Actually, the ideal shape would be a sphere, with the outer layers consisting of the less important stuff that doesn't need the lower latency of the core.
Since a serious supercomputer (probably running an artificial intelligence) would need to be VERY large physically...
I can't say per square inch because that would be misleading
So say per cubic inch, or per cc.
Superdense molecular storage & processing will be great, but we'll still find a way to fill it.:)
...reminds me of some short story where the geeks of the future had really fat bellies - not full of fat, but of their jelly-like personal storage matter.
Why should the brain get the credit? If you want to hand out credit, give it to the awesome evolutionary process where complexity naturally emerges from simplicity.
Genetic Programming/Algs can evolve some amazing and utterly incomprehesible beasts (like sorting algorithms we can't begin to understand, but that work). It's the process that should be admired, not the ends... IMO.
my point is that there is a LOT of money to be made in the soft drink industry, without screwing the consumer.
No, you're still being screwed, it's just that you don't feel it because $1.50 is an insignificant amount of money to worry about, even if you know the drink only costs 12 cents. When you start talking about paying $20 for a crappy CD, or $300 for WinXP, or $35/year for a domain name, people beging to feel the assraping.
Anyway... competition is supposed to kill insane profit margins (like Microsoft's), so it's all good.
Remember to visit pricegrabber or pricewatch next time. Pricegrabber shows vendor ratings along with the expected tax and shipping costs to your specific zipcode... so you can tell when someone's trying to rip you off on the shipping charges, and when someone's lowball prices is too lowball for their own good and their rating suffers as a result.
'When I give an idea to you, I am not deprived of it's possesion, but we are both richer for it'
<Devil's Advocate> Some "ideas" cost over 100 million to produce, which is what the enforced legal fiction of a limited copyright is supposed to help incentivize.
But if that legal fiction isn't recognized by society (it doesn't seem to be), and it can't be enforced (*laugh*), then what? Well then artists will still create, but giants won't be able to produce "Oops!..I did it again", or The Lord of the Rings, or Waterworld... (unless a new form of compensation emerges like variations of Bruce Schneir's street performer protocol, or "communist" peer-production).
The premise is that it is important for developed (and hopefully benevolent) nations to be first to create the technology in order to create nano-based defenses against potentially aggressive destabilizing regimes.
Right, and no DMCA-like law is ever going to stop someone from circumventing "replication-prevention technology", just as no law is going to prevent someone from designing DNA-specific viruses, etc. Not even a totalitarian world government in "control" of technology (*shudder*) would be able to prevent this abuse.
The best solution to the nano-terrorist problem I've heard is one the one where the good guys develop the tech first, and the first order of business is to infest every nook and cranny with an "active shield" - an exo-immune system of sorts.
Your quote should be fixed to read: All progress is driven by technology and male hormones. So, when realistic virtual reality is invented, civilization [as we know it] will collapse.
There was also a Futurama episode (the "Nappster" one with Lucy Lu) where a 50s-style educational film warned Fry that sex with robots would lead to the collapse of civilization, because all that man has accomplished is merely a side effect of trying to impress chicks in order to spread their seed.:)
Anyway, the fear of change is perfectly normal -- evolution favored those who didn't risk much change, leaving the occasional mutant do so. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?
What you deride as a "mental masturbation world", others, including myself, view as a hedonistic imperative to eliminate suffering in all sentient life.
Interesting that I routinely deal with homes that will think nothing of spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to use Antique Jerusalem Stone on the floors, but mention Solar and the first question is, "what's the payback"
That's not the least bit interesting, and you know it.
You can't dismiss the fact that people are vain. Expensive luxury items start paying you back immediately in terms of self-satisfaction and social status, whereas the solar panels are out of sight for the most part, and won't payback anything for 10-20yrs; and for the trouble of going solar you'll still get most people rolling their eyes at you.
As much as I'd like it to be, solar just isn't that cost-effective... especially in the face of other power generation that isn't taxed for the pollution that we'll all end up paying for anyway.
(My bet for our future of clean renewable energy is the combination of Solar Power Stations with a hyrdogen economy.)
robots/AI should primarily be designed and programmed to do things that humans are BAD at
Right. So that means AI should end up doing their own software development too.:)
But why stop with only the jobs we're BAD at? For example: most plumbers, miners, and fisherman are good at what they do, but I bet they'd rather be doing something else.
I won't be happy until robots+AI are doing EVERYTHING most humans don't want to be doing themselves (so we have more time for eating, sleeping and fucking)... Ahh... the hedonistic imperitive...:)
... patent law needs requires transnational cooperation
No, it doesn't.
I want countries to COMPETE, not homogenize, just as the states in the US are able to "compete" for citizens/business via better taxes, law, etc.
