.

but...

can it troll?! for god's sake doc, can a damned machine troll?

>>7947765
Is this true?

>>7947766
ok, np. nobody left to maintain hardware.

>>7947814
underrated post

Fuck off with your manchildren fantasies OP. Retards like you belong to >>>/x/

>>7947672
Because you're going to die in a car crash on February 12th of next year.

>>7948025
What do you think the cloud is?

It refers to storing data on external servers that you can access remotely.

>>7947731
if you have a nanoprinter that can instantly turn a pile of dirt into an apple, then it would be trivial to have the equivalent of one of today's supercomputers take care of all the DRM in the printer.

Not to mention, because there is always room at the bottom, one could build in an extensive and pretty much impossible to bypass self-destruct system that goes off if you even think about fucking with the DRM.

>>7948808
If it would be trivial to implement, then it would be trivial to bypass.

>>7948813
cryptography is easy to implement, but exceptionally difficult to crack.

Second, the technology necessary to bypass it may have to be made on a nanoprinter, except one cannot make such a thing because said nanoprinter's DRM would prevent it.

>>7948828
That is what they said about DVDs.

>>7948831
so why hasn't denuvo DRM been cracked?

DVDs players don't self destruct if you try to reverse engineer them.

>>7948840
There are claims it has been hacked.

It was so difficult because it is not a trivial implementation and there are many proprietary secrets and the software gets regular updates while the company admits they can, do, and will get cracked with every update.

>>7948851
and yet just cause 2 has yet to be cracked.

>and the software gets regular updates
Now imagine that but with hardware. Good luck reverse engineering hardware that changes every couple of months. Oh and did I mention that the hold hardware self-destructs because the price of new hardware is basically free?

>>7947672
even if such technology would be developed, no one would have an incentive to give it to you personally.

you are not a multi-billionaire, you will therefore die with the rest of the global mob - and now start chanting

ONE OF US
ONE OF US
ONE OF US

>>7948855
Why would anyone update to a version that will destroy itself once they have cracked an old one and created a fork model of fully replicating hardware from something that was free and as such easy to tamper with a lot of until you get it right?

>>7947679
You forgot to mention
>>>/pol/

>>7949361
You forgot to mention >>>/r/eddit

>>7948769
ill drive the truck

>>7949388
Both aforementioned boards and the entirety of Reddit should kill themselves

File: 1458340433924.gif (58KB, 129x111px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 129x111px

>>7947672
I'll humor you.

This sort of tech is a long way off. You don't realize how limited in technology we are in contrast with what is theoretically physically possible. There are a number of obstacles in the way.
1. Humans or their descendants need to not go extinct for another 10000 years
2. The things that are theoretically possible need to ACTUALLY BE POSSIBLE.
3. You will be long dead before what you propose even enters an alpha stage.

>>7947731
you mean Micro$oft, Apple, Google, Samsung, and a handful of defense contractors? Oh yeah, thousands.

>>7948025
Its just some coder being pedantic. The cloud IS someone else's computer. The data is not magically bouncing around in the sky, the data you store on the "cloud" is being stored in data center somewhere. Word of warning, some terms of service for cloud use include giving the company free use of your content, beware.

>>7947672
>Give me one good reason why I won't be able to become a trillion year old computer living in the cloud.
The question you suggest is a question of economics. What incentive would there be in keeping you running? Can you adequately substitute the role of a human in those tasks essential to economic growth? Would you be then able to save enough capital to afford the sever and power costs?

>>7948869
Because the hardware that was easy to tamper with won't be available to consumers. And once the tamperproof hardware is available, the old machines will be destroyed. All versions released to consumers will self destruct once the next update comes out.

>>7951080
http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Chapter_11.html

>>7951080
Yes businessmen, entrepreneurs, and engineers love building business models based around making their product unavailable and undesirable to consumers. Startup businesses with no proven business model always get to make all of the laws and force the state to destroy other people's property. It won't matter if they self destruct since you already pointed out they won't be available to consumers in the first place.

File: Objet1000_3D-Printer-open_low.jpg (130KB, 1766x1179px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1766x1179px

>>7951154
>>businessmen, entrepreneurs, and engineers love building business models based around making their product unavailable and undesirable to consumers.
Average joe is not going to go out and buy a million-dollar piece of manufacturing equipment. Average joe's net worth is probably not enough to afford it.

When you develop a new manufacturing technology, you generally don't sell said technology directly to consumers you sell it to people who do manufacturing. Pic related is an objet 3d printer, it costs at least $500,000.

>>always get to make all of the laws and force the state to destroy other people's property.
So you expect a machine that could churn out guns, missiles, and world destroying nanomachines won't be regulated as fuck?

>>7951188
Average multi-million dollar machines today don't replicate themselves with such triviality that they can destroy themselves at the drop of a hat because the hardware is basically free.

The manufacturing plant can't generally just re-manufacture itself at zero cost for every update and internet outage.

The CNC and milling machines used to make all those things that exist today aren't regulated as fuck.

>>7947766
>for a year 50 times over
Just say for 50 years with current energy consumption.

File: mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.webm (1MB, 404x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 404x720px

>>7951203
Not him, but your utopian ideal is a dead-end.
Not saying it won't happen, but what if it does?
If we all can just have whatever we want whenever we want at no cost, why would any companies develop anything new?
If nobody has to spend any money to get all the stuff they want, where does that leave profit motive?

>>7951346
Companies are made of people and people need goods and like to express their personality with creativity. The reward of personal consumption is the motive.

Why would anyone need profit if they can just have whatever they want whenever they want?

>>7951346
It will cost because there will always still be a materials and energy cost, you people saying the hardware can just be destroyed and recreated for free and people will like it are from the idealistic utoptia.

>>7947672
Because you probably won't be able to afford it, even when the tech is there.

>>7948869
>>7951154
You can't build a business model around something that makes money irrelevant.

So if you have a nanoprinter that can make stuff practically for free, you are gonna lock it the fuck down and make sure it won't be able to make money irrelevant. So the only printers you release, you make damn well sure are going to self destruct after a set time period. You don't give people a choice not to update. You don't give people a choice to make unrestricted nanoprinters.

>>7953070
Then you will never release a printer and will just have to watch as other people make it to market without stripping the idea of its utility and making it frustrating and unusable to the end user.

>>7951346
implying capitalism will still exist at this point

>>7947672
I'm sure if humanity were to such a device we would implement a major backup system with automatons.