"I'd based 20,000 years on the assumption that there are things like planet-scale distasters that a race cannot avoid"
But a sufficiently advanced, intelligent, space faring race could conceivably avoid or prevent a race-level extinction event like metetors, supernovae, etc. Which is why I suggest that a civilization advanced (and Galactically widespread) enough would have NO upper limit on their "lifespan" as a species... excepting perhaps methodical genocide by another equally advanced civilization.
Our Galaxy has 100 billion stars... assuming we are not unique, there should be plenty of life out there. It's hard to predict how likely intelligent life is. Perhaps it's almost impossible, or perhaps it's practically inevitable.. who knows? I imagine, as with most things, that it is somewhere in between, in which case, there should probably be (at very least) thousands of other intelligent races out there, and I would think SOME of them have established interstellar colonization.
"but 20,000 years on the cosmic scale is a blink of the eye. Assuming that other races have similar 'lifespans'"...
But why DO you make this assumption? I rather cling to the idea that so long as we don't blow up the Earth before we start interstellar colonization, humans will be around indefinitely. Of course we could be obliterated in an interstellar war with a xenophobic alien civilization down the line, but I digress.
The fact that so much time has passed (IMO) makes it far MORE likely that we will run into some advanced race who has colonized a substantial fraction of the Galaxy over countless millenia. Who would stop the first race to become advanced enough to attempt this? Nobody, unless another race is reaching the same technological levels at essentially the exact same instant in Galactic history, which is such a low probability it is almost absurd. (Which is one thing in Star Trek and almost all other pop sci-fi that is entirely contrived and hard to swallow, but hey it makes for a good story setting)
You've been watching Contact, I've been reading Asimov.. does it show?;)
Wow! I had to double check I was still reading Slashdot! That was one sentance I NEVER thought I would read here... Let's take a brief trip down memory lane:
"The world probably won't ever need more than a half dozen computers or so to fulfill its computing needs."
Or how about,
"Computers will never need more that 640KB"
My point is, decades from now, even a petaflop will probably look tame.
I see a lot of people scoffing at the idea of making a fast computer on a plastic substrate. If you go to rolltronic's web site, and read their product info page, you will see that they don't talk about making a full blown computer anywhere. They talk mainly about display and memory applications. The one small paragraph they have about "Transistors, circuits and semiconductor devices" talks about tiny, flexible ID tags in packages, clothing, etc.
So before you go dismissing this technology, try checking out what they're really trying to do with it instead of buying the Cringely article.. which seems a bit on the sensationalist journalist side.
"the 'definitive' FPS's are Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament"
I don't know about this... I don't consider Q3 or UT to be definitive shooters at all. The definitive modern graphic engines maybe, but that was the whole point of their development and release, I always thought; to spend all the time making a great engine so that OTHERS could spend their time instead making great games... like Quake III engine has led to such beautiful games as FAKK2 and American McGee's Alice, because they didn't have to spend all their time writing a kickass graphics engine. I think we will see more of this in the future.. we live in an age of specialists.
"Valve focussed on playability, story, and fun in HL"
Absolutely... because they didn't have to write the engine from scratch... as others can now do with the Q3 and UT engines. I expect to see a lot of incredible games come out over the next year or two based on these (and other) engines.
"I like the fact that IBM push the ideas envelope"
Absolutely... IBM Research is one of the most fascinating sites out there, IMHO. They've really come a long way from the old calculator makers.
Only $5 more? I'll believe that when I see it.
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 1
I suspect this this is more like: "Only $5.00 more -- to MANUFACTURE" which of course will translate to a $20-$50 premium to the consumer. Still, if it does everything the article says it will, that's still not all THAT more expensive.
No kidding... it's been my experience that code is almost ALWAYS rewritten to jive better with the specific program environment.
The problem is that people tend to only code methods which are needed for their particular use of the object in question. And why shouldn't they? It makes for leaner code. It also makes for horrible reusability, because later when you try to the use the same object for a different application, you generally have to get under the hood and rip away at the guts to refashion it for YOUR use. This of course completely sidesteps the whole point of encapsulation and data hiding in the first place.
Sounds to me like he read a bunch of old marketing hype about OOP and decided to attack its validity. The problem of course is that ALL marketing hype is slanted and biased, but who believes that shit?