I'm glad some nations are smart enough not to grant monopolies on software, business methods, and genetic info. It's a mistaken idea that overly strong IP protection -- especially in rapidly evolving markets -- translates into a stronger economy. e.g. just the opposite would be true if the net was burdened with patents to begin with.
A few months ago I prompted pricescan to fix their site. There was an annoying vertical stretching error that was ignored by IE, but not by Opera or Mozilla.
Shot off an email and it got fixed. Apparently it's a relatively small company, so someone was listening.
IMO, the US should be giving tax credits to those who don't squirt babies out, instead of the other way around. Manifest destiny is overwith, and China, along with the rest of the world, is a larger market of new consumers than "homegrown Americans" anyway.
As long as the payment didn't necessarily have to be in currency, this might have the potential to be a great alternate mail system.
I'd want my anonymous international/poor/"terrorist" friends to be able to pay me in CPU Hours instead of hard cash.
Also, I just don't like the idea of PayPal as my middleman when it quacks like a bank but isn't. I really wish egold had taken off... (insert conspiracy theories here...)
There's no evidence-- scientific, anecdotal, circumstantial, or otherwise-- to lead to the conclusion that such a system or process will ever exist.
Have you been hiding under a rock? Molecular Nanotechnology is absolutely possible--look in the mirror for example. Unlike anti-gravity or cold fusion, we know that molecular manufacturing is possible, because every plant and animal on Earth is a working proof of the physics. It's only a matter of time before we unlock the "magic".
But since you're humoring this idea in the rest of your post...
If you want to manufacture your own car to match the precise specifications of the car you bought, that's your own business.
Are you sure that's what you meant to say? I've got quite a lot of "dirt" under my property that can be reassembled into the form of a truck (proprietary design or open)--not an infinite supply like with bits, but an abundant supply of molecular feedstock nonetheless, which can also be infinitely recycled because atoms don't wear out.
If I can make a copy of my car for fractions of pennies on the dollar, then so can Ford, but Ford is going to be in a similar position as the copyright cartel companies if they attempt to use weak copy-prevention technology in combination with bad law in order to keep the profit margins they're used to. Right now an instance of a car is expensive for good reason, and the margin is justified, and this pays for the engineers, and designers, marketing, and bean counters, etc...
So basically, I have a problem with artificial scarcity in a world of abundance, whereas you don't. You would like to be my master. I wonder what you do for a living that you're so eager to see fair use killed off...
I don't get a free backup car to keep in my garage just in case I get into a fender-bender.
And what would you say if it was indeed possible to make molecular-level backup scans of the physical objects you owned? This will be possible by the end of the century.
Would you still be vehemently in favor of not allowing me to keep my molecules/bits in working order? Or would you rather have me on the consumer treadmill by forcing me to buy my Ford (or Beatles album) over and over and over when not even necessary?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the ideal shape would be a sphere, with the outer layers consisting of the less important stuff that doesn't need the lower latency of the core.
Since a serious supercomputer (probably running an artificial intelligence) would need to be VERY large physically ...
I don't think you realize how large. :)
Matrioshka Brains are a fascinating inevitability.
--
So say per cubic inch, or per cc.
Superdense molecular storage & processing will be great, but we'll still find a way to fill it. :)
--
Genetic Programming/Algs can evolve some amazing and utterly incomprehesible beasts (like sorting algorithms we can't begin to understand, but that work). It's the process that should be admired, not the ends... IMO.
--
And, no, I'm not talking about myself. :) I'm perfectly comfortable with idle hands in my pockets or by my side.
--
No, you're still being screwed, it's just that you don't feel it because $1.50 is an insignificant amount of money to worry about, even if you know the drink only costs 12 cents. When you start talking about paying $20 for a crappy CD, or $300 for WinXP, or $35/year for a domain name, people beging to feel the assraping.
Anyway... competition is supposed to kill insane profit margins (like Microsoft's), so it's all good.
--
How much data are we talk'n that a PC couldn't handle it? "It only takes one 'pirate'" to do the analog->DivX conversion.
--
--
P2P replaced them, and the poor pornstars are starving! (i.e. getting skinnier and sexier! j/k)
--
<Devil's Advocate>
Some "ideas" cost over 100 million to produce, which is what the enforced legal fiction of a limited copyright is supposed to help incentivize.
But if that legal fiction isn't recognized by society (it doesn't seem to be), and it can't be enforced (*laugh*), then what? Well then artists will still create, but giants won't be able to produce "Oops!..I did it again", or The Lord of the Rings, or Waterworld... (unless a new form of compensation emerges like variations of Bruce Schneir's street performer protocol, or "communist" peer-production).
What a tragedy.
</Devil's Advocate>
--
Right, and no DMCA-like law is ever going to stop someone from circumventing "replication-prevention technology", just as no law is going to prevent someone from designing DNA-specific viruses, etc. Not even a totalitarian world government in "control" of technology (*shudder*) would be able to prevent this abuse.
