... they've developed a mathematical proof which, in specific cases...
Identifying those cases reveals that there are problems that quantum computers (QC) cannot solve and that classical computers can.
While QC will bust current encryption wide open in a New York minute, QC will also create encryption that cannot be busted.
For those interested, look at "man in the middle," wiretapping that outs itself because it's making a measurement midstream and randomizing the fuck out of the process.
CaptainDork's 17th Corollary: For every motherfucker out there moving to a land claiming manifest domain and eminent destiny, there's already a motherfucker on that land claiming manifest domain and eminent destiny.
Back on topic: Science is being democratized, using the same definition of that word that applies to the democratization of literature (advances in printing press technology), Photography has been democratized in that even the unwashed have cameras.
Publishing used to be limited to those who had money and something valuable to say.
As you and I have demonstrated, any asshole can do that now.
While humans don't want to live in a fucking goddam fossil-fuel cesspool and should work to clean their house, the turning point is 40 years behind us.
The answer is to simply fucking MOVE but guess what?
The sweet spots are occupied already and we're not talking occupied by stone-age technology like First Peoples vs Europe.
"Life," has a shitload of meanings in different contexts and has to be clearly defined before extrapolation.
"Life as we know it," has a non-zero probability of existing at the same time we do, and to further grant it attributes of "intelligence," make the likelihood even less.
We have life at the hot vents in the ocean rifts that are sulfur-based. They are not intelligent.
By way of analogy, I provide Garfield the Cat's paradox wherein Jon says, "Pigs are smarter than cats," and Garfield responds with, "If pigs are so smart, why are they pigs?"
I enjoyed your post very much and I'd like to add an element that extends your argument:
In brief: Social media's business model (indeed, the entire Internet's) is to make money in three ways:
- Advertisements - Data prostitution - Subscriptions
The product is "eyeballs," just as it always has been with newspapers (Enquirer), Radio (Howard Stern), TV (Jerry Springer).
The customer is advertisers, even with subscriber-subsidized content, like newspapers, magazines, and TV.
So the task is pretty simple: Gather eyeballs.
The business doesn't give a flying fuck how that's done, or who does it, as long as the money pours in.
Content providers who act as lightning rods can be Bob or bots.
A revenue stream impediment can be something like Alex Jones, or bullying, or revenge porn, etc. When that happens, social media takes note and works to remove the friction.
Even that action is biased toward gathering more eyeballs.
In summary, capitalism has ruined the Internet and there's no way in hell to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
It's both.
... they've developed a mathematical proof which, in specific cases ...
Identifying those cases reveals that there are problems that quantum computers (QC) cannot solve and that classical computers can.
While QC will bust current encryption wide open in a New York minute, QC will also create encryption that cannot be busted.
For those interested, look at "man in the middle," wiretapping that outs itself because it's making a measurement midstream and randomizing the fuck out of the process.
Like, why would you do that?
Money.
You're avoiding one of the definitions of democratization wherein those things that were limited to the elite are now available to the unwashed.
The printing press equalized (democratized) the disparity between the literate and illiterate.
Efforts to stop that paradigm shift failed because the press makes a shitload of money.
We agree.
You hit the real mark here:
... the hardest part of solving this problem isn't technical, it's getting people to acknowledge it's a problem.
Well said.
Definition: Manifest domain: War.
Definition: Eminent destiny: War.
CaptainDork's 17th Corollary: For every motherfucker out there moving to a land claiming manifest domain and eminent destiny, there's already a motherfucker on that land claiming manifest domain and eminent destiny.
... when you can't counter and actual argument.
English is your first language after, "Da Da giggy boo."
It's lame to dig up an excuse like that.
I am multilingual, being proficient in the following languages:
English, Pasquale, COBOL, FORTRAN, breeze shooting, African-American vernacular English, mathematics, love, physics, Cajun, and pig Latin.
Back on topic: Science is being democratized, using the same definition of that word that applies to the democratization of literature (advances in printing press technology), Photography has been democratized in that even the unwashed have cameras.
Publishing used to be limited to those who had money and something valuable to say.
