Uploading one's consciousness is a post-Singularity idea. Post-Singularity, the living exist only at the whim of, well, whoever "won" the Singularity: AI or uploaded consciousness.
For the high UIDs in the room, GPP was quoting a Kansas song:
Now, don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky It slips away And all your money won't another minute buy Dust in the wind All we are is dust in the wind
It's more of a philosophical statement than a practical one: entropy is going to win in the end.
, but like extending strategies which reduce chances for procreation tend to be selected against...naturally.
Unless you take the path many insects do, where most individuals aren't involved in procreation: there's just a queen, and a few males kept around for the purpose. Bizarrely, this is how naked mole rates work - they have an insect hive, complete with drones and massive queen.
They likely didn't ask the guy who wrote the code.
It always amazes me, as a dev, the bizarre idea in gaming that "the devs" actually have a 100% correct understanding of how the code works. Very rare, in my experience.
Not just some other competitor, but several people in the speed running scene reviewing that work. The code is simple enough to understand fully (the ROMs were quite small, and this game was simple even by 2600 standards), and everything that can happen frame-by-frame has been reduced to a spreadsheet.
The problem isn't how much the rich consumes, it's how little. They can't drive an economy by themselves. But they want the power to get anything they want whenever they want it and for nothing in return (unless you count being born rich something).
Well, my point was that, in terms of goods and services, the rich don't matter much in terms of overall consumption. Sure, the richest 0.01% may have 3x or even 10x as many cars or houses as most people, but that's trivial in the scheme of things. I think you're agreeing with that part?
So, let's imagine the rich take their robots and go off to an island (or gulch) somewhere. Do you think that destroys the economy? Or do you think everyone else still forms an economy? I forsee the latter. Everyone still needs to eat, so someone will be growing that food. Everyone still needs clothes, so someone will be making those. Ultimately, that's what an economy is: everyone working to produce what everyone consumes. And we always manage to consume enough to keep everyone producing - I don't see that part changing.
Above all they don't want people by and large to have enough to live comfortably because if that ever happens then they lose most of their power.
That's just Marxist BS. Buffet and Gates and Bezos were never driven by power, nor do they have all that much of it. People with a lust for power tend to go into government, where we pretend they have power. People with vast inherited wealth (which is a tiny amount in the US compared to Europe) mostly want to protect their position - they exercise power to protect their wealth, they don't deplete their wealth to protect their power.
Ada sucked balls. It required 2 to 3 times the lines of code to match C. It was very inefficient.
Ada was "C for a life-safety domain". It really wasn't any more code than you'd need to do C right for that domain, and it regularized a bunch of stuff to make it easier to review. E.g., when you declared an int you'd declare the legal range of values for that int. Assuming the int was an array index, this neatly solved all the bounds-checking problems in a way that made it obvious what to review. Everything in the language is like that. Sure, it's a real pain in the ass, but that was going to be true however you did it. Don't like it, don't write ABS controllers or avionics.
Of course, using Ada outside of that domain, as some sort of general-purpose language, would have been nuts.
slot machines make it hard to open with out setting off an alert so why do AMT have less of that stuff?
The security in an ATM is mostly focused on protecting the cash box from physical attack, and from the maintenance tech. ATMs thus have two layers of security: something simple to allow maintenance of the "computer parts" of the ATM to be done cheaply, plus a much more robust inner layer to protect the cash from anyone but the guards from the armored car company. It's just old-school thinking about security.
It's also worth noting that there are still people who can open a slot machine, replace the ROM chip or whatever, and close the machine up again in a handful of seconds, before the alarm sounds. Sure, it's easier to update the FW on an ATM than a slot machine, but that only somewhat increases the time the attacker has before someone notices.
The Multi-purpose OS's has way too much stuff enabled by default. Allowing for possibilities of breaking in.
You're talking out of your ass. None of the jackpotting attacks have anything to do with the OS.
The normal attack involves updating the firmware on the machine via a USB port, which is protected only by a key that is common across many ATMs. The attacker gets the key, opens the service panel on the ATM, and inserts the USB drive containing the new (unsigned) firmware. At no point is the OS involved.
