We already have wristwatch computers for decades. That's what electronic wristwatches are, those that Casio has been pumping by the barrel since the the 80s, such as this one.
If we want to go with "anything with a microprocessor is a computer" then sure, but I think when most people think of a computer they imagine something that can run a web browser, play games with, and use a word processor. It's like saying that my sister's little electric barbie car is an automobile... I mean, sure in the strictest sense it has four wheels and a motor -- but I don't think I'll be using it for the morning commute anytime soon.
And before the EEs jump on me -- yes, I know it is possible to power it using a near-field source (or similar tech), but that's just moving the problem elsewhere: the battery still has to exist somewhere and you're giving up efficiency to put it anywhere but in the unit. --With a tip of the hat to Tesla.
You know, I can just believe that we can cram everything but the input and display into that small of a space -- but the human interface problem makes any further degree of minaturization rather pointless for general-purpose computers. In select circumstances, you can get away with a lack of keyboard or a mini one, but really -- anything you plan on using heavily you want to have a decently-sized display and an input device with more than two buttons.
But even if you could solve the i/o problems, there's another more damning one: energy requirements. You need a power source for it. And there just doesn't seem to be any real technology innovations that are going to give you the energy densities you'd need to make it work for awhile.
Pointing this out, of course, will get me modnuked, but what the hell: Yes Disney, after extending copyrights, being instrumental in the oppression and exploitation of dozens of countries, forcing our community to defend itself with complex legal language, placing the culture of going on three generations' childhoods behind a pay wall -- we'll forgive you because you released the source code for a texture mapper. Why? Because This. Is. Slashdoooooot! And as long as you contribute source code, we'll overlook all your other sins.:\
Daikatana became synonymous with failure. But the cause of its failure can be traced back to John Romero's giant ego. He had convinced people that everything he wrote was worth gold. It's only fitting that in Doom 2, you had to shoot him in the head to beat the game. He's since retreated into obscurity, occasionally popping up in small gaming shops to assist in off-beat platforms.
Hey, where's my check for having to pay for all of this crap in the form of higher memory prices? So we have some elephant mating going on between Samsung and Rambus -- that's cool and all, I'm sure it'll be great for... innovation... or... something, but if there is evidence of price fixing then why is the government not asking for the terms of the settlement as proof of conspiracy to defraud and prosecuting? This isn't "self-regulation" of the market -- this is "let's get out of here before mom gets home".
Maths isn't science, but even so, it still doesn't require beliefs.
Okay, well, when you stop believing that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, let me know how that works out for you. Axioms are beliefs: They're taken as true and do not require proofs.
Religion does make inquiries. It just happens to be that those inquiries are directed towards a static text.
There is no belief. Presumably you're referring to...
No, I'm referring to the whole of mathematics, one of the cornerstones of science. Science also has a few tenets of faith, like occam's razor. You can run from these basic truths all you want, but when you boil it all down, science is based on a finite number of beliefs, from which every conclusion it can make is derived from.
Could you please at least consult wikipedia before saying stuff like this? Directly from the wiki:
Let me try again:
YOU CANNOT PROVE WHAT ANY ONE PERSON WAS DOING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT DOOR.
I would add exclamation points too, if I thought it would help get that point into your thick skull. As a group maybe they were staging a revolt. Probably they were. But we don't know who participated and who didn't, and yet we made every one of them a hero.
I would also add that sociological research says no such thing, and I challenge you to produce a list of reputable papers that suggest that IQ is not correlated with income or social class, other than popsci books.
How about the American Psychological Association...
"The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6." Source... "The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns states that other individual characteristics such as interpersonal skills, aspects of personality etc. are probably of equal or greater importance."
Hey PCWorld -- a vendor refusing to patch a product that has a major security hole in it that's very publicly known is criminally negligent, and yes, the correct answer is to stop using that product and punish the ever-living crap out of the executives and the company that isn't taking something like that seriously.
it gives me hope that living in denial is not such a bad thing as long as believing in fairy tales has some positive effect on society.
I know you're trying to be funny, but science isn't much different than other faith systems: It is a method of inquiry, it has certain things that are beyond question (axiomic), and it seeks to answer fundamental questions about the universe. It also believes in fairy tales like zombie cats in boxes, as a way of conveying values and knowledge of the world. Even a broken model can yield useful results -- likewise for our cultural stories. They don't have to be based in fact to have relevance and value in our lives.
