Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Top 5 Technology Panics of 2009

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the top-five-beats-top-10-hands-down dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 146

destinyland writes "An A.I. researcher lists the Top 5 Technology Panics of 2009 — along with the corresponding reality. There's exploding iPods, the uproar over 'bombing' the moon, and even a flesh-eating robot. But in each case, he supplies some much-needed perspective. 'These incidents are incredibly rare ... the rocket stage weighs around two tons, while the Moon weighs in at a 73,477,000,000,000,000,000 tons... and desecration of the dead is against the laws of war — and plant matter is a much better fuel source anyway.'"

cancel ×

146 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not even worth... (-1, Offtopic)

LukeWebber (117950) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637040)

...a "first post" post.

Not Worth a Nigger Penis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637674)

Not even worth a giant nigger dick. No, not even an erect one.

The entire Internet is a panic then? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637048)

In the "sexting" one, it mentions this quote: "[the cell phone's] portability and user friendliness -- makes it extremely easy to get and send pornographic images of anyone."

So the entire Internet is a panic then?

Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (1)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637254)

well, "the internet" is slightly less portable than a cell phone. maybe if you took apart the tubes and put them in the back of a truck, but even then it's still harder to fit in your pocket than a cell phone.

Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (2, Informative)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637638)

well, "the internet" is slightly less portable than a cell phone.

"The Internet" is just a giant network, so qualifying or quantifying its "portability" is pretty meaningless. The Internet is already everywhere that the network reaches, and so does not need to travel from place to place. However, if we define the "portability" of something as the "ability of a person to use the thing regardless of physical location", then the portability of the Internet is entirely dependent on the portability of the computer and the ubiquity of Internet access points (likely wireless) in the area.

And given that mobile telecommunication networks are being used increasingly for Internet access as well as mobile phone service, one might argue that the Internet is exactly as portable as a cell phone. Maybe even more portable, since more portable devices than just cell phones can access the Internet.

3G coverage not available everywhere (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637662)

one might argue that the Internet is exactly as portable as a cell phone.

There's a map for that, unless of course you're happy with dial-up speeds for a broadband price.

Re:3G coverage not available everywhere (1)

t0p (1154575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639522)

What about connection via satellite? Can't that be done? If you can use a satellite phone anywhere, why not a satellite connection to the internet?

Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638572)

Need mod: -1, no sense of humor. Or -1, dense.

Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637274)

The panic is that kids think that pictures given privately to their friends are going to be kept that way... nope. One wrong friend who publishes it and there's no end to it.

Look what happened to Vanessa Hudgens. She was a Disney star with a song out and part of the High School Musical cast. A picture she knew was being taken gets out, and suddenly it's a career-ended.

Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (3, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637908)

The panic is that kids think that pictures given privately to their friends are going to be kept that way... nope. One wrong friend who publishes it and there's no end to it.

This is semi-off-topic, but what you said here reminds me of something that happened on a web forum I used to moderate on. We had a private section for the staff to have discussions in. Once in a while a user would get into it with another user and because of the formation of various cliques sometimes that'd rock the boat for several members of the staff in the private forum. One staff member in particular was a little too abrasive when describing the offending users that weren't in his group of friends. I tried to warn him that he should be careful about what he says. Just because it's 'private' doesn't mean that somebody watching couldn't do a copy/paste. He replied with "I shouldn't have to censor what I say, blah blah blah!" A month or so later he did manage to use the right series of words aimed at the right person at the right time for another member of the staff to see it, get pissed, and send an e-mail to the person he bad-mouthed to see what was being said behind his back. He, of course, shot into orbit. The funny thing is, if he had done this in public view, it probably would have been a short lived series of fireworks. But because he did this in a private forum, this guy got so angry he created a bunch of threads talking about how shitty the site is, then he told his story to people in another forum and for several days they'd come in and start trouble. The staff member in question never did admit to me that I was right.

Anyway, so what does that have to do with the topic at hand? You are absolutely right about the concern of the 'one wrong friend'. I'd be extra concerned when talking about teenagers and their ever-changing groups of friends and enemies. In general there's a lesson to be learned about being careful what you say when it can be copied verbatim for the rest of time. It's kinda sad, though, that the 'sexting' stories about consequences are getting more attention than the stories about people saying the wrong thing on Facebook and getting fired.

Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638002)

Or hell, just having pictures of yourself being happy [www.cbc.ca] on facebook

Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639608)

Do you work at East Anglia CRU?

Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? (2, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637510)

So the entire Internet is a panic then?

Pfft. Old news. That's why *I* only buy cell phones with the words DON'T PANIC written in large friendly letters on their covers.

Plant matter is good... (-1, Redundant)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637058)

but animal fats are better!

But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637100)

...liquor is quicker...

Large Haldron Collider (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637098)

Black Holes Won't Destroy the Earth [livescience.com]

"Probabaly."

Re:Large Haldron Collider (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637192)

There's an RSS feed [hasthelhcd...eearth.com] use can use to keep tabs on wether or not the LHC has destroyed the earth. Very useful site.

Re:Large Haldron Collider (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637270)

    I'll just wait for the story about the blackhole sucking up the Earth to show up here. Ok, it'll take a while, but we'll be on the even horizon of it for an awful long time. Oh ya, time dilation. We wouldn't know if it had already started. :)

Re:Large Haldron Collider (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637660)

Don't worry, you will be sure to get multiple stories about it here.

It will be just like you didn't know what you didn't know what you missed.

Re:Large Haldron Collider (1, Redundant)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637298)

Malformed XML that doesn't update regularly? Not useful.

Re:Large Haldron Collider (5, Interesting)

DarthBender (1071972) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637672)

There's an RSS feed use can use to keep tabs on wether or not the LHC has destroyed the earth. Very useful site.

Check the page source for that site [hasthelhcd...eearth.com] . It is quite interesting.

Re:Large Haldron Collider (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638158)

Mine said 'YES'! What do I do?!

Re:Large Haldron Collider (1)

mgvrolijk (215830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639390)

Wrong box, kitty.

Re:Large Haldron Collider (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638758)

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27331.0

Re:Large Haldron Collider (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638460)

Watch the live webcam [cyriak.co.uk] .

Sexting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637132)

Give me a break. Does it matter who commits the crime? Does it mean that if a minor kills another minor it's really not murder?

Re:Sexting (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637462)

Laws were meant to keep people from harming one another. "sexting" harms no one.

Re:Sexting (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637810)

Laws were meant to keep people from harming one another. "sexting" harms no one.

That assumes that the sender and receiver are playing by the same rules - and the communication is genuinely private.

Not being intercepted and exploited by others.

You have a problem is one of the parties a minor and the other an adult. You have a problem if the text or images are being shared or broadcast without consent.

Re:Sexting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30639284)

This makes no sense. Are you going to make it a crime for teenagers to shower naked because someone could, conceivably, secretly videotape them while doing so?

Even disregarding the utter stupidity of this line of reasoning, how on Earth would it keep someone from being exploited and harmed to make them a CRIMINAL?

For the record, BTW, whether I think "sexting" is acceptable doesn't depend on the relative ages of the participants, either. People are either old enough to do it or not; if they are old enough to send naked pictures to a 16-year old friend, they're also old enough to do the same with a 19-year old friend, or a 50-year old friend. Similarly, if they're not old enough to do so with a 50-year old friend, they're also not old enough to do so with a 16-year old friend.

And finally and most importantly, when someone is too young, too immature, too much of a CHILD to be allowed to take or send naked pictures of themselves, what on Earth makes you think they're old enough to be put in jail (or otherwise punished)? The very fact that someone's mature enough to be put on trial and sentenced proves that they're mature enough to be in charge of their own life (including their own body).

Re:Sexting (1)

skiman1979 (725635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639492)

The communications themselves are not necessarily harmful if performed by consenting parties on both sides. The interception and exploitation of that communication is harmful.

Re:Sexting (1)

Phil06 (877749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637840)

Laws were meant to catch and punish people who harm one another. Only their concience will prevent it.

Re:Sexting (2, Insightful)

plastbox (1577037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638018)

Well, their conscience and the fear of reprisal and punishment.