Many ATMs are also vulnerable to remote attack - they are typically on dial-up for remote maintenance: guess the phone number of the ATM and you have only flimsy security to overcome (e.g., hard-coded common password) to update the FW remotely. Again, nothing to do with the OS.
The attack surface of an ATM has nothing to do with the attack surface of a server on the internet.
Being able to live comfortably without risk off the things you own does.
Everyone who is retired has some way to live without working. For most Americans it's a mix of personal wealth and government aid, and as company pensions and expectation for SS fade, saving enough to retire on has become the majority expectation.
It's worth noting that today we're far from a significant percentage of Americans being able to live off of ownership of companies - public corporations just don't earn that much (less than 10% of total US salary). But of course increasing automation will change that ratio.
You misunderstand the history here: think in terms of "distribution of goods and services", not "distribution of abstract money". The very rich don't eat more than the average American, for example, but pre-100-years-ago that was different, as there wasn't enough food to go around. The farther back you go, the bigger the difference in the nutrition available by social class. Human nature didn't change; instead, food became plentiful. Same for everything else as automation accelerates.
The means of production should be owned by those who are good at making decisions about it. As automation becomes plentiful, that might just be the consumer.
Think about this: the lower the capital cost for automation (the lower the cost of a single robot or assembly line), the lower the barrier of entry. Today, anyone can join the "owning class" by buying stock, and most Americans own stock. Tomorrow we may remove that layer of indirection, with most Americans owning the robots in-house.
Not needing humans to toil in mindless repetitive jobs in order to make all the cool stuff we want is only a good thing. Luddites need to GTFO Slashdot and find an anti-technology website somewhere.
You forgot to close your [/hipster] tag. Most fans, including me, have read both by now. It's still mostly free-love hippie nonsense; heck, it even inspired a free-love hippie religion that's still going strong today (though not nearly so strong as Scientology).
As other's have said, tanstaafl is more common. Not to mention "moonbat". Outside of/. political commentary, "waterbed" was probably the most-used Heinlein term, though that fad has passed (also, the various versions of the song The Moon is a Harsh Mistress on YouTube have over a million views, which is something for a non-pop song from the 70s - the song may have been more widely known in its day than the book the title was taken from).
Hollywood is pathologically incapable of making a movie that conveys a conservative message. I doubt we will ever see a faithful interpretation of any golden age Heinlein novel.
Hollywood could almost make Stranger. It's mostly hippie nonsense after all. I say almost because they'd never convey how Heinlein despised new reporters - literal "newsclowns",
Musk is doing this to drum up PR to get investors to keep buying stock in his companies which are unable to subsist on their own without the public dole.
"Don't split the party" is good advice in general. Heck, even Two Towers suffered from it, though Tolkien somehow gets away way defying most narrative conventions. What ever made the writers think the right way to do an ensemble cast movie way to have all these separate sub-plots? Heck, that was the glaring flaw in Empire.
Any candidate colonists has to pass tests to ensure that they are healthy and don't carry genetic diseases that can pose a problem. They also have to be mentally stable.
The British did this experiment where they just seeded an isolated colony with random criminals. Turned out OK.
True, but then it's only a matter of time before Netflix, Amazon, etc. are the big studios. Sadly, I think they'll find their own ways to incentivize critics.
The Last Jedi was also a messy turd of a movie, full of plot inconsistencies, characters doing things that make zero sense in order to create audience surprises, entire sequences that contribute nothing to the plot, mixed messages, and so on.
The worst part is: they could have had all the same twists and audience surprises in a great movie, had they better writing. I like the fact that Luke has changed since we last saw him, but they didn't, motivate the change. I'm even OK with the complete non-mystery of Snoke and of Rey's parents, as an Andy Kaufman-style troll on the millions of fan theories.
I really like the fact that Disney finally took some chances with some of these characters. It's a damn shame that the writing was so bad when they did, as now future SW movies may retreat back to "same story, new actors". Bleh.
Slashdot Mirror
When everyone you see is insane, look in a mirror.
There's nothing groundbreaking in them aside from their paws.
Well played, sir.
Uploading one's consciousness is a post-Singularity idea. Post-Singularity, the living exist only at the whim of, well, whoever "won" the Singularity: AI or uploaded consciousness.
