> It's like you're floating in the ocean, then when the coast guard throws you a life preserver you refuse to grab onto it, expecting to be rescued some other way, then curse the coast guard for allowing you to drown.
Well in defense of the people refusing to be saved by your coast guard, he is the same guy that created that ocean and threw those people in it in the first place. He shouldn't be surprised when people notice how he's screwing with them and think drowning is a small price to pay for ones dignity.
Why do you value humanity instead of humans? BOOM the asteroid strikes, 9 billion earthlings are now dead, but luckily for humanity, there are 500 humans left on mars! Sure, they're alone, cut of from their home planet, from millions of years of history and culture... many tribes in less developed country won't be represented among those few hundred, and will be lost forever. Depending on the state of terraforming (if any), our martians may be permanently stuck in domes, now that over 99.99999% percent of the humans are dead, science is unlikely to advance very fast so they're going to be stuck like this for a very long time.
What is left? A few primates on a hostile planet, alone. What have we lost? Everything else.
But at least *humanity* survives!
Screw the colonization of Mars, let's invest in Earth-destroying-asteroid detection and prevention.
I don't think it's a fair comparison, really. The only reason modern games look so pretty is because they have the GPU that happens to be designed to help them out. If companies had been designing GPUs to do raytracing for over a decade, it seems rather likely to me that we could do raytracing at modern resolutions.
Wouldn't it be more fair to compare raytracing to rasterization when you're only allowed to use the CPU?
I doubt I could calculate the square root of a two-digit prime in my head up to 5 decimal places when completely sober:/
It's not that I couldn't calculate a square root (give me a pen and some paper and I'll manage), it's just that I can't keep so many numbers in my head...
Actually it's quite impossible. Bruce Schneier wrote some nice stuff about it http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html Search for the phrase "One of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that a certain amount of energy is necessary to represent information." and read from there.
Summary: assume we have an ideal computer that requires the smallest possible amount of energy to change a bit, then by using ALL the energy released by a supernova, we could count to 2^219.
We won't be able to count to 2^256 for the forseeable future, so there won't be any brute-forcing AES for the forseeabel future either.
It's more often than one would expect. If I walked around handing out free cash, and 49% of people refused it (that is, less than 'may be called often' according to you), that is still much more often than most people would expected.
Finding bugs could be considered a job. If 10 to 15% of people don't expect to be paid for their work, wouldn't you agree that's significantly more than expected?
You are aware of the fact that you can't actually count to 2^256, no matter how many acres of computers you have? If they are able to crack 256-bit AES, it would be because they found some usable weakness in the algorithm, in which case we have no idea how much computing power is required, and maybe an ordinary computer will do.
I like to think they use those acres to play raytraced Crysis.
If the state puts someone in a situation where such a thing is very likely to happen, they might as well be. If I threw you in a cage full of rabid dogs I would still be responsible for your horrible injuries and/or death even though I did none of the biting.
> Serial killers don't have the capability of figuring out right and wrong. They don't have a conscience. They have aggression with no off switch. They have no empathy to tell them to stop. They have no ability to control their impulses to tell them to stop. Most people either have empathy or impulse control, a serial killer has neither.
Of course a serial killer has impulse control! If they didn't have it, they wouldn't have a chance to become a *serial* killer in the first place. Wouldn't you agree that someone who runs around on the street swinging a bloody axe killing people is unlikely to elude the police for months/years/decades?
I think being able to kill several, sometimes dozens of people without anybody tracing those murders back to you shows such a person is anything but impulsive.
I don't think you understand serial killers at all.
Slashdot Mirror
In soviet anthropomorphia, wikipedia reads you!
> Machines can't think, people, and they never will unless a chemistry-based computer is invented.
Why do you think only chemicals can think? Wouldn't a computer running a simulation of a biological brain be indistinguishable from the 'real thing'?
> How many beads do I have to put on my abacus to make it sentient?
How many dumb neurons do I have to put in a jar to make them sentient?
> I'm not even sure how one would "break" the condom on purpose while its in use.
Why that's easy, you just slightly flex your barbs and they'll shred it from within.
I can't help but think '... PUNCH!' at the end of your posts, and imagine you striking down those who disagree with you.
> It's like you're floating in the ocean, then when the coast guard throws you a life preserver you refuse to grab onto it, expecting to be rescued some other way, then curse the coast guard for allowing you to drown.