Re:Sexting (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638268)

that is only one point of view, and not a very popular one, as it turns out. don't get me wrong, i think that should be the guiding principle behind legislation, but these days it's all about getting reelected, which is easiest when you manage to scare people into thinking that the law you're proposing saves them from being abducted and raped by satan.

Re:Sexting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30639416)

It harms how the puritans view their children.

Makes they doubt the image they have of children as asexual, cute and oblivious animals you have to feed once and then. And that scares the fuck out of them.

Maybe a little blunt, but I can't think of another reason. Perhaps some politicians are so retarded, they think the spirit of the law is "asexualize all children"?

Re:Sexting (0)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639426)

your premise that "'sexting' harms no one" is false.

Re:Sexting (1)

t0p (1154575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639560)

your premise that "'sexting' harms no one" is false.

Evidence? Or are you just expressing an opinion?

Weight... (-1, Flamebait)

itedo (845220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637146)

You cannot weigh the moon, this is nonsense.

"The mass of the moon is 7,35E22 kg" sounds correctly to me - which is determined by the Newton's law of gravity.

... 73,477,000,000,000,000,000 tons

Which uncertainty? Is it EXACTLY 7,3477E19 tons?!

Sounds like a "journalist" wrote this article ... Please feel free to discuss or correct me if I'm wrong ... *sigh*

Re:Weight... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637256)

You cannot weigh the moon, this is nonsense.

BS. Sure you can weigh the moon. We can calculate it's weight very well by multiplying it's mass by g (F=M*a). Even so, in my country a tonne is exactly 1000kg. So even when the guy is referring to "weight" he really means mass.

Re:Weight... (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637560)

Which value of g do you use [wikipedia.org] ? It varies from point to point. And if you use the nominal value at sea level, at which location does the moon surface hit the waves?

Re:Weight... (3, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637784)

Even so, in my country a tonne is exactly 1000kg.

In the US and most the rest of the world, it is too. But the article wrote ton which is short for a "short ton" which refers to a short imperial ton.

The differences is that a tonne is a "metric ton" equal to 1000 kg or 2204 lbs, an "Imperial ton" (also known as a long ton) is 2240 lbs, or about 1016 kg, and a ton, known also as a short ton, is 2000 lbs or roughly 907 kg.

It gets a little more confusing when they use the word tonne in combination with energy proxies like in explaining the strength of a bomb or explosion as in how many tonnes of TNT it is comparable to or with amounts of force as in a 10mega tonne bomb. Or in combination with certain metal trades where they calculate the amount of metal in a long ton of ore by the percentage or metal within the ore. Then there are hold overs from traditions like in the HVAC world where AC is generally measure in ton(s) referring to how heat absorption and how heat would be displaced by a ton of ice in one day. Melting one ton of ice in this way or a 1 ton AC unit would be equal to about 12,000 BTU/h or 3517 Watts/h or 12,661,200 joules of energy per hour.

Re:Weight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637994)

You cannot weigh the moon, this is nonsense.

BS. Sure you can weigh the moon. We can calculate it's weight very well by multiplying it's mass by g (F=M*a). Even so, in my country a tonne is exactly 1000kg. So even when the guy is referring to "weight" he really means mass.

You have a pretty severe conceptual error here. I don't know why you think you can multiply a mass by g to get its weight, but this is generally incorrect and only works in one specific case--on the surface of the Earth with no significant fluid pressure relative to the object (i.e. you can take the mass of a brick on the surface of the Earth and use that equation, but you can't do the same for a helium balloon in air or a boat on water).

Weight is a force. While there are relations between mass and force, they are still fundamentally different things. A 5g lead ball weighed in air and in submerged in water will have different weights, even though the mass is constant and the gravitational field is unchanged.

Re:Weight... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637262)

Uhh, you can do it really easy: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99487.htm

Re:Weight... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637370)

As O'l Archimedes said: Give me a place to stand and I'll weigh the moon for you.

Re:Weight... (3, Informative)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637538)

... 73,477,000,000,000,000,000 tons

Which uncertainty? Is it EXACTLY 7,3477E19 tons?!

