Given that this experiment seems to back up hawking radiation, it's fairly reasonable to say that creating a black hole this small would not suck, but instead be pretty cool. Evaporation would take care of the black hole before it became a problem. Remember, that these experiments are still low energy, and low mass (very much so) when compared to natural occurences of black holes.
I can see the doping scandals already...
Loser: Check his inhaler! I know he's taking stimulants! Look on the inside of glasses I know he's got a hologram of Natalie Portman to keep him relaxed! HE SO CHEATED!!
Well since you and the mods have replied seriously to what was a light-hearted joke, I'll respond seriously to you. Having a potent strike capability that nigh instantaneous (as in a few hours) is pretty handy to have for merits that are obvious. I don't buy the whole satellite warfare line. Once we start blowing up satellites, then the orbitals become unusable. So barring a mad scientist destroy the world scenario, I don't believe satellite warfare is a real threat. It would be like poisoning a well that you drink from as well as the enemy.
Military expenditures are definitely out of whack, but I personally like reaping the benefits of having a high tech and very powerful military. You're mistaking interventionism and the one percent doctrine for keeping a well maintained military. The ideology behind the current military engagements we are involved in are harmful. Keeping our military in the lead isn't.
I'm all for strategic withdrawals from several places all over the world and a reduction of martial intervention, but just because we haven't had a serious threat to American soil since the Soviet Union doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Military spending is good when done properly.
By the way, don't buy the administration bull. Terrorism is the great boogeyman of the twenty first century. First it was the jews, then the communists, now it's the terrorists. Don't buy into that line of thinking, for all of our sakes.
I don't get it. If the government has a secret database of information on everyone in the world, including enemy personnel, and they have black, stealth helicopters waiting to attack anywhere in the world at a moment's notice, why all the nonsense about hypersonic attack craft?
It's a little different when you're bailing out Goldman Sachs, which doesn't have an 800 lb gorilla of monopoly on its back like AMD does. Bailing out banks for insane lending creates moral hazard and positively reinforces bad behavior. Investing in AMD doesn't. It promotes competition and a more efficient market.
All those differentiations you speak about will suffer if there is only one manufacturer. And we all know how well the government busts up monopolies, so if you have any vested interest in CPU's, support AMD.
Please do tell how promoting an actual market is a misguided sense of "econ-101." Note I was speaking about the specific AMD situation when making my argument. I'm not here to argue if all things are equal between the two, just that having AMD around is important.
Exactly, buying something at the lowest price now != being a rational actor in a market economy. It's the line of thinking that the only cost associated with doing business is the one I see right in front of me that has led to the credit crunch, the negative savings rate, and just about every other economic problem we have now. If we could please just squash that now, we would all be a lot better off. You save a few bucks now by going with a cheaper product, but if you depend on an industry long term, it's in your best interest to promote a diverse and competitive playing field. Intel has basically been a monopoly for forever. I buy AMD whenever I reasonably can. I know expecting people to make informed economic decisions is probably a fantasy, but we could really use it.
If I remember correctly, math as well as NIMBY's contributed to the Concorde's poor effect on the environment. People weren't too keen on having sonic booms regularly occur over their neighborhoods as widespread commercial adoption occured, so Concorde flights had to take care to avoid disturbing high population areas. Any gains that this plan makes in engine efficiency will probably be offset by having to reconfigure flight plans from the most efficient to the least bothersome for residents.
I just don't think there is a commercial viability for supersonic flight. The need to decrease flight times from 20 hours to 5 hours is just not enough of an incentive to cover all the associated investments and pitfalls of implementation.
The Universal Service Fund is evidence enough for you. Billions of dollars of subsidies wasted as windfalls to stockholders. Your lack of faith is wise, and it's only being supported by the new broadband plan laid out by the president.
It would be nice to have a perfectly efficient method of coercion to force ISP's to actually spend their subsidies on broadband penetration, but no one in power seems to be interested. It's the same story as IPv6 up to now. ICANN seems to be taking the lead finally. Hopefully someone will follow suit in the broadband arena.