Actually we do have evidence that the passengers of flight 93 tried to break into the cockpit, namely the flight recorders record the hijackers discussing the revolt.
We don't know who may have been trying to break into the cockpit, only that there were signs of a struggle on the other side of the door. For all we know, the passengers could have been fighting amongst themselves. There's no way for anyone to know what really happened on the other side of that door. But every one of them, whether they did something or not, was declared a hero and there are plaques all over the country listing their names.
This was my only point: It doesn't matter what they did, what matters is that the story of people fighting back displays a cultural value that we needed to reinforce after 9/11. We don't make people heroes because of what they do, we make them heroes because of what we need.
A lot of times, the truth isn't relevant. We have made many heroes in society, and we didn't do it for them: We did it for ourselves. A lot of people we call heroes don't deserve it. Many of them didn't do anything at all. For example, United Airlines Flight 93: We have o objective proof of any kind that the passengers staged any kind of revolt, save a vague phone call. But we deified them into heroes after the tragedy as a symbol of hope. It doesn't matter whether the story is true or not. We needed something to symbolize strength and found it there.
It doesn't matter if the Apple hit Newton on the head or not. What matters is that it is a colorful story that explains the spirit of scientific discovery. It's the same with Einstein -- how many different ways has popular culture misattributed his discovery of the theory of relativity, or attributed a quote to Einstein that was really by somebody else (or made up). The story of Einstein endures as much because of his scientific achievement as because of popular culture stories that give people hope. Specifically, the hope that if they are smart and study hard, they can achieve great things. Today's sociological research rejects the contention that intelligence has any real bearing on success -- success is a combination of factors, of which intelligence can sometimes help a person.
We use stories and heroes in scientific literature the same as in any other: To convey our values. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple hit Newton on the head--even if it didn't.
It bothers me to see generalized objections like this thrown up in front of a promising technology & line of pursuit, because it may throw up an artificial objection if enough people latch on. I think it's wrong to assume that the people working on this are idiots and won't apply disciplined engineering, testing, etc., as is done other critical systems.
It's not an objection to ask for a critical eye to be cast on something with the potential to kill (or save) lives. AIDS and breast cancer research, etc., all have seen promising treatments vaporize because they weren't safe enough. And then there's a report at least once a year now about a new drug that was rushed to market so people could realize those benefits -- and some people died from it. Vioxx comes to mind: Which was not as much a failure of technology as the system designed to vet and review that technology.
This isn't about the good outweighing the bad -- for many diseases, even a placebo has a benefit in over half the cases. The argument of "the benefits outweigh the risks" doesn't specify an important quality: How much. Society depends on trust, whether it's trusting our computers or our bridges, our medications or our food supply -- if we settled for 51%, society wouldn't exist. In a lot of cases, even 99.997% isn't good enough. Society works because we can trust our tools to work day in and day out. As an example, we have people that are refusing to vaccinate their kids because 1:100,000 isn't good enough: And if enough people agree with that, regardless of whether they're right or wrong we'll lose herd immunity and a lot of people will die.
Right, because software engineering today has made our world much worse off than it would have been without... enough FUD - somebody moderate this overrated please!
You should mark yourself overrated. We shouldn't just accept major engineering disasters. Saying that I hope to see advancements in the state of the art before a technology that is not well-understood is put in the human body is not FUD. Get lost, troll.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have wristwatch computers for decades. That's what electronic wristwatches are, those that Casio has been pumping by the barrel since the the 80s, such as this one.
If we want to go with "anything with a microprocessor is a computer" then sure, but I think when most people think of a computer they imagine something that can run a web browser, play games with, and use a word processor. It's like saying that my sister's little electric barbie car is an automobile... I mean, sure in the strictest sense it has four wheels and a motor -- but I don't think I'll be using it for the morning commute anytime soon.
And before the EEs jump on me -- yes, I know it is possible to power it using a near-field source (or similar tech), but that's just moving the problem elsewhere: the battery still has to exist somewhere and you're giving up efficiency to put it anywhere but in the unit. --With a tip of the hat to Tesla.
