I see your point about the question being worded to eliminate the obvious answer. However, I think you jumped to concusions to say AI. Like I said, the things you mentioned are signal processing, not really "intelligence."
Digressing on the "practical, everyday" bit: Quantum computing will have a practical, everyday effect on your life even if all it is used for is integer factorization. It will change the way you bank, the way you shop, the way the government operates and regulates, etc., all because it will change the way confidential and/or secret information can be stored and communicated. There will also be new methods of eavesdrop-proof communication due to quantum technologies, but they can only be used for transmitting messages, not storing them.
The obvious problem that will be solved with a Quantum Computer is AI
Sorry, the obvious problem has already been stated here, and it is integer factorization.
I'm not knocking your sizing up of the situation, though. You seem to be talking about problems that requre very fast signal processing. Is that necessarily a QC problem? It very well could be that AI which faithfully simulates intelligence (or even true consciousness) requires quantum computing. Nobody can say one way or the other, however, since AI and consciousness are so poorly understood today. I wish I had answers, but for now I'll go with Roger Penrose's assertion that human intelligence is fundamentally non-algorithmic, in addition to being somehow a quantum phenomenon.
Who cares how old the tradition is? How old is the tradition of capitalizing the first letter of class names in OOP? Are you going to break that tradition? The fact is, the diamond ring has a certain meaning right now, in our lifetimes.
Corruption has never been so blatantly corrupt since the the 1920s.
Far more extreme corruption has been recorded since biblical times; I'm not sure what your point is. If you are talking about the current round of corporate malfeasance, well it seems that people are now being prosecuted under existing laws. Swing of the penduluim, and all. It's not worth condemning the system. And by the way, try filling in the blanks:
_____ has never been so ______ since the 1920s.
Do you realize how many positives fit into this template?
Now STFU.
I beg your pardon, but I will not stop that facetious ululating.
Even worse, the integrated S3 ProSavage 4 chip that's built into my laptop has _no HW-accel 3D whatsoever_
That's nothing! the Hercules CGA card I have wouldn't even do 16 color VGA, even if I could boot Linux in the IBM/XT box it's in! Boy, talk about a lack of good open source drivers!
I'm waiting for the typical reaction to the list of technologies on that site. The thing that will raise the ire of/.ers most is the Active Denial Technology, which they will argue is inhumane, cruel, tool of the imperialist hegemony, blah blah, and so on. The paradox is, this is a non lethal device that causes no permanent damage. The slashbots will go all ga-ga fantasizing about airborne free electron lasers and tabletop or backpack tank-melting ray-guns (Just like in sci-fi and comic books!!!), but heaven forbid the evil military industrial complex research non lethal weapons....
Bury this post and watch to see if my prediction comes true....
but that doesn't mean a Mother who raises her children is any less important.
For the record, I see no more important job than building the next generation of people. And the fact that anyone with a womb can be a mother is not evidence that motherhood is a replaceable posiiton. Being good at it means doing it non-stop and for life, and the diligence and patience it takes to do it well are highly admirable when they are present.
total capitalism without a side of humanity will crumble
The claim that capitalism comes without a side of humanity is false. The philosophy behind capitalism depends on recognizing that a system where all people act in their self interest actually harnesses the immutable property of human selfishness into a dynamic that benefits your neighbor as well as yourself. It also requires a close examination of what "self interest" means, and it does not mean avarice. It may be in my self interest to take a lower-paying job, donate to charity, and volunteer reading for the blind, but I would not presume to figure if it is in your self interest to do so.
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition - 109. Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
Hmm... yes. You are aware that the Ferengi were written as fictional characters to embody an absurdly extreme stereotype, right? Assigning the "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" as capitalist values on their face is either disingenuous or ignorant.
I really hate when people dont give credit to an entire team.... Just because a persons job isnt important to you, doesnt make it less important.
Usually the people who don't get credit are replaceable. Not expendable, mind you, since the main job wouldn't be possible without thier part, but certainly replaceable, in that their job could be performed just as well by someone else. Is it cold hearted or dehumanizing for me to say so? I don't think so at all. Humans should be celebrated for their uniqueness and creativity. A person doing purely algorithmic tasks does not deserve as much credit. I don't know the details of your "implementation and operations" scenario, so I won't comment on your creativity specifically.
Alot of snobbish, elitism going on lately in posts.
A lot of knee-jerk pseudoegalitarianism going on, too, but that's nothing new. By the way, my sig, "Any repetitive process can be automated. Remember that fact every morning when you wake up," is supposed to be a call to do something unique with your life and not live under the threat of being obsoleted through automation. Again, not intended to be dehumanizing, quite the opposite.
