People have been worried about losing their jobs to automation for at least a couple of hundred years. Is there some reason it's suddenly a hot topic? (Is it going to be for real this time?)
There appears to be a choice between someone who is conniving and self serving and nasty and under handed, and someone who is conniving and self serving and nasty and underhanded
What really troubles me is what happens after the election. 40 years of anti-intellectualism and pandering to prejudice and we got a significant part of the country voting for someone who really would not have been good for the country. The historical parallels are obvious. What do we do now?
The Republican pandering to people's worst instincts has been slowly catching up on them for years. In 2006, the religious right was openly complaining that they were were bringing in lots of votes and not getting much in return. [*] Then after 2008 the Tea Party took it over the top. Traditional Republicans thought the TP was just another demographic that they control, but the inmates took over the asylum.
The Republican party is fucked. Their core wants to rule for the rich, but of course they can't get elected on that platform. So they've spent several decades suckering single-issue voters into voting against their own best interests. Now the (traditional) Republicans have mostly lost all that support, so they can't possibly get elected to rule for the rich.
My guess is that traditional Republicans will team up with the "neoliberal" Democrats (think Hillary), and the rest of the Democrats will pursue a more people-oriented agenda (think Bernie). The Tea Partier / Trumpites will limp along, relegated to third-party candidate status.
[*]Of course not; the Republicans just wanted their votes because they needed them to get elected so they could rule for the rich. The demographics that they sucker into voting for them didn't matter in the least, to pre-TeaParty Republicans.
From my limited understanding on the subject, the actual entanglement only allows you to know the state of the other particle at the far site when you measure yours.
Which introduces a problem of its own: since they can't tell you when they've sent a message, when you measure yours you don't know whether the result is a message or just the measured value of a qbit's state.
I assume this is an optimization technique so the universe only needs to compute the states of the things that someone cares about.
Yes - Just-In-Time content creation for the simulated universes we talked about last week.
I'm just typing this before I crawl into my Primer tube at the storage depot to take a peak if FTL works in the future.
Actually there's an interesting proof by David Wolpert that this sort of thing can't work the way you think it can. It sort of goes like like this in rough outline. There's only so much information that the state of the universe can encode. If you import information from another time frame to the current time frame you have to lose some information.
Not sure I buy this. Setting the qbits on a machine in the past from "unknown" to "known" wouldn't create any more information than simply observing the bits in the past (without the time-sending). By Wolpert's argument, every time we observe something in an unknown state the universe has to forget something, or else put us in a wait queue. Unless of course the universe isn't currently storing its full capacity, in which case the argument fails anyway.
OTOH, conservation laws may prevent physical time travel, unless the mechanism involves swapping the same amount of conserved stuff from the destination.
OTOOH, if there's a conservation of bit values (e.g., # of 0s = # of 1s), several things could get interesting in various ways.
One disappointing thing about the last leak is that it basically had no US connections. A leak that included US clients could probably bring down Clinton, Trump, and half of Congress.
If I were running for president, losing, and clean on this, I certainly wouldn't suspend my campaign until the dump hits the net.
Slashdot Mirror
People have been worried about losing their jobs to automation for at least a couple of hundred years. Is there some reason it's suddenly a hot topic? (Is it going to be for real this time?)
There appears to be a choice between someone who is conniving and self serving and nasty and under handed, and someone who is conniving and self serving and nasty and underhanded
FTFY
What really troubles me is what happens after the election. 40 years of anti-intellectualism and pandering to prejudice and we got a significant part of the country voting for someone who really would not have been good for the country. The historical parallels are obvious. What do we do now?
The Republican pandering to people's worst instincts has been slowly catching up on them for years. In 2006, the religious right was openly complaining that they were were bringing in lots of votes and not getting much in return. [*] Then after 2008 the Tea Party took it over the top. Traditional Republicans thought the TP was just another demographic that they control, but the inmates took over the asylum.
The Republican party is fucked. Their core wants to rule for the rich, but of course they can't get elected on that platform. So they've spent several decades suckering single-issue voters into voting against their own best interests. Now the (traditional) Republicans have mostly lost all that support, so they can't possibly get elected to rule for the rich.
