Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Ive said it before. (Score 1) 164

A new bitcoin algorithm, written in Beginners' All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Coconut.

10 c = speed of lite beer
20 accelerate my ass to c
30 gosub and return to Earth just in time for no new coins being min(t)able
40 sell junk on ebay for bitcoin
50 ? "profit!"
60 REM Never spend bitcoin
70 go to 40 until I gots them all

When the no-new-bitcoins era comes, and you are greeted by a homeless guy who tells you he "gave" away everything for all the bitcoins in the world ...

How does that story play out?

Comment Re:Ive said it before. (Score 0) 164

> you could get in now

Deal me in on a Ponzi scheme anyone? Anyone?

Eventually, no new coins ... suppose I could collect them all when the time comes. Heh. Or I could spool up some servers, declare that I have them all, hit control alt delete, and give the whole world a chance to start the whole game again.

Wait a minute, set it up to have infinitely many potential coins. At the end of the day people are just trading one thing for another thing virtually, and the coin is just a medium. Market forces will always keep prices correct, so no one will be the owner of the universe. Hyperinflation? Computers can handle scientific notation. Mostly it comes down to whether the majority even want to use this technology

Comment Re:#BlackLivesMatter (Score 1) 983

That doesn't contradict anything he said. The "offending rate" is based off convictions. There is no such thing as ground truth in this case.

The differential is so large that smoke fire falls close enough to the tree.

But y? If anything needs to be fixed, fix the reason behind it all.

Well here's my 2 cents. It seems that increasingly people lives matter less and less, not just black lives. Technology taking away jobs is not the reason though, not quite. I watched the heyday of Moore's law when people anticipated the dawn of a new age. Computers ran faster, did more, and computer makers tried to outdo each other. Now there is a reversed trend, mainly because the need for speed has fallen. Case in point, the Top 500 has stagnated. China showed up with a brand new supercomputer ass kicker, yet again for crying out loud, but no one else seems to want to move the needle. What is going on? I bought a faster laptop a couple years ago. I don't think I'm even going to try to buy a faster laptop for another couple of years because it would only be a teensy weensy faster. However, that's kind of beside the point because laptops are limited in size. It's desktops that should be widening the gap massively massively massively over laptops. I have 3 or 4 hr of battery life on an i7 laptop and it's almost as fast as my i7 desktop, which was a nice leap itself all of 4 years ago, but desktops should kick up at least a half horse to a full horsepower of CPU usage and do something.

Do what? Is there anything _useful_ to do while consuming 1 horsepower? The average joe wouldn't even consider it.

Oh, well, that just shows how useless people are. People lives don't matter, at least not in the perspective of the people in power. To people who have power, the masses are asses. So people are suffering here and there, what does that matter to someone with power? The days just keep going by regardless. Trump can talk but he can't do much about anything either. It's people who have to stop bitching and moaning so Trump won't have any more to say.

If people want to matter, they have to try harder. Can't just be another rat in the rat race. If people tried harder, desktop speeds would pick up way more bang for the buck. I really want to save on my next upgrade, ok, people?

Comment Re:Impossibru! (Score 1) 247

> And that matters why?

It is quite difficult for a country to reach the top of the world in a particular technology because the people there have to be motivated to do the research and build the facilities for R&D. This is a struggle classified as "uphill". Competition is a good motivator. It seems that China's R&D is motivated, at any rate.

Comment Re:What is this I don't even (Score 1) 268

Two ideas

#1 Suppose time just exists in the mind. There seems to have been a past and there seems to be a now. In this mind there is hope of a future. In this mind there appears to be a world, there appears cause and there appears effect. A part of the universe having existed in the past could be constructed meticulously, for example, a cell phone that I had that died and became disconnected. If I built a functioning copy and turned it on, it would see that a network exists, but it wouldn't let me use it because I stopped paying for it. In a way this phone leaped from the past. If the phone that was working in the past leaped to the now, it would be in the same situation. So this is what we think of time.