I don't know if compiler optimization will do anything.... a sub routine call is always going to be a sub routine call, which has always slowed down CPUs. In OOP-intensive code, practically EVERYTHING is sub routine calls (methods).
Here's a theory: Geeks are more aggressive mentally because they are unable or unwilling to be aggressive physically, so they are aggressive verbally (with no worry about retribution or consequences) and this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the number of articles on/. which touch on violent subject matter.
constant association between geekdom and violence
What are you smoking? If there is ONE THING geeks do NOT have a reputation for, it is violence.
Look at the way they flame as AC's on this site
And you are claiming this is a direct result of the violence content of articles on Slashdot??? That's the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. Socially immature individuals make moronic flame posts all over the internet every day. And guess what? I'm glad the internet is a place where they are free to do so, just as I am glad that Slashdot is free to post stories about anything the posters (who are quite certainly geeks, would you not say?) find interesting.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire
"HE not only produces horrible humor???" HE!? Monty Python is not a person, it is a comedy troupe! Obviously you know absolutely NOTHING about them, what makes you think you are a qualified judge of their humor?
As long as I'm here...
Obligatory (or at LEAST gratuitous) Spaceballs reference:
Quantum computers are reversible... Like my raincoat!
As the late Carl Sagan would have you know, there is a big difference between a million increased by four magnitudes and a billion... say nine billion.
One million = 1,000,000 = 1 x 10^6
One billion = 1,000,000,000 = 1 x 10^9
9 - 6 = 3
Where the hell did you get 4 from?? Figured the factor of 1,000 had four digits in it? Try and get your math right the next time you're being condenscending about numbers.
I don't think the system even needs to be hacked for it to fail miserably. Maybe my ISP can track me downloading a tagged MP3 from a web site, but can they track me sharing this file with my friends through a secure FTP connection? Or ICQ file transfer? Or IRC DCC? Or any of a million other proprietary direct client-to-client file transfer methods?
I had an idea a while ago about a way to make money off of free intellectual property distribution. What if all media was "GPL'd"? (or a derivative of) By this I mean that everyone is free to redistribute anything they like, and they are allowed to charge whatever they want for this distribution, but must pay a percentage of profits to the content producer. So for example, I could run an FTP site and charge 10 cents per MP3 people download, but I'd have to give 5 of those cents to the artist, say. To get this working you'd need a robust content tagging system, and a standard micropayment system, neither of which exists currently. Keeping track of hundreds or thousands of different artists and their works and paying them each according to download patterns would be no trivial task, but with enough work, completely automated systems could be built.
The beauty of this idea is that people WOULD charge money, for exactly the same reasons Red Hat is charging money for free software... because they themselves can turn a profit by distributing material. (And why shouldn't they?? They are providing a service by running an FTP site and allowing use of their bandwidth, which takes time and money.)
Of course the obvious problem is that some people WON'T charge money for it, because they can afford to give it away for free. Perhaps distributing without paying any royalties could be outlawed. Well, it's an idea anyway.
Speaking from experience, employees sometimes have their security clearance (keycards, network login, etc) revoked before being informed of their termination to reduce the risk of retribution to the company.
You're right... getting to Mars is not a question of travelling X kilometers from Earth and stopping, it's a matter of travelling that distance and matching speed with Mars at the end.
Still, calling all that math "completely, absolutely, and utterly wrong" is a bit harsh, IMHO. It's still just a question of finding two vectors, one for acceleration and one for decceleration, and the math presented here is at least a rough ballpark approximation of the G forces likely to be encountered, enough to show that humans won't be turned to mush by a two week trip to Mars.
Don't flatter yourself pal, this is just a discussion group, I reply because I'm bored and your made a good post which caught my attention because of a very subtle logic error. I'm sorry I called it a funny post, I only did this because it was moderated to a +1 Funny. That's what pissed you off enough to start slinging insults, wasn't it?
Anyway, I'm going to ignore all the attacks (mine and yours) and explain my point again, because I obviously didn't do so clearly enough the first time.
"If there is no need for guns in a gunless society then guns wouldn't have been brought into existence in the first place."
This particular statement is using circular reasoning. In a gunless society there IS no direct, tangible, immediate need for guns. What you say later about needing guns to compete against others is correct... but what about before competition? Back when there were no guns ANYWHERE? The very first guns were NOT created to equal out a disadvantage. They were NOT created because they were needed. That's needed, not wanted. Be very careful with those words.
