Please tell me you're trolling. Aside from being politically dubious, your comment is completely illogical. Don't we also have to teach that "cheap global labor" to program?
Reminds me of Yogi Berra's famous comment: "No one goes to that restaurant any more -- it's too crowded."
As a thought experiment, lets propose that our grey-goo nanobot is just made of silicon and iron. Lets place our grey-goo nanobot on a slab of iron...
Let's also propose that our nanobot is mobile. It gathers enough iron to make, say, two copies of itself. It then moves over to the silicon slab, again gathering enough silicon to make two copies of itself. It constructs these two copies. Now we have three nanobots, which repeat the above procedure.
I realize that this scenario is far-fetched. Creating a mobile, self-replicating nanobot is extremely difficult. However, it is far from impossible, as was originally claimed.
Basically, I have yet to see any convincing argument that grey goo is possible. Where is this grey goo going to get the energy for even self-assembly from raw substrate, much less unchecked exponential growth?
Sunlight, perhaps? It seems entirely likely that organic life started similarly, and spread rapidly once it reached a tipping point. Since we have compelling evidence that something like this already happened once, I find your claim that it is impossible to be rather unconvincing.
These tests are such a crock. You really think all people can be put in one of 16 pigeonholes? You really think a true/false test can tell you anything about your personality? Give me a break.
You have failed to address my point. I maintain that software is to math as engineering is to physics. Thus, your claim "Software cannot be patented because triangles cannot be patened" is analogous to the claim that "Light bulbs cannot be patented because electromagnetic radiation cannot be patented".
Both claims are absurd.
BTW, I am also an old programmer. Where I come from, CS was originally part of the Applied Math department, not the (pure) Math department. Again, Applied Math is to Math as Engineering is to Physics. So Math and Physics are not patentable, but Applied Math and Engineering are. You see the difference?
You are obviously not a programmer. Software is built on math, but it is not math itself.
Using physics instead of math, would you also say that a light bulb (which is nothing but a collection of naturally occurring atoms), should also not be patentable?
there's no way I think it's worth it to spend billions on them
Currently, Earth is a single point of failure for all of humanity (not to mention all other known life as well). Establishing some redundancy in case of a disaster on this planet is well worth the billions of dollars that it will cost.
Think of it as a very practical and sensible security initiative.
These companies might be innovative, and they might even be creating innovative software, but they are not "software companies", and hence the outsourcing option is a viable one.
The great-grandparent post claimed that software companies (i.e. companies which produce software for profit) cannot outsource. The grandparent post pointed out (rightly) that such companies employ a tiny fraction of all software developers.
And if, for whatever reason, the confirmation is never received, then I never see the original e-mail. This seems like a deliberate crippling of the e-mail system. There's got to be a better solution than this.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so...
Please tell me you're trolling. Aside from being politically dubious, your comment is completely illogical. Don't we also have to teach that "cheap global labor" to program?
Reminds me of Yogi Berra's famous comment: "No one goes to that restaurant any more -- it's too crowded."
It might still be too early to tell, but I suspect that analog photography will find a small niche indefinitely.
This theory is known as panspermia.
As a thought experiment, lets propose that our grey-goo nanobot is just made of silicon and iron. Lets place our grey-goo nanobot on a slab of iron...
Let's also propose that our nanobot is mobile. It gathers enough iron to make, say, two copies of itself. It then moves over to the silicon slab, again gathering enough silicon to make two copies of itself. It constructs these two copies. Now we have three nanobots, which repeat the above procedure.
I realize that this scenario is far-fetched. Creating a mobile, self-replicating nanobot is extremely difficult. However, it is far from impossible, as was originally claimed.
Basically, I have yet to see any convincing argument that grey goo is possible. Where is this grey goo going to get the energy for even self-assembly from raw substrate, much less unchecked exponential growth?
Sunlight, perhaps? It seems entirely likely that organic life started similarly, and spread rapidly once it reached a tipping point. Since we have compelling evidence that something like this already happened once, I find your claim that it is impossible to be rather unconvincing.
These tests are such a crock. You really think all people can be put in one of 16 pigeonholes? You really think a true/false test can tell you anything about your personality? Give me a break.
You fight "tooth and nail" with your customers? Talk about a career-limiting maneuver.
Bingo.
You have failed to address my point. I maintain that software is to math as engineering is to physics. Thus, your claim "Software cannot be patented because triangles cannot be patened" is analogous to the claim that "Light bulbs cannot be patented because electromagnetic radiation cannot be patented".
Both claims are absurd.
BTW, I am also an old programmer. Where I come from, CS was originally part of the Applied Math department, not the (pure) Math department. Again, Applied Math is to Math as Engineering is to Physics. So Math and Physics are not patentable, but Applied Math and Engineering are. You see the difference?
You are obviously not a programmer. Software is built on math, but it is not math itself.
Using physics instead of math, would you also say that a light bulb (which is nothing but a collection of naturally occurring atoms), should also not be patentable?
Sorry, but DMCA applies to circumvention of copyright control, not security.
there's no way I think it's worth it to spend billions on them
Currently, Earth is a single point of failure for all of humanity (not to mention all other known life as well). Establishing some redundancy in case of a disaster on this planet is well worth the billions of dollars that it will cost.
Think of it as a very practical and sensible security initiative.
Folks, take a step back and absorb this:
Manned exploration of Mars.
Permanent human presence on the Moon.
This is probably the most exciting news I've ever seen posted here at Slashdot. When do we leave?
A sig like that doesn't exactly bolster your point.
Nonsense. I'm #3036 or something and still feel like a newbie.
Thanks. I love that series, but had completely forgotten about the Shoe Event Horion. Good stuff.
You're welcome, but notice that the /. moderation system failed to pick up the point correctly.
What the heck is the Shoe Event Horizon?
You missed the point.
These companies might be innovative, and they might even be creating innovative software, but they are not "software companies", and hence the outsourcing option is a viable one.
The great-grandparent post claimed that software companies (i.e. companies which produce software for profit) cannot outsource. The grandparent post pointed out (rightly) that such companies employ a tiny fraction of all software developers.
It is such a shame for you that "complanar" is not a word. What's it supposed to mean?
I suppose I agree with you that the two types of servers are essentially interchangeable.
But, that said, there's no reason to think that the amount of new HTTP-based spam I receive will be any less than the amount of old SMTP-based spam.
And if, for whatever reason, the confirmation is never received, then I never see the original e-mail. This seems like a deliberate crippling of the e-mail system. There's got to be a better solution than this.
So I need to run my own personal HTTP server in order to receive such messages?
If people who haven't met me yet want to tell me something there are better methods than e-mail which provide protection against spam.
Such as?