    No. The correct nomenclature is 7.3477x10^19. And we certainly know it to 5 significant figures, which is all original value in TFA states.

          Brett

Re:Weight... (2, Informative)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638190)

You're confusing accuracy and precision.

A.I. researcher (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637150)

Thomas McCabe is a mathematics student at Yale University and a research associate at the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence.

Not sure that's the mainstream definition of "A.I. researcher", but more relevantly, I can think of another technology panic that seems to keep recurring that the Singularity Institute might have something to do with.

Re:A.I. researcher (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637330)

And I don't even see how that credential has anything to do with this "Year's dumbest stories" piece.

Re:A.I. researcher (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637492)

in fairness, he is pretty optimistic for a guy whose name sounds like macabre [reference.com] ...

There's an app for that! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637200)

If you want a bricked iPhone, there's an app for that you can't refuse.
If you want an exploding battery on an iPhone, there's an app for that.
Here at Crapple, we strive to give you a crappy overpriced product for you fudgepacking, twinkie sucking faggots out there.

Re:There's an app for that! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637692)

Haha, take that you fucktarded racist cracker! You lost out on your fucking flamebait mod and got a measly redu7ndant mod. Why don't you do humanity a fucking favor and down a nice, tall cold glass of fucking bleach.

I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. (3, Funny)

Akira Kogami (1566305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637210)

Seriously, giant robots devouring the mangled corpses of our enemies? Yes, please!

Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637302)

They are still human!

If they weren't then we wouldn't give a shit about following Geneva conventions.

Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. (1)

Akira Kogami (1566305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637362)

But they're dead humans! I think it would be badass enough to excuse any human rights violations there.

Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. (2, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637976)

Logically speaking you are correct.

Humans, however, are hardly rational beings. If they were, however, the point would be moot as dead bodies on the battle-field would not exist in the first place.

Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637352)

When I die, I want my body to be consumed by this robot. You wouldn't deny a dead person their final wish, would you? Ignore the laws of war, I'm CONSENTING to be eaten after I die.

WTF? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637218)

Every comment so far on this article has been modded down at least once. Who the fuck gets mod points around here anymore? Slashdot is quickly outliving it's usefulness.

Re:WTF? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637280)

heh usefulness?

Re:WTF? (1)

Rehnberg (1618505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637316)

Cleans up the battlefield... Makes biofuel... Possibilities are endless...

Re:WTF? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637688)

Cleans up the battlefield... Makes biofuel... Possibilities are endless...

Slashdot does all of that?

Mod Parent Down... oops, it's the story! (1, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637234)

We're already on the 3rd, about to roll over to the 4th day of the year. (And some of our international readers are already there.) We're still doing year-end pieces? CES can't come soon enough.

Re:Mod Parent Down... oops, it's the story! (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639490)

Better than before the end of the year. Remember the scramble during the tsunami of 2004? Many of the year end "top" stories had to be re-written.

How is the LHC not on here? (5, Interesting)

Rehnberg (1618505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637308)

The day before it powered up, my physics teacher had to field a dozen or so inane questions about how it would destroy the Earth, and more than a few kids decided not to do their homework. Then again, the panic could also fall under "Public Science Knowledge FAIL"

Re:How is the LHC not on here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637844)

That was 2008 iirc

Re:How is the LHC not on here? (2, Insightful)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638614)

more than a few kids decided not to do their homework

Hardly surprising, given it's a newer excuse than "dog ate it". Maybe someone will believe they were actually afraid and cut them a break for going out and getting drunk instead of doing their work...

Re:How is the LHC not on here? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639066)

Then latter they realized that the math was done incorrectly and that the likelihood of the LHC creating an Earth destroying black hole was significantly more likely than previously believed.

Conficker April 1st (5, Insightful)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637342)

How about the incredibly overrated Conficker [certifiedbug.com] / Kido [kaspersky.com] / Downadup [microsoft.com] worm that was going to cause the end of the Internet on April 1st 2009? Big media blew it out of proportion considering Microsoft had patched the flaw and all major AV vendors had protected against it months before April 1st. The only people really affected by it were the patch-avoiders.