...Wristwatch Computers.
hahahaha HA HA HA oh god, oh god... it kills me.
You know, I can just believe that we can cram everything but the input and display into that small of a space -- but the human interface problem makes any further degree of minaturization rather pointless for general-purpose computers. In select circumstances, you can get away with a lack of keyboard or a mini one, but really -- anything you plan on using heavily you want to have a decently-sized display and an input device with more than two buttons.
But even if you could solve the i/o problems, there's another more damning one: energy requirements. You need a power source for it. And there just doesn't seem to be any real technology innovations that are going to give you the energy densities you'd need to make it work for awhile.
Even if it's fun to imagine that, a company isn't a monolithic entity and certainly not a person like you are trying to picture.
If we're going to give personhood to corporations, and extend them the same rights we have, then I fully intend to judge them on that basis as well.
Why? Because This. Is. Slashdoooooot! And as long as you make us laugh or give us a target, we'll overlook all your other sins. :>
I think you meant overrate all my other sins. Or at least, that's what usually happens around here. :\
"Hi. I'm offering professional services on a volunteer basis. Contact me at ______________" Post this exactly on craigslist.
Pointing this out, of course, will get me modnuked, but what the hell: Yes Disney, after extending copyrights, being instrumental in the oppression and exploitation of dozens of countries, forcing our community to defend itself with complex legal language, placing the culture of going on three generations' childhoods behind a pay wall -- we'll forgive you because you released the source code for a texture mapper. Why? Because This. Is. Slashdoooooot! And as long as you contribute source code, we'll overlook all your other sins. :\
Is it true that a computer fell on Bill's head and inspired him to discover the GUI and pay someone to write Windows?
That makes more sense than all the other theories about how he came up with the idea.
Hopefully someone bought rights to the title so we can continue to write about DNF.
It's still held by 3D Studios, but it'll be hard to continue development when they have no staff working on the project.
Daikatana became synonymous with failure. But the cause of its failure can be traced back to John Romero's giant ego. He had convinced people that everything he wrote was worth gold. It's only fitting that in Doom 2, you had to shoot him in the head to beat the game. He's since retreated into obscurity, occasionally popping up in small gaming shops to assist in off-beat platforms.
Clearly you misunderstood how the system works.
Nah, I understand it just fine. I'm just disappointed.
Hey, where's my check for having to pay for all of this crap in the form of higher memory prices? So we have some elephant mating going on between Samsung and Rambus -- that's cool and all, I'm sure it'll be great for... innovation... or... something, but if there is evidence of price fixing then why is the government not asking for the terms of the settlement as proof of conspiracy to defraud and prosecuting? This isn't "self-regulation" of the market -- this is "let's get out of here before mom gets home".
Maths isn't science, but even so, it still doesn't require beliefs.
Okay, well, when you stop believing that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, let me know how that works out for you. Axioms are beliefs: They're taken as true and do not require proofs.
Yes, but why would anyone want to?
When you know your sins and wish to atone for them.
Religion does make inquiries. It just happens to be that those inquiries are directed towards a static text.
There is no belief. Presumably you're referring to...
No, I'm referring to the whole of mathematics, one of the cornerstones of science. Science also has a few tenets of faith, like occam's razor. You can run from these basic truths all you want, but when you boil it all down, science is based on a finite number of beliefs, from which every conclusion it can make is derived from.
Wow, I didn't resort to childish insults,
No, just being thick, which is frustrating enough as it is without you being a pompous ass to boot.
Science doesn't require any beliefs, and anything that's found to be incorrect is abandoned (you know what I mean).
Belief, def: "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."
Axiom, def.: a universally accepted principle or rule.
Interesting, isn't it, how close those two definitions are to each other. Science does, in fact, depend on believing things that can't be proved.
Could you please at least consult wikipedia before saying stuff like this? Directly from the wiki:
Let me try again:
YOU CANNOT PROVE WHAT ANY ONE PERSON WAS DOING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT DOOR.
I would add exclamation points too, if I thought it would help get that point into your thick skull. As a group maybe they were staging a revolt. Probably they were. But we don't know who participated and who didn't, and yet we made every one of them a hero.
I would also add that sociological research says no such thing, and I challenge you to produce a list of reputable papers that suggest that IQ is not correlated with income or social class, other than popsci books.