For the high UIDs in the room, GPP was quoting a Kansas song:
Now, don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away
And all your money won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
It's more of a philosophical statement than a practical one: entropy is going to win in the end.
, but like extending strategies which reduce chances for procreation tend to be selected against...naturally.
Unless you take the path many insects do, where most individuals aren't involved in procreation: there's just a queen, and a few males kept around for the purpose. Bizarrely, this is how naked mole rates work - they have an insect hive, complete with drones and massive queen.
They likely didn't ask the guy who wrote the code.
It always amazes me, as a dev, the bizarre idea in gaming that "the devs" actually have a 100% correct understanding of how the code works. Very rare, in my experience.
Not just some other competitor, but several people in the speed running scene reviewing that work. The code is simple enough to understand fully (the ROMs were quite small, and this game was simple even by 2600 standards), and everything that can happen frame-by-frame has been reduced to a spreadsheet.
The problem isn't how much the rich consumes, it's how little. They can't drive an economy by themselves. But they want the power to get anything they want whenever they want it and for nothing in return (unless you count being born rich something).
Well, my point was that, in terms of goods and services, the rich don't matter much in terms of overall consumption. Sure, the richest 0.01% may have 3x or even 10x as many cars or houses as most people, but that's trivial in the scheme of things. I think you're agreeing with that part?
So, let's imagine the rich take their robots and go off to an island (or gulch) somewhere. Do you think that destroys the economy? Or do you think everyone else still forms an economy? I forsee the latter. Everyone still needs to eat, so someone will be growing that food. Everyone still needs clothes, so someone will be making those. Ultimately, that's what an economy is: everyone working to produce what everyone consumes. And we always manage to consume enough to keep everyone producing - I don't see that part changing.
Above all they don't want people by and large to have enough to live comfortably because if that ever happens then they lose most of their power.
That's just Marxist BS. Buffet and Gates and Bezos were never driven by power, nor do they have all that much of it. People with a lust for power tend to go into government, where we pretend they have power. People with vast inherited wealth (which is a tiny amount in the US compared to Europe) mostly want to protect their position - they exercise power to protect their wealth, they don't deplete their wealth to protect their power.
Awesome - complete with a BSD first post, and troll posts exploiting the page-widening bug.
Culprits are Romanians.... they are filthy animals.
Found the Bulgarian.
Ada sucked balls. It required 2 to 3 times the lines of code to match C. It was very inefficient.
Ada was "C for a life-safety domain". It really wasn't any more code than you'd need to do C right for that domain, and it regularized a bunch of stuff to make it easier to review. E.g., when you declared an int you'd declare the legal range of values for that int. Assuming the int was an array index, this neatly solved all the bounds-checking problems in a way that made it obvious what to review. Everything in the language is like that. Sure, it's a real pain in the ass, but that was going to be true however you did it. Don't like it, don't write ABS controllers or avionics.
Of course, using Ada outside of that domain, as some sort of general-purpose language, would have been nuts.
slot machines make it hard to open with out setting off an alert so why do AMT have less of that stuff?
The security in an ATM is mostly focused on protecting the cash box from physical attack, and from the maintenance tech. ATMs thus have two layers of security: something simple to allow maintenance of the "computer parts" of the ATM to be done cheaply, plus a much more robust inner layer to protect the cash from anyone but the guards from the armored car company. It's just old-school thinking about security.
It's also worth noting that there are still people who can open a slot machine, replace the ROM chip or whatever, and close the machine up again in a handful of seconds, before the alarm sounds. Sure, it's easier to update the FW on an ATM than a slot machine, but that only somewhat increases the time the attacker has before someone notices.
The Multi-purpose OS's has way too much stuff enabled by default. Allowing for possibilities of breaking in.
You're talking out of your ass. None of the jackpotting attacks have anything to do with the OS.
The normal attack involves updating the firmware on the machine via a USB port, which is protected only by a key that is common across many ATMs. The attacker gets the key, opens the service panel on the ATM, and inserts the USB drive containing the new (unsigned) firmware. At no point is the OS involved.