Re:Conficker April 1st (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637474)

That was exactly what I expected when I saw the title. It was quite funny to watch Twitter/Facebook on people who "got" the virus and were scared to death. Because, we all know a botnet is going to have little "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED" messages and pop ups...

Re:Conficker April 1st (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637826)

You obviously have no idea how many "patch-avoiders" there are. It might come to you as a surprise but people don't always choose the most rational thing to do. (Which is part of why they're using windoze to begin with...)

Re:Conficker April 1st (2, Informative)

zkiwi34 (974563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637834)

Which of course waves away the observation that more than a few million computers got zoinked with Confiker and its variants. Ah well, I guess if it's only a couple of million then it must be over-rated.

Fris7 pSot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637364)

Bought the farm... turned over to yet Be in a scene and here, but what !is

Death-by-IPv4 (5, Insightful)

lq_x_pl (822011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637388)

It gave me a chuckle to see this story immediately above yet another article on the rapidly diminishing number of IPv4 addresses, and the doom awaiting us when they run out.

Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637432)

After the rumors started making their way around the Internet, EATR's designers stepped in to clarify: the "flesh-eating robot" will consume vegetable matter only, and it comes equipped with a suite of sensors and computers to help it determine whether the things it comes across are animal, vegetable or neither. After all, desecration of the dead is against the laws of war and plant matter is a much better fuel source anyway. There are a lot more bushes to feast upon than human bodies.

Human bodies are better fuel, because it has more energy available per bite. That's why top predators eat meat, though it costs so much energy to get. That mere assertion is no defense.

The laws of war are more broken than honored. Torture? Lies to invade Iraq? How are those laws stopping terrorists?

Nobody can be expected to believe those reasons why robots won't eat us. If that's all they've got to say they won't, we can expect these robots "to serve man" pretty soon.

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30637562)

OTOH, each eaten human can potentially decrase the usage of IPv4

capcha: brutally

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638022)

OTOH, each eaten human can potentially decrase the usage of IPv4

OTOH, they can still vote (thank goodness).

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637720)

How about the simple fact that there are a hell of a lot more plants then there are human corpses on and around the average battlefield? Hoping it will find a corpse to chow down on (after it gets through the body armor and so on) seems like a silly move if it can just start munching away on the local foliage.

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (3, Insightful)

Plunky (929104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638904)

On the other hand, a robot that eats dead flesh will do its cleanup then stop when there is no more dead flesh to eat. A robot that eats live plants will continue eating until there are no more plants and we are truly screwed.

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639072)

Not necessarily, while not typically, I tend to think that the battlefield at Gettysburg was more filled with human corpses than plants. And likewise in any large battle in some place like Iraq, it doesn't take that many bodies for the rotting dead to outnumber the vegetation.

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639528)

Except the robots designed to eat human flesh will be there only to eat the humans. And there will be plenty of human flesh to fuel their eating frenzy.

What kind of a war are you running where your robots scare the shit out of the bushes, not the enemy soldiers?

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (2, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637890)

Let me get this straight - you are actually arguing for the propositions in the linked article? You're saying we're not sufficiently terrified of killer cannibal robots, and we need to link this with terrorists somehow? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right now. Everybody panic!

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638310)

Let me get this straight - you are actually arguing for the propositions in the linked article? You're saying we're not sufficiently terrified of killer cannibal robots, and we need to link this with terrorists somehow? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right now. Everybody panic!

If a robot was a cannibal it would eat other robots...

Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All (0)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639474)

Yes, killer robots will eat us. And I posted that specifically so that you would panic. Thanks for playing.

You forgot.. (1)

Thaidog (235587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637444)

When a hard drive died on one of the servers at my startup... According to management that was definitely the biggest of 2009.

Ignores a lot more panics (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637520)

This really ignores a lot of panics that are more relevant in both mass-media and tech circles alike. The main one is the LHC. Even non-geeks were talking about it and the end of the world. Another one is Conficker, you know the virus/botnet that was supposed to destroy the world in April 2009 when it.... did nothing. Then everyone got worried that it would strike the next month... and nothing.

Re:Ignores a lot more panics (1)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637666)

Another one is Conficker, you know the virus/botnet that was supposed to destroy the world in April 2009 when it.... did nothing.