Do we really want an ironclad technological solution to this? I sure like my library records being anonymous, but I also recognize the benefits of having such records accessible by a warrant or subpoena. Right now I think the Librarians' policy "No records without a warrant" is an entirely reasonable and sufficient policy.
At Andersen, Worldcom and Enron, the technological solution to their "problems with anonymity and privacy" (document shredding) was illegal, even before there was evidence of wrongdoing. (Now I know this is slashdot, the home of the easily stretched bad analogy, so I'll right off state that I realize that their financial records are supposed to be available.)
When a planned, possibly conspiratorial crime/attack/etc. occurs, do you really want our law enforcement hobbled by an inability to unravel the methods, sources, and co-conspirators of the bad guys?
Oh, so anonymity is the privilege of the wealthy, and not the right of the people? How equitable.
Preach it brother! It's just like those super-scary GPS equipped cell phones that they're always using to track poor people. I consider myself lucky that I'm wealthy enough to use land lines and pay phones.
Some Slashdot Reader writes "[Composition and Duplication of music] is getting so cheap that it is practical for use in [my mom's P100]. [...] Eventually, it will become more cost-effective to [distribute] whole [albums] on computer as a standard. And when the technology and costs permits, non-[electronic music] with an all-digital [arrangements](fully copyrighted of course) will come forth. But the real main issue is: If this takes off, what will happen to all the people like the background [singers], [studio musicians], [multi-track tape engineers], [CD presses], [record] companies, etc."
Oh my god. It's worse than I thought. Your journal is pure tripe. Demonstrably, capitalism has succeeded a bazillionfold better than communism. What makes you think that there is any merit in providing everybody with the same material wealth in the first place? Do you honestly believe that wealth is a conserved quantity? What makes you think there will be any material wealth to dirstribute for long if it is given at the government's gunpoint? Why is it that Marxism/Communism can only exist when it is enforced in oppressive authoritarian dictatorships? What makes you think that your "modified" scheme will work when Marxism/communism has failed spectacularly everywhere it has been implemented?
not if the orbit is geostationary. just keep going 90 degrees away from the planar-tangent of the launch pad.
Nope. The best path to geosynchronous orbit is not a straight line. You conserve fuel and pick the desired longitude by beginning with an elliptical orbit.
I'm a liberal/socialist, no commie tho. Help me. Read my journal.
So in addition to your misunderstanding of physics, you don't get human nature, economics, or spelling? At least you recognize that you need help. That's the first step.
you mean stuff like not being able to use government funds to further their religion, or have mandatory school prayer, or print the 10 commandments in public schools?
Government funds for religion? No thanks. The "religious wars" the previous poster was talking about (which he attempted to contrast with "political wars") came about because governments used the religions they sponsored and therefore controlled, as political tools. I'll take my religion "unestablished by congress," thank you.
A moment of silence in the morning at school, while not something I lobby for or care much about, is so thoroughly unobjectionable that one has to wonder about people who call it an establishment violation.
The Ten Commandments are such a vital part of the history of this world (whether you like it or not) that I find it amazing that I learned more in public school about the Code of Hammurabi, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the I Ching, and the Rig Veda than the Ten Commandments. This is also an indication of the hypocrisy of the "secularists," who are usually thinly veiled "anti-Christians," since things like Buddhism and Shamanism are usually A-OK in their world.
At least the atheists want all religion OUT, instead of wanting theirs IN.
Would "wanting all religion OUT" mean not teaching about all those horrible "religious wars," or would the discussion be limited to "why religion is bad for children and other living things?" The very stance of non-religion is unavoidably confused with anti-religion, and all too often anti-Christian in particular, since Chrisitianity is seen as the "dominant paradigm" most worthy of subversion. And if you think that anyone religious who complains about the current state of things is asking to have "theirs IN," then you don't understand either religious people or the current state of things, or both.
The problem I was refering to when I said that Christians have more to fear about undemocratic abuses than atheists, comes from "fundamentalist secularists" who "want all religion OUT," which on its face is a limitation of the free exercise of religion. Wanting religion "unfunded" is fine, but wanting religious topics unexamined or entirely absent (i.e., OUT) from the public forum, is unwarranted secular extremism. Look, in the recent "pledge of allegiance" case, the plaintiff lied about his relationship with and representation of his daughter, just to get his judgment. Even if you agree with his claim, you have to recognize that he represents a tyrannical minority that is often getting its way. Many lawyers, and some judges, are pushing the point of view that students can't even speak or write about their religion in public school, even while they are given class assignments regarding other world religions, or that employees can't wear e.g., cross jewelry in the workplace, and so on. Yes I stand by the claim that Christians have more to fear about losing liberties than atheists do at this point in history.