The very fact that the Chinese invented gunpowder but were NOT the first to employ it as a weapon proves that a gunless society can survive quite fine without needing guns, even when the technology first became possible. They were created in Eurpope to kill people more efficiently, plain and simple. I suppose we could argue endlessly about whether this is neccessary, or only desirable.
Well, to paraphrase, the constitution says nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty or limb. You're saying that no authorities exist which strive to uphold this, and that everybody is on their own? I believe that is called anarchy.
Hmm... murder is illegal. So is accidental murder (manslaughter), so is attempted murder. So is assault. Last time I checked, they try and enforce these things, even if they (obviously) cannot prevent them before the fact.
I never said it was their job to physically defend every person. Protection can take many forms. Deterrence is one type, would you not agree?
No kidding? I thought we were talking about cucumbers. Sorry for the confusion. Always nice to be cleverly insulted by an anonymous coward though.
"It was necessary, for better or worse, because a refusal to develop more efficient weaponry meant extermination at the hands of other tribes."
And THIS is why guns are neccessary in contemporary American society? Because of the warlike chaos that dominated another continent half a millenium ago?
Times have changed, buddy. So take a deep breath, put your gun down, and try to relax. If the nasty tribes come for you, you can always lock your door.
You're right... we must make sure the public is just as dangerous as criminals so they can protect themselves. Grenades and assault rifles should be sold at convenience stores. Target practice, demolitions, and mortal combat should be taught in schools starting in Kindergarten, so our next generation of children "won't be at the mercy of the criminals".
Yes I am being simplistically extreme... but my point is that if you make the general populace more deadly, you ALSO make the criminal element more deadly. It is inevitable, and will only lead to more bloodshed.
It is the responsibility of the government through the police force and justice system to protect its citizens. If private citizens are afraid for their safety without being armed to the teeth, that is a truly sad (and frightening) state of affairs.
We have no Digital Millenium Copyright Act, for one. Napster would be far more protected under Canadian internet law (it satisfies the conditions to be considered a Service Provider, which means it would not be held liable for the actions of its users.) than in the States. Guess why OpenBSD is based out of Canada? American Cryptography laws.
We also have a Liberal government while you guys get to sweat under the Republican corporate lovin' yoke for the next four.
PS Bush stole the election by running down the clock. All the election showed was just how greedy and petty politicians really are.
Absolutely.. well put. Everyone is freaking out and saying this is the end of liberty, free speech and apple pie... what chicken-little (Katzian?;) baloney. This is one company bowing to pressure... and here is the important bit: NOT because they are being forced to, (they could simply withdraw their.fr site... France is only going after the part of Yahoo which is operating within their jurisdiction) but simply because they believe it's better business. There will always be places where nothing is banned, and there will also always be places like Yahoo who administer self censorship for the purposess of establishing a friendly, inoffensive public image and the widest possible target audience.
While it is true that it is almost impossible to write bug-free code in a complex system on the first try, what I meant by "write it properly" is to code the most efficient algorithm for the problem, put it appropriate error-checking code, and test and comment it thoroughly.
What I see all around me in today's world is second rate coders who hack together an inefficient piece of code until it works "just good enough", with no error checking and often without even completely understanding the ramifications or performance costs of the API functions or objects they are using. This leads directly to bloated, resource hogging, buggy software.
A properly written program is more flexible for future expansion and easier to debug and work with in general.
Slashdot Mirror
But a sufficiently advanced, intelligent, space faring race could conceivably avoid or prevent a race-level extinction event like metetors, supernovae, etc. Which is why I suggest that a civilization advanced (and Galactically widespread) enough would have NO upper limit on their "lifespan" as a species... excepting perhaps methodical genocide by another equally advanced civilization.
Our Galaxy has 100 billion stars... assuming we are not unique, there should be plenty of life out there. It's hard to predict how likely intelligent life is. Perhaps it's almost impossible, or perhaps it's practically inevitable.. who knows? I imagine, as with most things, that it is somewhere in between, in which case, there should probably be (at very least) thousands of other intelligent races out there, and I would think SOME of them have established interstellar colonization.
But why DO you make this assumption? I rather cling to the idea that so long as we don't blow up the Earth before we start interstellar colonization, humans will be around indefinitely. Of course we could be obliterated in an interstellar war with a xenophobic alien civilization down the line, but I digress.