As you and I have demonstrated, any asshole can do that now.
I like the points you make except about liquid fluoride thorium reactors.
The technology is embryonic and a lot of work remains to work out all the real issues plus the parts that are simply hypotheses.
I'm not a Debbie Downer by nature, but I'm comfortable that, for the US, LFTR will go the way of Waxahachie.
One can fantasize. Me?
I'm thinking of the boiled frog.
And the people already living where you're heading ...?
This.
While humans don't want to live in a fucking goddam fossil-fuel cesspool and should work to clean their house, the turning point is 40 years behind us.
The answer is to simply fucking MOVE but guess what?
The sweet spots are occupied already and we're not talking occupied by stone-age technology like First Peoples vs Europe.
It's gonna be a hell of a fight.
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Not in this context.
It's soldiers ...
It's generals ...
How's the war on grammar going?
See sig.
That was precisely my objection regarding Stephan Hawkin's remarks.
Science is his wheelhouse.
Like Jane Fonda, celeb status did not magically grant him wisdom outside his core competency.
Actually, you may not be up to speed on this.
"Life," has a shitload of meanings in different contexts and has to be clearly defined before extrapolation.
"Life as we know it," has a non-zero probability of existing at the same time we do, and to further grant it attributes of "intelligence," make the likelihood even less.
We have life at the hot vents in the ocean rifts that are sulfur-based. They are not intelligent.
By way of analogy, I provide Garfield the Cat's paradox wherein Jon says, "Pigs are smarter than cats," and Garfield responds with, "If pigs are so smart, why are they pigs?"
But I can't look at a particular nucleus and force it to decay at a particular time ...
Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
We don't have ANY evidence for a cyclical big bang, in fact, the evidence (so far) points to an accelerated, expanding, universe that just poofs out.
For reference, see "dark energy."
No.
It is incorrect to take extremes and split them right down the middle and get "an atheist of the agnostic kind."
What about, "a theist of the agnostic kind?"
Your logic is broken.
I agree and freely admit that my atheism is faith-based and not grounded in science.
I've never had an interest to prove that I'm right about it or to convert anyone.
Regarding it, I really don't give a shit.
I'm a science junkie, though.
Thanks.
Often, as the day wears on, the more thoughtful mods clean up the mess.
I have 15 points and no hair-trigger.
Atheism is as faith-based as religion is.
Neither is supported by science.
... trained as a fundamentalist in AI.
It's not his wheelhouse.
I'm an atheist, too, but like Hawking, I don't have any science to support my faith-based world view.
Stephen's thoughts on these matters are as useless as tits on a boar.
Reminds me of the early days when the like of Compuserve and Prodigy were joined by noobie AOL users.
Hell, every person wants to see their comment on the brand new Internet!
AOL was the first, "me, too" generation.
I enjoyed your post very much and I'd like to add an element that extends your argument:
In brief: Social media's business model (indeed, the entire Internet's) is to make money in three ways:
- Advertisements
- Data prostitution
- Subscriptions
The product is "eyeballs," just as it always has been with newspapers (Enquirer), Radio (Howard Stern), TV (Jerry Springer).
The customer is advertisers, even with subscriber-subsidized content, like newspapers, magazines, and TV.
So the task is pretty simple: Gather eyeballs.
The business doesn't give a flying fuck how that's done, or who does it, as long as the money pours in.
Content providers who act as lightning rods can be Bob or bots.
A revenue stream impediment can be something like Alex Jones, or bullying, or revenge porn, etc. When that happens, social media takes note and works to remove the friction.
Even that action is biased toward gathering more eyeballs.
In summary, capitalism has ruined the Internet and there's no way in hell to stop it.
Have to be careful.
It is a crime ti toss evidence in a car chase.
Many times, the discards are guns and drugs.
Because there is probable cause, the actor knows that she is evading.
My iPhone will brick on the 11th failed passcode.
I could change that to 3, if I'm pretty sure I'll be stopped.
However, punching numbers to induce lock-out in the presence of LEO, under some circumstances, can be illegal.
An example is the immediate presence of danger to self or police or to the public.