How about the American Psychological Association...
"The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6." Source ... "The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns states that other individual characteristics such as interpersonal skills, aspects of personality etc. are probably of equal or greater importance."
Hey PCWorld -- a vendor refusing to patch a product that has a major security hole in it that's very publicly known is criminally negligent, and yes, the correct answer is to stop using that product and punish the ever-living crap out of the executives and the company that isn't taking something like that seriously.
it gives me hope that living in denial is not such a bad thing as long as believing in fairy tales has some positive effect on society.
I know you're trying to be funny, but science isn't much different than other faith systems: It is a method of inquiry, it has certain things that are beyond question (axiomic), and it seeks to answer fundamental questions about the universe. It also believes in fairy tales like zombie cats in boxes, as a way of conveying values and knowledge of the world. Even a broken model can yield useful results -- likewise for our cultural stories. They don't have to be based in fact to have relevance and value in our lives.
Actually we do have evidence that the passengers of flight 93 tried to break into the cockpit, namely the flight recorders record the hijackers discussing the revolt.
We don't know who may have been trying to break into the cockpit, only that there were signs of a struggle on the other side of the door. For all we know, the passengers could have been fighting amongst themselves. There's no way for anyone to know what really happened on the other side of that door. But every one of them, whether they did something or not, was declared a hero and there are plaques all over the country listing their names.
This was my only point: It doesn't matter what they did, what matters is that the story of people fighting back displays a cultural value that we needed to reinforce after 9/11. We don't make people heroes because of what they do, we make them heroes because of what we need.
A lot of times, the truth isn't relevant. We have made many heroes in society, and we didn't do it for them: We did it for ourselves. A lot of people we call heroes don't deserve it. Many of them didn't do anything at all. For example, United Airlines Flight 93: We have o objective proof of any kind that the passengers staged any kind of revolt, save a vague phone call. But we deified them into heroes after the tragedy as a symbol of hope. It doesn't matter whether the story is true or not. We needed something to symbolize strength and found it there.
It doesn't matter if the Apple hit Newton on the head or not. What matters is that it is a colorful story that explains the spirit of scientific discovery. It's the same with Einstein -- how many different ways has popular culture misattributed his discovery of the theory of relativity, or attributed a quote to Einstein that was really by somebody else (or made up). The story of Einstein endures as much because of his scientific achievement as because of popular culture stories that give people hope. Specifically, the hope that if they are smart and study hard, they can achieve great things. Today's sociological research rejects the contention that intelligence has any real bearing on success -- success is a combination of factors, of which intelligence can sometimes help a person.
We use stories and heroes in scientific literature the same as in any other: To convey our values. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple hit Newton on the head--even if it didn't.
It bothers me to see generalized objections like this thrown up in front of a promising technology & line of pursuit, because it may throw up an artificial objection if enough people latch on. I think it's wrong to assume that the people working on this are idiots and won't apply disciplined engineering, testing, etc., as is done other critical systems.
It's not an objection to ask for a critical eye to be cast on something with the potential to kill (or save) lives. AIDS and breast cancer research, etc., all have seen promising treatments vaporize because they weren't safe enough. And then there's a report at least once a year now about a new drug that was rushed to market so people could realize those benefits -- and some people died from it. Vioxx comes to mind: Which was not as much a failure of technology as the system designed to vet and review that technology.
This isn't about the good outweighing the bad -- for many diseases, even a placebo has a benefit in over half the cases. The argument of "the benefits outweigh the risks" doesn't specify an important quality: How much. Society depends on trust, whether it's trusting our computers or our bridges, our medications or our food supply -- if we settled for 51%, society wouldn't exist. In a lot of cases, even 99.997% isn't good enough. Society works because we can trust our tools to work day in and day out. As an example, we have people that are refusing to vaccinate their kids because 1:100,000 isn't good enough: And if enough people agree with that, regardless of whether they're right or wrong we'll lose herd immunity and a lot of people will die.
Right, because software engineering today has made our world much worse off than it would have been without... enough FUD - somebody moderate this overrated please!
You should mark yourself overrated. We shouldn't just accept major engineering disasters. Saying that I hope to see advancements in the state of the art before a technology that is not well-understood is put in the human body is not FUD. Get lost, troll.