Not to say that I had high hopes anyways, and maybe I haven't been here long enough (c. 2005), but this the most dissapointing interview I've seen. There is so little content to each answer. This has just reinforced to me that the whole of Ron Paul's plan has evolved to little more than shouting "THE CONSTITUTION" and "LESS GOVERNMENT" every chance he gets. He was actually the only one that I figured would respond, as his base is most active on the web. I had hope for him. But now, I really feel a no response would have been better.
Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
So what? How does that translate into policy?! He espouses "straight answers" and then gives a completely ambgiuous one in the same interview.
Most of this stuff just seems to be flat out obvious. Granted, I've only read the abstract (which was just plain incoherent, if you ask me) and skimmed the actual patent. I fail to see anything of merit. It sets out a broad, nebulous set of rules that could be interpreted to be any number of things. I imagine that when this was filed the patent office had dummy mode set irrevocably on, a al BOFH.
This is a particularly bad patent, and kudos to the EFF. As we all know, small strokes fell mighty oaks.
So, basically the whole book is a scam to educate a user enough to where they think they need security software ($ymantec), but not enough to where they can actually understand that throwing money at the problem of security doesn't make it go away. Safe practice is the only way. Using reliable systems, ie Linux, helps, but still it comes down to being educated.
All in all, I'm gonna go ahead and call this a worthless read.
Outperforming human soldiers in their ethical capacity is not a lofty goal. Look up Unit 731 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
That being said, the problem that this treatise tries to address is not one confined to the battlefield. It's much broader. The battlefield consequences of AI agents are just that, consequences. They come about as a result as the much larger question of creating an artificial intelligence that has an acceptable level of ethics for use in the real world. I'm assuming here that we're talking about AI soldiers making decisions on their own and not based on direct instructions from a human. So, without an overarching set of ethical principles that AI can adhere to in general, battlefield protocols are irrelevant. This compounded by the fact that at the core, there are still humans at the helm. We all know how well international regulations against war hold up in the real world. Battlefield protocols and regulations exist to give the illusion of the rule of law to what is an otherwise savage and immoral exercise. It's cool that someone is thinking ahead about the ethical implications, though.
Personally, I am very wary of the consequences a move to AI armies will have on the readiness of nations to go to war. War is not good. The fact that one of our first concerns with a new technology is how to implement this best on the battlefield is proof enough that AI agents will have very little trouble "outperforming" their human counterparts.
I'm no math whiz. But it seems a leap in the laws of physics for these systems to squeeze the required power out of their existing infrastructures without some tradeoffs.
STFU n00b!! You are totally not "teh mAd mAth haXXor." Your journalism sucks. We know power and all the 802.11 standards... so STEP OFF!! n00b!!
This past November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking in earnest at Europe's cultural products and heritage as an engine for economic growth.
I came acrossthis video the other day. It talks about the economics of culture. I found it thought provoking and figure it will add to the discussion.
Disclaimer: the lecturer is an Austrian School follower and the talk was held by the von Mises Insitution, so most people, including myself, will disagree with a lot of points. Also, it is long, but given the dedication/.er's have for discussing culture and IP economics I think a few might suffer through it:)
Only this time it's between Mexican scammers and Nigerian ones. For years Nigerian scammers have exercised hegemony in the arena, but now Mexican scammers have upped the ante with this "pharming gap." This can only lead to a scams arms race with other nations as proxies and victims of the complex maneuvering of the two camps. As a helpless American I don't know how long I can stand being the play thing of two foreign powers duking it out for hegemony.
By the way I'm rooting for the Nigerians in this grand campaign, at least their scams provide a laugh once and awhile.
Use encryption if you want safety. But you still can't prevent the people who have legitimate access from doing whatever they want to the documents.
Unless, and I think this is what he is after, you hire a group of armed commandos/Stallman look-a-likes (to keep it open source) to detail every end user of your media. With a gun to the head... making decisions about media becomes much more serious business.
