×

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!

Comments

top

GoPro Project Claims Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless

Prune Re:I don't think it's technology (311 comments)

Combine this with trends like the skyrocketing investment into robotics by companies like Google, and one starts wondering if poor people are about to become obsolete.

yesterday
top

GoPro Project Claims Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless

Prune Re:Define homeless.... (311 comments)

Many of "the druggies and drunks" are hardly more responsible for their lot than the mentally ill, and the two categories of problems are highly related. Getting out of addiction is not simply a matter of willpower, and there are many factors that predispose people to end up stuck in those habits that are largely outside of their control. You're being too judgmental.

yesterday
top

Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

Prune Re:Phones yeah (227 comments)

Superconductors are not just temperature-limited, but also current-limited.

This is really an artificial problem. There's no point in tackling it, when fuel cells circumvent it neatly.

about two weeks ago
top

Sand in the Brain: A Fundamental Theory To Model the Mind

Prune An analogy (105 comments)

Claiming self-organized criticality explains the mind, as TFA does, is akin to claiming that a model of how clock synchronization works in a microprocessor explains the algorithms it implements. This is literally the dumbest thing I've seen posted on Slashdot in a long while. If you really want to know how the mind works, read the work of leading neuroscientists like Damasio (Self Comes to Mind is a good start, then just follow up on the extensive bilbiography therein).

about two weeks ago
top

Sand in the Brain: A Fundamental Theory To Model the Mind

Prune Re:Ick (105 comments)

I commend your good intentions, but in the end, please realize that it's futile to argue with the sufferers of Assburgers syndrome.

about two weeks ago
top

Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

Prune Re:Forget fast charging via USB (227 comments)

You think that's bad? Look at the genius who wants to charge car batteries at that rate: http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...

What's sad is not that post by itself, but the moderation it got, which really showcases the sorry state of technical education prevalent so much that even the average moderator at a supposedly technically-savvy place like Slashdot would confuse fantasy with an good idea within the realm of possibility.

about two weeks ago
top

Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

Prune Re:Phones yeah (227 comments)

My favorite post of the week. Please mod parent up.

about two weeks ago
top

Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

Prune Re:Phones yeah (227 comments)

00 gauge isn't anywhere close to cutting it, even if you're running this at a few kV. GP poster simply didn't think this through when rushing to post.

about two weeks ago
top

Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

Prune Re:Phones yeah (227 comments)

Please mod parent down: charging the car in 1-2 minutes would require recharging at one to two megawatts, which, even at high voltage, would require two orders of magnitude more current than reasonable wiring can handle (reasonable: something a human could lift).

about two weeks ago
top

Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

Prune Re:A looping simulation, apparently (745 comments)

Exactly: they can be encoded finitely by their corresponding generative algorithms. I think mathematicians' tendency to extend their thinking to infinities are really flights of fancy that have little to do with the real universe; those are more about psychology than physics.

about a month ago
top

Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

Prune Re:A looping simulation, apparently (745 comments)

My point was that pi and e are not properties of the physical universe. In a sense, it's the algorithms that compute them to a given precision that are properties (because they can be encoded finitely, and thus physically), and the precision limits depends on the extent and energy density of the finite region of the universe under consideration.

about 2 months ago
top

Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

Prune Re:A looping simulation, apparently (745 comments)

I was specifically addressing this: If math was really modeling the universe well, we would have whole numbers for constants: e, c, k, pi.

Your comment implies we don't have whole numbers for constants for a good reason, beyond just a choice of a number system. Indeed, you acknowledged this in your response to brantondaveperson below, saying you can't have both pi and e as whole numbers in a single numeric system. What this really implies is that pi and e are each nice and compact characteristics of the physical universe that, if the math was actually representative of said physical universe, ought to be representable in that math as something akin to whole numbers. Of course, they are neither. They are, however, representable in the natural number math quite well: they map directly to the finite algorithms that can compute them to a given precision, whereby the precision limit of the computation (dependent on time and storage) has a dual in the physical universe--the constraints imposed by a finite spacial extent and finite energy density mentioned in my post above. Pi and e to arbitrary precision are not properties of any finite portion of the physical universe; only the finitely-encodable algorithms that compute them are.

about 2 months ago
top

Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

Prune Re:Not very plausible (745 comments)

The question is whether physics exhibits some signature of an incomplete simulation by a concrete machine with characteristics familiar to us.

Yes, and it depends on exactly what is meant by "characteristics familiar to us". If the simulation hypothesis is correct, the host 'machine' in question is more likely to share characteristics with our universe's physics that have to do with the nature of computability in a qualitative sense, rather than merely quantitative (and specifically, scalability and efficiency). I don't find it implausible that the similarity doesn't much extend to the latter (but does to the former); if that is the case, it still may be the case that the simulation is imperfect as proposed in the paper.

about 2 months ago
top

Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

Prune Re:Not very plausible (745 comments)

It's just a difference of degree. There are hard physical limits on information processing that cannot be exceeded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
NB that these limits directly imply that any finite region of space can be fully simulated by a sufficiently large, (non-deterministic) linear bounded automaton--an abstract computational machine less powerful than a Turing machine.

about 2 months ago
top

Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

Prune Re:This explains quantum physics (745 comments)

QM by itself is not enough. It's only once you mix it with thermodynamics that you can derive the Bekenstein bound (the result that the maximum information in a region of space is the entropy of a black hole of the same surface area) and thus put an ultimate limit on information density. There are also hard physical limits on minimum energy per unit of computation, and minimum time per unit of computation (Margolus–Levitin theorem, Bremermann's limit, etc.).

about 2 months ago
top

Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

Prune Re:A looping simulation, apparently (745 comments)

>>If math was really modeling the universe well, we would have whole numbers for constants: e, c, k, pi.

You're wrong in your implication. Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are fully computable theories. Moreover, in the physical universe there are no arbitrary precision real numbers, because that would allow you to encode infinite information in a single quantity, which would violate the Bekenstein bound--a fundamental limit on the number of distinguishable quantum states in a finite region of space (which is equivalent to limiting the information that can be stored in a finite region): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

about 2 months ago
top

TrueCrypt Master Key Extraction and Volume Identification

Prune Re:What would be sweet... (222 comments)

The other issue to address is physical security. However, there have been cheap ICs for years that store a key and securely wipe it nearly instantaneously if signaled on a given pin--this allows you to hook it up to physical interlocks on a computer case, alarm system, remote control, or whatever (or OR-gate a few of those). Due to low power draw, these could easily run off a battery, preventing the security being defeated by the attacker shutting off power.

about 3 months ago

Submissions

top

First commercial carbon capture project is failing

Prune Prune writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Prune (557140) writes "A Saskatchewan report that the world's first commercial carbon capture project is failing could be grave news for those involved in efforts to blunt humanity's contribution to climate change.
It's a story with global implications, potentially bad ones, for the energy sector: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/greenpage/environment/carbon-injected-underground-now-leaking-saskatchewan-farmers-study-says-113276449.html"

Link to Original Source

Journals

Prune has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...