Slashdot Mirror
The reference is to the "Male" marking on your license.
Oh yeah, who does that? Perl is also open source, and can be turned into an MS Exchange Server clone should you desire to do that.
Four Words:
Type R Factory Option
OK, so three words and a letter....
{clears throat} ah.... umm.... {realizes it's not worth the time...}
Wow, I should work for NASA.
Digressing on the "practical, everyday" bit: Quantum computing will have a practical, everyday effect on your life even if all it is used for is integer factorization. It will change the way you bank, the way you shop, the way the government operates and regulates, etc., all because it will change the way confidential and/or secret information can be stored and communicated. There will also be new methods of eavesdrop-proof communication due to quantum technologies, but they can only be used for transmitting messages, not storing them.
Sorry, the obvious problem has already been stated here, and it is integer factorization.
I'm not knocking your sizing up of the situation, though. You seem to be talking about problems that requre very fast signal processing. Is that necessarily a QC problem? It very well could be that AI which faithfully simulates intelligence (or even true consciousness) requires quantum computing. Nobody can say one way or the other, however, since AI and consciousness are so poorly understood today. I wish I had answers, but for now I'll go with Roger Penrose's assertion that human intelligence is fundamentally non-algorithmic, in addition to being somehow a quantum phenomenon.
"I'll get you a diamond next year, honey when the .13 micron process is perfected...."
Who cares how old the tradition is? How old is the tradition of capitalizing the first letter of class names in OOP? Are you going to break that tradition? The fact is, the diamond ring has a certain meaning right now, in our lifetimes.
Far more extreme corruption has been recorded since biblical times; I'm not sure what your point is. If you are talking about the current round of corporate malfeasance, well it seems that people are now being prosecuted under existing laws. Swing of the penduluim, and all. It's not worth condemning the system. And by the way, try filling in the blanks:
_____ has never been so ______ since the 1920s.
Do you realize how many positives fit into this template?
Now STFU.
I beg your pardon, but I will not stop that facetious ululating.
That's nothing! the Hercules CGA card I have wouldn't even do 16 color VGA, even if I could boot Linux in the IBM/XT box it's in! Boy, talk about a lack of good open source drivers!
Bury this post and watch to see if my prediction comes true....
For the record, I see no more important job than building the next generation of people. And the fact that anyone with a womb can be a mother is not evidence that motherhood is a replaceable posiiton. Being good at it means doing it non-stop and for life, and the diligence and patience it takes to do it well are highly admirable when they are present.
total capitalism without a side of humanity will crumble
The claim that capitalism comes without a side of humanity is false. The philosophy behind capitalism depends on recognizing that a system where all people act in their self interest actually harnesses the immutable property of human selfishness into a dynamic that benefits your neighbor as well as yourself. It also requires a close examination of what "self interest" means, and it does not mean avarice. It may be in my self interest to take a lower-paying job, donate to charity, and volunteer reading for the blind, but I would not presume to figure if it is in your self interest to do so.
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition - 109. Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
Hmm... yes. You are aware that the Ferengi were written as fictional characters to embody an absurdly extreme stereotype, right? Assigning the "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" as capitalist values on their face is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Just because a persons job isnt important to you, doesnt make it less important.
Usually the people who don't get credit are replaceable. Not expendable, mind you, since the main job wouldn't be possible without thier part, but certainly replaceable, in that their job could be performed just as well by someone else. Is it cold hearted or dehumanizing for me to say so? I don't think so at all. Humans should be celebrated for their uniqueness and creativity. A person doing purely algorithmic tasks does not deserve as much credit. I don't know the details of your "implementation and operations" scenario, so I won't comment on your creativity specifically.
Alot of snobbish, elitism going on lately in posts.
A lot of knee-jerk pseudoegalitarianism going on, too, but that's nothing new. By the way, my sig, "Any repetitive process can be automated. Remember that fact every morning when you wake up," is supposed to be a call to do something unique with your life and not live under the threat of being obsoleted through automation. Again, not intended to be dehumanizing, quite the opposite.
At Andersen, Worldcom and Enron, the technological solution to their "problems with anonymity and privacy" (document shredding) was illegal, even before there was evidence of wrongdoing. (Now I know this is slashdot, the home of the easily stretched bad analogy, so I'll right off state that I realize that their financial records are supposed to be available.)