The best solution to the nano-terrorist problem I've heard is one the one where the good guys develop the tech first, and the first order of business is to infest every nook and cranny with an "active shield" - an exo-immune system of sorts.
--
There was also a Futurama episode (the "Nappster" one with Lucy Lu) where a 50s-style educational film warned Fry that sex with robots would lead to the collapse of civilization, because all that man has accomplished is merely a side effect of trying to impress chicks in order to spread their seed. :)
Anyway, the fear of change is perfectly normal -- evolution favored those who didn't risk much change, leaving the occasional mutant do so. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?
What you deride as a "mental masturbation world", others, including myself, view as a hedonistic imperative to eliminate suffering in all sentient life.
--
That's not the least bit interesting, and you know it.
You can't dismiss the fact that people are vain. Expensive luxury items start paying you back immediately in terms of self-satisfaction and social status, whereas the solar panels are out of sight for the most part, and won't payback anything for 10-20yrs; and for the trouble of going solar you'll still get most people rolling their eyes at you.
As much as I'd like it to be, solar just isn't that cost-effective... especially in the face of other power generation that isn't taxed for the pollution that we'll all end up paying for anyway.
(My bet for our future of clean renewable energy is the combination of Solar Power Stations with a hyrdogen economy.)
--
Right. So that means AI should end up doing their own software development too. :)
But why stop with only the jobs we're BAD at? For example: most plumbers, miners, and fisherman are good at what they do, but I bet they'd rather be doing something else.
I won't be happy until robots+AI are doing EVERYTHING most humans don't want to be doing themselves (so we have more time for eating, sleeping and fucking)... Ahh... the hedonistic imperitive... :)
--
No, it doesn't.
I want countries to COMPETE, not homogenize, just as the states in the US are able to "compete" for citizens/business via better taxes, law, etc.
I'm glad some nations are smart enough not to grant monopolies on software, business methods, and genetic info. It's a mistaken idea that overly strong IP protection -- especially in rapidly evolving markets -- translates into a stronger economy. e.g. just the opposite would be true if the net was burdened with patents to begin with.
--
I would actually expect this kind of thing from a middle-aged schmuck in a suit no less than some kid.
There's a reason assholes get ahead in this world...
--
Shot off an email and it got fixed. Apparently it's a relatively small company, so someone was listening.
--
IMO, the US should be giving tax credits to those who don't squirt babies out, instead of the other way around. Manifest destiny is overwith, and China, along with the rest of the world, is a larger market of new consumers than "homegrown Americans" anyway.
I'm not joking.
--
I pack my plastic explosives in the bigger D batteries.
Seriously though, I wouldn't limit the number of batteries I brought aboard just because it might make me "look suspicious." What the fuck?
--
--
Step 2) Search for "mame" or maybe give this a go.
--
I'd want my anonymous international/poor/"terrorist" friends to be able to pay me in CPU Hours instead of hard cash.
Also, I just don't like the idea of PayPal as my middleman when it quacks like a bank but isn't. I really wish egold had taken off... (insert conspiracy theories here...)
--
Wow. You really are an authoritarian ass.
Security through obscurity doesn't work, and vague statements of insecurity certainly won't motivate a company to fix anything.
--
An authoritarian who's unable to understand why rule-breakers break rules? *gasp* :)
--
Have you been hiding under a rock? Molecular Nanotechnology is absolutely possible--look in the mirror for example. Unlike anti-gravity or cold fusion, we know that molecular manufacturing is possible, because every plant and animal on Earth is a working proof of the physics. It's only a matter of time before we unlock the "magic".
But since you're humoring this idea in the rest of your post...
If you want to manufacture your own car to match the precise specifications of the car you bought, that's your own business.
Are you sure that's what you meant to say? I've got quite a lot of "dirt" under my property that can be reassembled into the form of a truck (proprietary design or open)--not an infinite supply like with bits, but an abundant supply of molecular feedstock nonetheless, which can also be infinitely recycled because atoms don't wear out.
If I can make a copy of my car for fractions of pennies on the dollar, then so can Ford, but Ford is going to be in a similar position as the copyright cartel companies if they attempt to use weak copy-prevention technology in combination with bad law in order to keep the profit margins they're used to. Right now an instance of a car is expensive for good reason, and the margin is justified, and this pays for the engineers, and designers, marketing, and bean counters, etc...
So basically, I have a problem with artificial scarcity in a world of abundance, whereas you don't. You would like to be my master. I wonder what you do for a living that you're so eager to see fair use killed off...
--
And what would you say if it was indeed possible to make molecular-level backup scans of the physical objects you owned? This will be possible by the end of the century.
Would you still be vehemently in favor of not allowing me to keep my molecules/bits in working order? Or would you rather have me on the consumer treadmill by forcing me to buy my Ford (or Beatles album) over and over and over when not even necessary?
--