The fact that so much time has passed (IMO) makes it far MORE likely that we will run into some advanced race who has colonized a substantial fraction of the Galaxy over countless millenia. Who would stop the first race to become advanced enough to attempt this? Nobody, unless another race is reaching the same technological levels at essentially the exact same instant in Galactic history, which is such a low probability it is almost absurd. (Which is one thing in Star Trek and almost all other pop sci-fi that is entirely contrived and hard to swallow, but hey it makes for a good story setting)
You've been watching Contact, I've been reading Asimov.. does it show? ;)
Wow! I had to double check I was still reading Slashdot! That was one sentance I NEVER thought I would read here... Let's take a brief trip down memory lane:
"The world probably won't ever need more than a half dozen computers or so to fulfill its computing needs."
Or how about,
"Computers will never need more that 640KB"
My point is, decades from now, even a petaflop will probably look tame.
So before you go dismissing this technology, try checking out what they're really trying to do with it instead of buying the Cringely article.. which seems a bit on the sensationalist journalist side.
I don't know about this... I don't consider Q3 or UT to be definitive shooters at all. The definitive modern graphic engines maybe, but that was the whole point of their development and release, I always thought; to spend all the time making a great engine so that OTHERS could spend their time instead making great games... like Quake III engine has led to such beautiful games as FAKK2 and American McGee's Alice, because they didn't have to spend all their time writing a kickass graphics engine. I think we will see more of this in the future.. we live in an age of specialists.
"Valve focussed on playability, story, and fun in HL"
Absolutely... because they didn't have to write the engine from scratch... as others can now do with the Q3 and UT engines. I expect to see a lot of incredible games come out over the next year or two based on these (and other) engines.
Absolutely... IBM Research is one of the most fascinating sites out there, IMHO. They've really come a long way from the old calculator makers.
I suspect this this is more like: "Only $5.00 more -- to MANUFACTURE" which of course will translate to a $20-$50 premium to the consumer. Still, if it does everything the article says it will, that's still not all THAT more expensive.
What's the MTBF on these things? Why stop at history? I'm going to start backing up my hard drive onto T-Shirts.
The problem is that people tend to only code methods which are needed for their particular use of the object in question. And why shouldn't they? It makes for leaner code. It also makes for horrible reusability, because later when you try to the use the same object for a different application, you generally have to get under the hood and rip away at the guts to refashion it for YOUR use. This of course completely sidesteps the whole point of encapsulation and data hiding in the first place.
Sounds to me like he read a bunch of old marketing hype about OOP and decided to attack its validity. The problem of course is that ALL marketing hype is slanted and biased, but who believes that shit?
I don't know if compiler optimization will do anything.... a sub routine call is always going to be a sub routine call, which has always slowed down CPUs. In OOP-intensive code, practically EVERYTHING is sub routine calls (methods).
constant association between geekdom and violence
What are you smoking? If there is ONE THING geeks do NOT have a reputation for, it is violence.
Look at the way they flame as AC's on this site
And you are claiming this is a direct result of the violence content of articles on Slashdot??? That's the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. Socially immature individuals make moronic flame posts all over the internet every day. And guess what? I'm glad the internet is a place where they are free to do so, just as I am glad that Slashdot is free to post stories about anything the posters (who are quite certainly geeks, would you not say?) find interesting.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire
As long as I'm here...
Obligatory (or at LEAST gratuitous) Spaceballs reference:
Quantum computers are reversible...
Like my raincoat!
One million = 1,000,000 = 1 x 10^6
One billion = 1,000,000,000 = 1 x 10^9
9 - 6 = 3
Where the hell did you get 4 from?? Figured the factor of 1,000 had four digits in it? Try and get your math right the next time you're being condenscending about numbers.
I had an idea a while ago about a way to make money off of free intellectual property distribution. What if all media was "GPL'd"? (or a derivative of) By this I mean that everyone is free to redistribute anything they like, and they are allowed to charge whatever they want for this distribution, but must pay a percentage of profits to the content producer. So for example, I could run an FTP site and charge 10 cents per MP3 people download, but I'd have to give 5 of those cents to the artist, say. To get this working you'd need a robust content tagging system, and a standard micropayment system, neither of which exists currently. Keeping track of hundreds or thousands of different artists and their works and paying them each according to download patterns would be no trivial task, but with enough work, completely automated systems could be built.