But who can say what time is really like? Suppose that the past and the future always exists in the now. Perhaps, even, each past instant is a static slice of spacetime you can traverse spatially, static in the sense of being stuck at the same time on the clock. But perhaps each past or future instant is not static, i.e., traverse it spatially, yes, but every time you look at the clock at that instant, the clock is different, implying you might not even recognize a clock, and what you found at a particular coordinate does not stay the same even though the time does not change.

Light that leaves but is not intercepted is an example of something in the universe that does not go back in time.

#2 Pear shaped or not, what is the shape of the aggregate consisting of these atoms having pear shaped nuclei? On the whole is the entire mass also pear shaped or is it just as well balanced as ever?

The shape of the nucleus arises from a balance of all the forces. The question is whether asymmetry exists at smaller and more fundamental scales.

Comment Shh (Score 1) 1144

Can technology prevent shootings?

I suppose so. Technology makes it easier to stay home.

But technology also makes shooting easier. The hardest work is what prevents shootings. But technology will make that work much easier, alas. There are three activities involved in a shooting. Ancient technology has already made the shooting part quite doable for your typical but lazy madman. New inventions are on their way to helping with the more difficult tasks, shoveling and shutting up.

Comment Re:The limit of Capitalism (Score 1) 367

the problem with that is cultural and ideological not a problem with AI, Capitalism *requires* scarcity in order for certain business models to work and this is why AI makes people nervous, It removes scarcity of labor,

Particularly, it is not the scarcity of grunt labor but rather the scarcity of decision making labor that will be reduced. Machines that take in more and more information and output better and better decisions will be allocated greater and greater resources. This does not mean people will be out of jobs, as people are still usable as resources that have less authority to make decisions. Indeed, if better decisions are made by someone or something, there may be clearer motivation to strive to achieve greater challenges. For example it may become much more plausible to colonize Mars or look for a cure to the common cold. The actual problem may be that we become awash with machines working on these challenges. The question becomes are _my_ challenges being resolved?

Comment Re:smart people, including Bill Gates (Score 1) 367

In the old 'world of the future' exhibits they prophecized that we would have machines doing the work for us and that all humans would enjoy more leisure time

We end up with is the masses being commoditized out of jobs and the wealthy reaping all of the benefits

What happened to get us all to sell ourselves out so cheaply and willingly accept the idea that a few bastards should end up with the bulk of the nations wealth while our children are faced with a future with no jobs and parents whose retirement funds cannot pay to take care of them?

Dystopia? We are living it and don't even see it

Not that cheap. Sure, a single tech worker might make next to nothing compared to the entire computer industry, but the industry itself has seen its share of risk and reward, failure and success. None of the achievements were guaranteed. Any company or person is still vulnerable no matter how far ahead they are.

You make it sound as though the alternative is palatable. Look at the societies where technology isn't available to threaten jobs. They still have forces that threaten jobs. If a very select few people set things up so that wealth can be created, it may happen that a lot of people become employed and it may happen that some people get rich.

The thing is, in some societies the door is still open for some people to achieve

Comment Re:Sure, let's make everything tiered (Score 1) 392

There's always a better idiot to beat your safety system.

The deeper issue regards Azimov's safety rules - self-driving cars are tantamount to weapons. The things are not smart enough to stop themselves from hurting someone somehow, so some idiot will try to hurt someone with this blunt instrument.

Comment Re:Missing the key point (Score 1) 421

Is superintelligence vs normal intelligence really key? I think not. For one thing, the intelligence of a human may well be considered superintelligence. The mere chemistry of a brain is so incredibly able to counter the second law of thermodynamics - who can say this is not superintellect?

That aside, is a superintelligent machine dangerous? The answer is look at whether a human can be dangerous. A human can be dangerous. The problem is that one human cannot fully prepare to defend against the nefariousness of another. And that's just the peril posed by one human. What if there is a gang of humans, or perhaps one fast computer, or even a Beowulf cluster for the sake of extrapolation? Long before the transistor age we have tried to build defense systems, and it doesn't even take a superintellect to predict that we'll always need defense systems. Banning or fearing superintelligent machines probably does not improve the risk because there already exist superintelligent entities.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?