My guess is that traditional Republicans will team up with the "neoliberal" Democrats (think Hillary), and the rest of the Democrats will pursue a more people-oriented agenda (think Bernie). The Tea Partier / Trumpites will limp along, relegated to third-party candidate status.
[*]Of course not; the Republicans just wanted their votes because they needed them to get elected so they could rule for the rich. The demographics that they sucker into voting for them didn't matter in the least, to pre-TeaParty Republicans.
Unlikely, or he would not have the lead he has.
I.e., around half of all Republicans motivated enough to participate in caucuses/primaries. Doesn't sound promising for the general election.
(Except for the fact that Clinton may have a substantial popularity problem on the Democratic/independent side.)
I have inside information that he's undead.
Yes, the wheel. Or maybe the pointy stick.
Maybe Carly will be inspired to balance the record too, by publishing her successes.
From my limited understanding on the subject, the actual entanglement only allows you to know the state of the other particle at the far site when you measure yours.
Which introduces a problem of its own: since they can't tell you when they've sent a message, when you measure yours you don't know whether the result is a message or just the measured value of a qbit's state.
I assume this is an optimization technique so the universe only needs to compute the states of the things that someone cares about.
Yes - Just-In-Time content creation for the simulated universes we talked about last week.
Faster than light communication is impossible and would break the universe as we know it;
General Relativity also broke the world as we knew it.
for posting a link to a site that has gone off line.
I'm just typing this before I crawl into my Primer tube at the storage depot to take a peak if FTL works in the future.
Actually there's an interesting proof by David Wolpert that this sort of thing can't work the way you think it can. It sort of goes like like this in rough outline. There's only so much information that the state of the universe can encode. If you import information from another time frame to the current time frame you have to lose some information.
Not sure I buy this. Setting the qbits on a machine in the past from "unknown" to "known" wouldn't create any more information than simply observing the bits in the past (without the time-sending). By Wolpert's argument, every time we observe something in an unknown state the universe has to forget something, or else put us in a wait queue. Unless of course the universe isn't currently storing its full capacity, in which case the argument fails anyway.
OTOH, conservation laws may prevent physical time travel, unless the mechanism involves swapping the same amount of conserved stuff from the destination.
OTOOH, if there's a conservation of bit values (e.g., # of 0s = # of 1s), several things could get interesting in various ways.
Corporations are big fans of competition when they're testifying to Congress that regulation isn't needed. In the real world, not so much.
You don't use iodine pills to commit suicide!
He wondered aloud, "Why are we even contemplating running mate issues prior to a Presidential nomination?"
ISTM that you could gild your appeal early - if you make a wise choice. I'm surprised it isn't done more often.
One disappointing thing about the last leak is that it basically had no US connections. A leak that included US clients could probably bring down Clinton, Trump, and half of Congress.
If I were running for president, losing, and clean on this, I certainly wouldn't suspend my campaign until the dump hits the net.
Cruz may need H1-B status to work as POTUS.
I guess the SJW trash has been ruining it.
How come I never hear "SJW" except on Slashdot?
Boxers vs. Briefs
At least we'll get a new story every year for Slashdot.
assuming we are all in a simulation, what's the corollary ? How should I live my life differently ?
If it's P2W you can expend idle cycles wishing you were the avatar of someone rich rather than the lowly NPC that you probably are.
Simulations are created by nerds. If we were living a simulation, nerds would get laid and jocks would live in their moms' basements.
odds are that you're not you.
Yes, there were people thinking like this a very very long time ago.
Drugs are hardly a new discovery.
The person who wrote this either has no idea how technology works or just doesn't care.
Are the sponsors just ignorant do-gooders, or are they just sucking up to someone?
(Or both.)
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
There is scientific consensus about a lot of ideas. Should we therefore reject them?
Strange how the naturalist position is that species extinction is perfectly to be expected, even essential, in the context of evolution.
Unless it happens now, where it is some sort of moral travesty.
The naturalist position is also that your death is perfectly to be expected. I'm guessing that you care whether it happens early due to human folly.