When a planned, possibly conspiratorial crime/attack/etc. occurs, do you really want our law enforcement hobbled by an inability to unravel the methods, sources, and co-conspirators of the bad guys?
During the turn of which century did black people have both 1.) the right to vote, and 2.) owners?
Preach it brother! It's just like those super-scary GPS equipped cell phones that they're always using to track poor people. I consider myself lucky that I'm wealthy enough to use land lines and pay phones.
- Register the trademark for that t-shirt (the back can say "Karma: Terrible")
- Sell a license to VA (Research|Linux Systems|Software)
- ???
- Profit!
You might single-handedly be responsible for returning VA to solvency.OMG Tr0llz sk1llz aer so l337 their tr0llaX0ring teh storiey cue! LOL!!1!1
Some Slashdot Reader writes "[Composition and Duplication of music] is getting so cheap that it is practical for use in [my mom's P100]. [...] Eventually, it will become more cost-effective to [distribute] whole [albums] on computer as a standard. And when the technology and costs permits, non-[electronic music] with an all-digital [arrangements](fully copyrighted of course) will come forth. But the real main issue is: If this takes off, what will happen to all the people like the background [singers], [studio musicians], [multi-track tape engineers], [CD presses], [record] companies, etc."
Oh my god. It's worse than I thought. Your journal is pure tripe. Demonstrably, capitalism has succeeded a bazillionfold better than communism. What makes you think that there is any merit in providing everybody with the same material wealth in the first place? Do you honestly believe that wealth is a conserved quantity? What makes you think there will be any material wealth to dirstribute for long if it is given at the government's gunpoint? Why is it that Marxism/Communism can only exist when it is enforced in oppressive authoritarian dictatorships? What makes you think that your "modified" scheme will work when Marxism/communism has failed spectacularly everywhere it has been implemented?
Nope. The best path to geosynchronous orbit is not a straight line. You conserve fuel and pick the desired longitude by beginning with an elliptical orbit.
I'm a liberal/socialist, no commie tho. Help me. Read my journal.
So in addition to your misunderstanding of physics, you don't get human nature, economics, or spelling? At least you recognize that you need help. That's the first step.
- Government funds for religion? No thanks. The "religious wars" the previous poster was talking about (which he attempted to contrast with "political wars") came about because governments used the religions they sponsored and therefore controlled, as political tools. I'll take my religion "unestablished by congress," thank you.
- A moment of silence in the morning at school, while not something I lobby for or care much about, is so thoroughly unobjectionable that one has to wonder about people who call it an establishment violation.
- The Ten Commandments are such a vital part of the history of this world (whether you like it or not) that I find it amazing that I learned more in public school about the Code of Hammurabi, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the I Ching, and the Rig Veda than the Ten Commandments. This is also an indication of the hypocrisy of the "secularists," who are usually thinly veiled "anti-Christians," since things like Buddhism and Shamanism are usually A-OK in their world.
At least the atheists want all religion OUT, instead of wanting theirs IN.Would "wanting all religion OUT" mean not teaching about all those horrible "religious wars," or would the discussion be limited to "why religion is bad for children and other living things?" The very stance of non-religion is unavoidably confused with anti-religion, and all too often anti-Christian in particular, since Chrisitianity is seen as the "dominant paradigm" most worthy of subversion. And if you think that anyone religious who complains about the current state of things is asking to have "theirs IN," then you don't understand either religious people or the current state of things, or both.
The problem I was refering to when I said that Christians have more to fear about undemocratic abuses than atheists, comes from "fundamentalist secularists" who "want all religion OUT," which on its face is a limitation of the free exercise of religion. Wanting religion "unfunded" is fine, but wanting religious topics unexamined or entirely absent (i.e., OUT) from the public forum, is unwarranted secular extremism. Look, in the recent "pledge of allegiance" case, the plaintiff lied about his relationship with and representation of his daughter, just to get his judgment. Even if you agree with his claim, you have to recognize that he represents a tyrannical minority that is often getting its way. Many lawyers, and some judges, are pushing the point of view that students can't even speak or write about their religion in public school, even while they are given class assignments regarding other world religions, or that employees can't wear e.g., cross jewelry in the workplace, and so on. Yes I stand by the claim that Christians have more to fear about losing liberties than atheists do at this point in history.
I've had this argument with my wife once. It starts out like this:
...
WIFE: Did you buy a lottery ticket like I asked?
ME: Yes.
WIFE What numbers did you pick?
ME: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
WIFE: WHAT? What are the chancs of that coming up?