Open Source Stallman Commando: Don't even think about putting that in your shared folder! If this ends up on bittorrent, it's a 7.62mm round right to the groin!!!
User: Oh my god... please don't kill me... (gets hit with the butt of the commando's rifle)
Commando: One more word and I swear I pull the trigger!
I'm not sure, but that may be the most workable DRM solution anyone has ever come up with.
Brilliant! I mean we have more computers nowadays! Computers everywhere means easier everything! That's some solid logic! Never mind the political atmosphere, what with its shoe string budgets and extreme shifts in public opinion. Never mind that there is no immediate, short term goal to be accomplished by expanding space travel. The fact that people haven't been truly interested in the long term benefits or concerned at all, really, with space exploration is completely irrelevant when compared to the amount of stuff we have today. I mean look at them!! THEY ARE COMPUTERS!! THEY FIX EVERYTHING MAGICALLY!!!
At first I thought you were just being a jerk, but then the you dropped the moon landing hoax line at the end. That's when I knew you had it going on! Right on bro! Keeping your ambivalence up in the face of overwhelming fact... that's where it's at!
The last time I followed advice from a cookbook I ended up in prison for three years. Anarchist's, Linux Networking... I don't care I'll never touch another cookbook again!
There's an easy way to game the system and get it to read out that you are functioning at near infinite productivity. The system is set to handle all motions that resemble throwing a chair as super-productive. I hear it is a zeroday that has to do with the model they used for peak effeciency.
Bundling software has been the source of the EU's complaints against MS. The only way to fight bundling is to inform the consumer that they have choices. Until the average consumer understands that there are other programs outside the suite that Microsoft offers, there will be no real competition. Power users are not in the majority. The people that know what vlc, foobar, opera, etc. are are not in the majority. Firefox has proven that is possible to break out and actually compete with MS products, but they had to establish name recognition with consumers. The standard windows package with WMP and IE will cotntinue to strangle the market until people become vaguely familiar with the fact that their are options. It wouldn't hurt for people understand open source support and how it contrasts with closed source support, but that's probably an unattainable dream. However, Firefox has proven that when the stars align, there is a market for non-MS products.
Education is, as always, the great equalizer. It's the only thing that can make a market actually work.
As with all things cool, Spurs is not yet available to consumers, and may never actually come to market. But it's fun to dream.
It's also fun to dream that vaporware may one day not be the staple feature of Slashdot. I would love to see the day where I don't have to be so cynical about new products I see on Slashdot because I trust in its availability. Like the man said... it's fun to dream.
No, no, no... As anyone can clearly see, that Te is an acronym for test engineering. So get off kdawson's back. We should appreciate his masterful skill at creating what's on the surface a fairly obvious typo, but in reality is a clever reference to the field that the article discusse.
Hessen, and the rest of the Germany too, listen up! Pardon my German, but... DAS ELEKTRONISCHE WAHLEN IST SCHLECT!! Did you get that? Electronic voting is bad! I don't know how many discussions, lawsuits, and protests that blast e-voting's many shortcomings it is going to take before they become what they should be, landfill fodder.
Seriously, at best they are a waste of money. At worst, and probably most likely, they add all sorts of new vectors for corruption in a process that is inherently corrupt. Listen, most sane people realize that instant election results are not worth the dangers involved with excessive automation of the process. Keep to Occam's razor. The simpler the system the better. Pen and paper are ideal, but a punch card system is a fair choice as well.
All the arguments are hashed and tired. There's no sensible reason to move to electronic voting. It doesn't magically increase turn-out. It's expensive. I needn't go on. However, if anyone on the elections board or whatever decisional authority over elections is reading this, this is a good starting point for comprehending the e-voting situation as it stands as a piece of the larger issue of elections in general.
Slashdot Mirror
I did read the article, I was responding to the parent's idea about creating a black hole. Realize it was all tongue in cheek.