I wouldn't say that it did "nothing". It caused a lot of pain for IT folks trying to clean that shit out of their networks, that's for sure. On the other hand, it was not as dramatically serious as the media would have you believe (but then the media always blows things out of proportion - that's their job apparently).

Killer electronics is nothing new (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637540)

If one works on any piece of machinery without turning it off one is likely to get maimed. Try changing the blades on a lawnmower without disabling it. Or working on the innards of the refrigerator. This has much less to with killer robots than humans that are not nearly scared enough of machinery. I always check twice.

Re:Killer electronics is nothing new (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637564)

Sure, but combine AI, the ability for robots to consume food (plants or us) to continue to operate and the military and you basically have all the ingredients for a robot apocalypse. Robot is programmed to do its mission at all costs, robot needs fuel, robot eats human and continues on its task.

Re:Killer electronics is nothing new (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637744)

it's nonsense really. the digester is total inefficent, the killer robot is merely a pipe dream.

0th (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637790)

Windows 7 got released.

Re:0th (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638542)

Oh, you mean the great panic at One Infinite Loop?

Flesh Eating Robots - FAIL (1)

nicc777 (614519) | more than 4 years ago | (#30637946)

Obviously they have not battle tested this yet. I have been in a couple of engagements. All I can say is that after the fact there is not much "green stuff" left. The battlefield is mostly burned down. As for deployment in a desert... Well, I'm sure you can figure that out on your own :-)

It "weighs" two tons? (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638062)

The rocket booster weighs two tons where? On Earth, the moon, space? I wonder how much the Earth weighs. Oh yeah, it's weightless, because it's in space.

Submitter gets an 'F' for failing to understand basic physics.

Re:It "weighs" two tons? (1)

Make (95577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638124)

How ironic. You too fail to understand basic physics, because you don't seem to know that tons is not a unit of weight (neither does the editor/submitter).

And an 'F' for the parent. (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638206)

There's gravity in space as well you know, which is why the Earth still circles the Sun and the Moon still orbits us. Which means the Earth isn't weightless.

Re:And an 'F' for the parent. (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639518)

Gravity is just a theory.

Re:And an 'F' for the parent. (1)

pant (814786) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639552)

Grandparent gets an F and parent gets a D-. The earth, sun and moon don't weigh anything, unless they are sitting on a scale. They do, however, have mass. Submitter gets a basic B because he was trying to relate the actual differences in an understandable way.

Why Not LHC? (4, Funny)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638274)

LHC isn't on the list for the simple reason that there was nothing to panic about.

In 2009.

No one has Global Warming on here either... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30638772)

Global Warming is green-speak for 'Technology is bad - stop it!'

You could see at Copenhagen that none of the Greens were interested in generating CO2-free energy, they wanted a tax on ALL energy. If this isn't the biggest technological scare, I don't know what is....

Re:No one has Global Warming on here either... (4, Interesting)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639340)

I kind of got the impression that "global warming" is political speak dressed up as green speak for "our economony is now almost entirely service based, the bottom has fallen out of the unsustainable credit market, what can we in the west sell to the emerging economic giants now that they have all the large industry... how about green technology?".

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but then back in the 80's I was saying that "nuclear is bad" was political speak dressed up as green speak for "big oil is good and cheap and currently abundant" and, in hindsight, if we'd built a ton of nuclear reactors back then the world would potentially be in a much better state today (no impending fuel crisis, potentially no big war in the middle east, no extra couple of decades of pumping pollutants directly into the skies, further development of nuclear technology allowing costs to decrease and making it more viable for emerging industrial countries, etc).

Chris sardius (0)

phanerus (1712766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30638790)

Those are really small fears now, how about mobile phone radiations that are said to cause cancers and tumors ( we are discussing that on http://smsdam.com/ [smsdam.com] ) an asteroid rain with invading aliens and the 666 with the fallen angels that show up in human form.

Wait..What!? (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30639502)

First I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"
THEN I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"
THEN I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"
THEN I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"
THEN I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"

Dude, what a rollercoaster!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>