The beauty of this idea is that people WOULD charge money, for exactly the same reasons Red Hat is charging money for free software... because they themselves can turn a profit by distributing material. (And why shouldn't they?? They are providing a service by running an FTP site and allowing use of their bandwidth, which takes time and money.)
Of course the obvious problem is that some people WON'T charge money for it, because they can afford to give it away for free. Perhaps distributing without paying any royalties could be outlawed. Well, it's an idea anyway.
Speaking from experience, employees sometimes have their security clearance (keycards, network login, etc) revoked before being informed of their termination to reduce the risk of retribution to the company.
Still, calling all that math "completely, absolutely, and utterly wrong" is a bit harsh, IMHO. It's still just a question of finding two vectors, one for acceleration and one for decceleration, and the math presented here is at least a rough ballpark approximation of the G forces likely to be encountered, enough to show that humans won't be turned to mush by a two week trip to Mars.
Anyway, I'm going to ignore all the attacks (mine and yours) and explain my point again, because I obviously didn't do so clearly enough the first time.
This particular statement is using circular reasoning. In a gunless society there IS no direct, tangible, immediate need for guns. What you say later about needing guns to compete against others is correct... but what about before competition? Back when there were no guns ANYWHERE? The very first guns were NOT created to equal out a disadvantage. They were NOT created because they were needed. That's needed, not wanted. Be very careful with those words.
The very fact that the Chinese invented gunpowder but were NOT the first to employ it as a weapon proves that a gunless society can survive quite fine without needing guns, even when the technology first became possible. They were created in Eurpope to kill people more efficiently, plain and simple. I suppose we could argue endlessly about whether this is neccessary, or only desirable.
Hmm... murder is illegal. So is accidental murder (manslaughter), so is attempted murder. So is assault. Last time I checked, they try and enforce these things, even if they (obviously) cannot prevent them before the fact.
I never said it was their job to physically defend every person. Protection can take many forms. Deterrence is one type, would you not agree?
No kidding? I thought we were talking about cucumbers. Sorry for the confusion. Always nice to be cleverly insulted by an anonymous coward though.
"It was necessary, for better or worse, because a refusal to develop more efficient weaponry meant extermination at the hands of other tribes."
And THIS is why guns are neccessary in contemporary American society? Because of the warlike chaos that dominated another continent half a millenium ago?
Times have changed, buddy. So take a deep breath, put your gun down, and try to relax. If the nasty tribes come for you, you can always lock your door.
You're right... we must make sure the public is just as dangerous as criminals so they can protect themselves. Grenades and assault rifles should be sold at convenience stores. Target practice, demolitions, and mortal combat should be taught in schools starting in Kindergarten, so our next generation of children "won't be at the mercy of the criminals".
Yes I am being simplistically extreme... but my point is that if you make the general populace more deadly, you ALSO make the criminal element more deadly. It is inevitable, and will only lead to more bloodshed.
It is the responsibility of the government through the police force and justice system to protect its citizens. If private citizens are afraid for their safety without being armed to the teeth, that is a truly sad (and frightening) state of affairs.
This is the logical equivalent of saying everything that exists is neccessary, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
I hate to burst your bubble but the world is awash in unneccesary things.
We also have a Liberal government while you guys get to sweat under the Republican corporate lovin' yoke for the next four.
PS Bush stole the election by running down the clock. All the election showed was just how greedy and petty politicians really are.
Absolutely.. well put. Everyone is freaking out and saying this is the end of liberty, free speech and apple pie... what chicken-little (Katzian? ;) baloney. This is one company bowing to pressure... and here is the important bit: NOT because they are being forced to, (they could simply withdraw their .fr site... France is only going after the part of Yahoo which is operating within their jurisdiction) but simply because they believe it's better business. There will always be places where nothing is banned, and there will also always be places like Yahoo who administer self censorship for the purposess of establishing a friendly, inoffensive public image and the widest possible target audience.
What I see all around me in today's world is second rate coders who hack together an inefficient piece of code until it works "just good enough", with no error checking and often without even completely understanding the ramifications or performance costs of the API functions or objects they are using. This leads directly to bloated, resource hogging, buggy software.
A properly written program is more flexible for future expansion and easier to debug and work with in general.