Many ATMs are also vulnerable to remote attack - they are typically on dial-up for remote maintenance: guess the phone number of the ATM and you have only flimsy security to overcome (e.g., hard-coded common password) to update the FW remotely. Again, nothing to do with the OS.
The attack surface of an ATM has nothing to do with the attack surface of a server on the internet.
Being able to live comfortably without risk off the things you own does.
Everyone who is retired has some way to live without working. For most Americans it's a mix of personal wealth and government aid, and as company pensions and expectation for SS fade, saving enough to retire on has become the majority expectation.
It's worth noting that today we're far from a significant percentage of Americans being able to live off of ownership of companies - public corporations just don't earn that much (less than 10% of total US salary). But of course increasing automation will change that ratio.
You misunderstand the history here: think in terms of "distribution of goods and services", not "distribution of abstract money". The very rich don't eat more than the average American, for example, but pre-100-years-ago that was different, as there wasn't enough food to go around. The farther back you go, the bigger the difference in the nutrition available by social class. Human nature didn't change; instead, food became plentiful. Same for everything else as automation accelerates.
The means of production should be owned by those who are good at making decisions about it. As automation becomes plentiful, that might just be the consumer.
Class warfare is very last-century.
Think about this: the lower the capital cost for automation (the lower the cost of a single robot or assembly line), the lower the barrier of entry. Today, anyone can join the "owning class" by buying stock, and most Americans own stock. Tomorrow we may remove that layer of indirection, with most Americans owning the robots in-house.
Not needing humans to toil in mindless repetitive jobs in order to make all the cool stuff we want is only a good thing. Luddites need to GTFO Slashdot and find an anti-technology website somewhere.
. I suspect it's because the teachers' unions are anti-Republican that the Republicans are so deliberately destructive when it comes to education.
It's debatable whether teachers' unions help teachers, but they are certainly the enemy of students.
You forgot to close your [/hipster] tag. Most fans, including me, have read both by now. It's still mostly free-love hippie nonsense; heck, it even inspired a free-love hippie religion that's still going strong today (though not nearly so strong as Scientology).
As other's have said, tanstaafl is more common. Not to mention "moonbat". Outside of /. political commentary, "waterbed" was probably the most-used Heinlein term, though that fad has passed (also, the various versions of the song The Moon is a Harsh Mistress on YouTube have over a million views, which is something for a non-pop song from the 70s - the song may have been more widely known in its day than the book the title was taken from).
Hollywood is pathologically incapable of making a movie that conveys a conservative message. I doubt we will ever see a faithful interpretation of any golden age Heinlein novel.
Hollywood could almost make Stranger. It's mostly hippie nonsense after all. I say almost because they'd never convey how Heinlein despised new reporters - literal "newsclowns",
Musk is doing this to drum up PR to get investors to keep buying stock in his companies which are unable to subsist on their own without the public dole.
As opposed to GM?
"Don't split the party" is good advice in general. Heck, even Two Towers suffered from it, though Tolkien somehow gets away way defying most narrative conventions. What ever made the writers think the right way to do an ensemble cast movie way to have all these separate sub-plots? Heck, that was the glaring flaw in Empire.
That sheep is a liar!
Any candidate colonists has to pass tests to ensure that they are healthy and don't carry genetic diseases that can pose a problem. They also have to be mentally stable.
The British did this experiment where they just seeded an isolated colony with random criminals. Turned out OK.
True, but then it's only a matter of time before Netflix, Amazon, etc. are the big studios. Sadly, I think they'll find their own ways to incentivize critics.
The Last Jedi was also a messy turd of a movie, full of plot inconsistencies, characters doing things that make zero sense in order to create audience surprises, entire sequences that contribute nothing to the plot, mixed messages, and so on.
The worst part is: they could have had all the same twists and audience surprises in a great movie, had they better writing. I like the fact that Luke has changed since we last saw him, but they didn't, motivate the change. I'm even OK with the complete non-mystery of Snoke and of Rey's parents, as an Andy Kaufman-style troll on the millions of fan theories.
I really like the fact that Disney finally took some chances with some of these characters. It's a damn shame that the writing was so bad when they did, as now future SW movies may retreat back to "same story, new actors". Bleh.