Well in defense of the people refusing to be saved by your coast guard, he is the same guy that created that ocean and threw those people in it in the first place. He shouldn't be surprised when people notice how he's screwing with them and think drowning is a small price to pay for ones dignity.
Why do you value humanity instead of humans? BOOM the asteroid strikes, 9 billion earthlings are now dead, but luckily for humanity, there are 500 humans left on mars! Sure, they're alone, cut of from their home planet, from millions of years of history and culture... many tribes in less developed country won't be represented among those few hundred, and will be lost forever. Depending on the state of terraforming (if any), our martians may be permanently stuck in domes, now that over 99.99999% percent of the humans are dead, science is unlikely to advance very fast so they're going to be stuck like this for a very long time.
What is left? A few primates on a hostile planet, alone.
What have we lost? Everything else.
But at least *humanity* survives!
Screw the colonization of Mars, let's invest in Earth-destroying-asteroid detection and prevention.
I don't think it's a fair comparison, really. The only reason modern games look so pretty is because they have the GPU that happens to be designed to help them out. If companies had been designing GPUs to do raytracing for over a decade, it seems rather likely to me that we could do raytracing at modern resolutions.
Wouldn't it be more fair to compare raytracing to rasterization when you're only allowed to use the CPU?
oO You wouldn't survive for 5 minutes in Europe...
I doubt I could calculate the square root of a two-digit prime in my head up to 5 decimal places when completely sober :/
It's not that I couldn't calculate a square root (give me a pen and some paper and I'll manage), it's just that I can't keep so many numbers in my head...
You will never completely own that pen because you aren't allowed to stab people to death with it.
Actually it's quite impossible. Bruce Schneier wrote some nice stuff about it http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html Search for the phrase "One of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that a certain amount of energy is necessary to represent information." and read from there.
Summary: assume we have an ideal computer that requires the smallest possible amount of energy to change a bit, then by using ALL the energy released by a supernova, we could count to 2^219.
We won't be able to count to 2^256 for the forseeable future, so there won't be any brute-forcing AES for the forseeabel future either.
Source please. AFAIK the US government thinks 256 bits AES is enough for highly sensitive stuff. Perhaps you are thinking about RSA?
I think most slashdotters would like some tail.
It's more often than one would expect. If I walked around handing out free cash, and 49% of people refused it (that is, less than 'may be called often' according to you), that is still much more often than most people would expected.
Finding bugs could be considered a job. If 10 to 15% of people don't expect to be paid for their work, wouldn't you agree that's significantly more than expected?
You are aware of the fact that you can't actually count to 2^256, no matter how many acres of computers you have? If they are able to crack 256-bit AES, it would be because they found some usable weakness in the algorithm, in which case we have no idea how much computing power is required, and maybe an ordinary computer will do.
I like to think they use those acres to play raytraced Crysis.
He started a war? Amazing, I didn't know he had his own country.
He said 'should be', idiot.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to anonymously subscribe to your newsletter.
If the state puts someone in a situation where such a thing is very likely to happen, they might as well be. If I threw you in a cage full of rabid dogs I would still be responsible for your horrible injuries and/or death even though I did none of the biting.
> What this fellow did sure looks and smells like rape, which is exactly what someone who committed such an act deserves to have commmitted upon them.
An eye for an eye, really? How barbaric. Also I'm quite sure that rape qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.
Indeed, this would barely motivate them to kill their victims at all!
Because people would totally not throw money-wrapped grenades at people they don't like and claim self-defense later.
I take it where you live, nobody ever gets drunk, right?
A lot of things have changed in science since 1923. Could you enlighten us with a more recent article, preferably from after the second world war?
> Serial killers don't have the capability of figuring out right and wrong. They don't have a conscience. They have aggression with no off switch. They have no empathy to tell them to stop. They have no ability to control their impulses to tell them to stop. Most people either have empathy or impulse control, a serial killer has neither.
Of course a serial killer has impulse control! If they didn't have it, they wouldn't have a chance to become a *serial* killer in the first place. Wouldn't you agree that someone who runs around on the street swinging a bloody axe killing people is unlikely to elude the police for months/years/decades?
I think being able to kill several, sometimes dozens of people without anybody tracing those murders back to you shows such a person is anything but impulsive.
I don't think you understand serial killers at all.
You mean there were no users among those 4 million that came from a country where the pirate bay is not considered criminal?