Given that this experiment seems to back up hawking radiation, it's fairly reasonable to say that creating a black hole this small would not suck, but instead be pretty cool. Evaporation would take care of the black hole before it became a problem. Remember, that these experiments are still low energy, and low mass (very much so) when compared to natural occurences of black holes.
finally a sport where steroids wont help you!
I can see the doping scandals already... Loser: Check his inhaler! I know he's taking stimulants! Look on the inside of glasses I know he's got a hologram of Natalie Portman to keep him relaxed! HE SO CHEATED!!
Well since you and the mods have replied seriously to what was a light-hearted joke, I'll respond seriously to you. Having a potent strike capability that nigh instantaneous (as in a few hours) is pretty handy to have for merits that are obvious. I don't buy the whole satellite warfare line. Once we start blowing up satellites, then the orbitals become unusable. So barring a mad scientist destroy the world scenario, I don't believe satellite warfare is a real threat. It would be like poisoning a well that you drink from as well as the enemy.
Military expenditures are definitely out of whack, but I personally like reaping the benefits of having a high tech and very powerful military. You're mistaking interventionism and the one percent doctrine for keeping a well maintained military. The ideology behind the current military engagements we are involved in are harmful. Keeping our military in the lead isn't.
I'm all for strategic withdrawals from several places all over the world and a reduction of martial intervention, but just because we haven't had a serious threat to American soil since the Soviet Union doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Military spending is good when done properly.
By the way, don't buy the administration bull. Terrorism is the great boogeyman of the twenty first century. First it was the jews, then the communists, now it's the terrorists. Don't buy into that line of thinking, for all of our sakes.
I don't get it. If the government has a secret database of information on everyone in the world, including enemy personnel, and they have black, stealth helicopters waiting to attack anywhere in the world at a moment's notice, why all the nonsense about hypersonic attack craft?
It's a little different when you're bailing out Goldman Sachs, which doesn't have an 800 lb gorilla of monopoly on its back like AMD does. Bailing out banks for insane lending creates moral hazard and positively reinforces bad behavior. Investing in AMD doesn't. It promotes competition and a more efficient market.
All those differentiations you speak about will suffer if there is only one manufacturer. And we all know how well the government busts up monopolies, so if you have any vested interest in CPU's, support AMD.
Please do tell how promoting an actual market is a misguided sense of "econ-101." Note I was speaking about the specific AMD situation when making my argument. I'm not here to argue if all things are equal between the two, just that having AMD around is important.
you will still have the option to choose the CPU.
Exactly, buying something at the lowest price now != being a rational actor in a market economy. It's the line of thinking that the only cost associated with doing business is the one I see right in front of me that has led to the credit crunch, the negative savings rate, and just about every other economic problem we have now. If we could please just squash that now, we would all be a lot better off. You save a few bucks now by going with a cheaper product, but if you depend on an industry long term, it's in your best interest to promote a diverse and competitive playing field. Intel has basically been a monopoly for forever. I buy AMD whenever I reasonably can. I know expecting people to make informed economic decisions is probably a fantasy, but we could really use it.
If I remember correctly, math as well as NIMBY's contributed to the Concorde's poor effect on the environment. People weren't too keen on having sonic booms regularly occur over their neighborhoods as widespread commercial adoption occured, so Concorde flights had to take care to avoid disturbing high population areas. Any gains that this plan makes in engine efficiency will probably be offset by having to reconfigure flight plans from the most efficient to the least bothersome for residents.
I just don't think there is a commercial viability for supersonic flight. The need to decrease flight times from 20 hours to 5 hours is just not enough of an incentive to cover all the associated investments and pitfalls of implementation.
The Universal Service Fund is evidence enough for you. Billions of dollars of subsidies wasted as windfalls to stockholders. Your lack of faith is wise, and it's only being supported by the new broadband plan laid out by the president.
It would be nice to have a perfectly efficient method of coercion to force ISP's to actually spend their subsidies on broadband penetration, but no one in power seems to be interested. It's the same story as IPv6 up to now. ICANN seems to be taking the lead finally. Hopefully someone will follow suit in the broadband arena.
Not to say that I had high hopes anyways, and maybe I haven't been here long enough (c. 2005), but this the most dissapointing interview I've seen. There is so little content to each answer. This has just reinforced to me that the whole of Ron Paul's plan has evolved to little more than shouting "THE CONSTITUTION" and "LESS GOVERNMENT" every chance he gets. He was actually the only one that I figured would respond, as his base is most active on the web. I had hope for him. But now, I really feel a no response would have been better.
Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
So what? How does that translate into policy?! He espouses "straight answers" and then gives a completely ambgiuous one in the same interview.
Most of this stuff just seems to be flat out obvious. Granted, I've only read the abstract (which was just plain incoherent, if you ask me) and skimmed the actual patent. I fail to see anything of merit. It sets out a broad, nebulous set of rules that could be interpreted to be any number of things. I imagine that when this was filed the patent office had dummy mode set irrevocably on, a al BOFH.
This is a particularly bad patent, and kudos to the EFF. As we all know, small strokes fell mighty oaks.
So, basically the whole book is a scam to educate a user enough to where they think they need security software ($ymantec), but not enough to where they can actually understand that throwing money at the problem of security doesn't make it go away. Safe practice is the only way. Using reliable systems, ie Linux, helps, but still it comes down to being educated.
All in all, I'm gonna go ahead and call this a worthless read.
Outperforming human soldiers in their ethical capacity is not a lofty goal. Look up Unit 731 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
That being said, the problem that this treatise tries to address is not one confined to the battlefield. It's much broader. The battlefield consequences of AI agents are just that, consequences. They come about as a result as the much larger question of creating an artificial intelligence that has an acceptable level of ethics for use in the real world. I'm assuming here that we're talking about AI soldiers making decisions on their own and not based on direct instructions from a human. So, without an overarching set of ethical principles that AI can adhere to in general, battlefield protocols are irrelevant. This compounded by the fact that at the core, there are still humans at the helm. We all know how well international regulations against war hold up in the real world. Battlefield protocols and regulations exist to give the illusion of the rule of law to what is an otherwise savage and immoral exercise. It's cool that someone is thinking ahead about the ethical implications, though.
Personally, I am very wary of the consequences a move to AI armies will have on the readiness of nations to go to war. War is not good. The fact that one of our first concerns with a new technology is how to implement this best on the battlefield is proof enough that AI agents will have very little trouble "outperforming" their human counterparts.
I'm no math whiz. But it seems a leap in the laws of physics for these systems to squeeze the required power out of their existing infrastructures without some tradeoffs.
STFU n00b!! You are totally not "teh mAd mAth haXXor." Your journalism sucks. We know power and all the 802.11 standards... so STEP OFF!! n00b!!
This past November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking in earnest at Europe's cultural products and heritage as an engine for economic growth.
/.er's have for discussing culture and IP economics I think a few might suffer through it :)
I came acrossthis video the other day. It talks about the economics of culture. I found it thought provoking and figure it will add to the discussion.
Disclaimer: the lecturer is an Austrian School follower and the talk was held by the von Mises Insitution, so most people, including myself, will disagree with a lot of points. Also, it is long, but given the dedication
Only this time it's between Mexican scammers and Nigerian ones. For years Nigerian scammers have exercised hegemony in the arena, but now Mexican scammers have upped the ante with this "pharming gap." This can only lead to a scams arms race with other nations as proxies and victims of the complex maneuvering of the two camps. As a helpless American I don't know how long I can stand being the play thing of two foreign powers duking it out for hegemony.
By the way I'm rooting for the Nigerians in this grand campaign, at least their scams provide a laugh once and awhile.
Use encryption if you want safety. But you still can't prevent the people who have legitimate access from doing whatever they want to the documents.
Unless, and I think this is what he is after, you hire a group of armed commandos/Stallman look-a-likes (to keep it open source) to detail every end user of your media. With a gun to the head... making decisions about media becomes much more serious business.
Open Source Stallman Commando: Don't even think about putting that in your shared folder! If this ends up on bittorrent, it's a 7.62mm round right to the groin!!!
User: Oh my god... please don't kill me... (gets hit with the butt of the commando's rifle)
Commando: One more word and I swear I pull the trigger!
I'm not sure, but that may be the most workable DRM solution anyone has ever come up with.
Brilliant! I mean we have more computers nowadays! Computers everywhere means easier everything! That's some solid logic! Never mind the political atmosphere, what with its shoe string budgets and extreme shifts in public opinion. Never mind that there is no immediate, short term goal to be accomplished by expanding space travel. The fact that people haven't been truly interested in the long term benefits or concerned at all, really, with space exploration is completely irrelevant when compared to the amount of stuff we have today. I mean look at them!! THEY ARE COMPUTERS!! THEY FIX EVERYTHING MAGICALLY!!!
At first I thought you were just being a jerk, but then the you dropped the moon landing hoax line at the end. That's when I knew you had it going on! Right on bro! Keeping your ambivalence up in the face of overwhelming fact... that's where it's at!
The last time I followed advice from a cookbook I ended up in prison for three years. Anarchist's, Linux Networking... I don't care I'll never touch another cookbook again!
There's an easy way to game the system and get it to read out that you are functioning at near infinite productivity. The system is set to handle all motions that resemble throwing a chair as super-productive. I hear it is a zeroday that has to do with the model they used for peak effeciency.
Bundling software has been the source of the EU's complaints against MS. The only way to fight bundling is to inform the consumer that they have choices. Until the average consumer understands that there are other programs outside the suite that Microsoft offers, there will be no real competition. Power users are not in the majority. The people that know what vlc, foobar, opera, etc. are are not in the majority. Firefox has proven that is possible to break out and actually compete with MS products, but they had to establish name recognition with consumers. The standard windows package with WMP and IE will cotntinue to strangle the market until people become vaguely familiar with the fact that their are options. It wouldn't hurt for people understand open source support and how it contrasts with closed source support, but that's probably an unattainable dream. However, Firefox has proven that when the stars align, there is a market for non-MS products.
Education is, as always, the great equalizer. It's the only thing that can make a market actually work.
As with all things cool, Spurs is not yet available to consumers, and may never actually come to market. But it's fun to dream.
It's also fun to dream that vaporware may one day not be the staple feature of Slashdot. I would love to see the day where I don't have to be so cynical about new products I see on Slashdot because I trust in its availability. Like the man said... it's fun to dream.
No, no, no... As anyone can clearly see, that Te is an acronym for test engineering. So get off kdawson's back. We should appreciate his masterful skill at creating what's on the surface a fairly obvious typo, but in reality is a clever reference to the field that the article discusse.
Hessen, and the rest of the Germany too, listen up! Pardon my German, but... DAS ELEKTRONISCHE WAHLEN IST SCHLECT!! Did you get that? Electronic voting is bad! I don't know how many discussions, lawsuits, and protests that blast e-voting's many shortcomings it is going to take before they become what they should be, landfill fodder.
Seriously, at best they are a waste of money. At worst, and probably most likely, they add all sorts of new vectors for corruption in a process that is inherently corrupt. Listen, most sane people realize that instant election results are not worth the dangers involved with excessive automation of the process. Keep to Occam's razor. The simpler the system the better. Pen and paper are ideal, but a punch card system is a fair choice as well.
All the arguments are hashed and tired. There's no sensible reason to move to electronic voting. It doesn't magically increase turn-out. It's expensive. I needn't go on. However, if anyone on the elections board or whatever decisional authority over elections is reading this, this is a good starting point for comprehending the e-voting situation as it stands as a piece of the larger issue of elections in general.
SAGEN SIE NICHT ZUM ELEKTRONISCHEN WÄHLEN!!