computers are already capable of "hypersonic flight" - they can process information FAR faster and more accurately than any human
Only true for a subset of "process information" - those that lend themselves to computerized calculations (i.e. math).
Humans are rather faster and more accurate than computers at just about any other task.
Also, saying that "all that's missing is sentience" is missing the point that it is exactly this sentience that is the hard (and rather badly defined or even understood) part. We just don't have a clue what sentience is, so there's no way we can even begin to emulate or implement it artificially.
it's not like we have to build AI from the ground up. we have a prototype already. it's called the brain. your brain is just a meat processor. it's a system of cells, interconnections, chemicals, and electric pulses. all of that can be modeled in software, and run a million times faster, run itself in parallel, interface with other electronic systems in vastly superior ways, nearly limitless, perfect storage, and so on.
A couple of things:
Our understanding of how the brain works is less than perfect, to put it politely.
More to the point, we have basically no idea what consciousness actually is, how it works, or what makes it appear.
Further, we have a very tenuous grasp of what intelligence is in the first place - we can't even agree on a single definition of it.
So worrying about mankind developing self-conscious artificial intelligences might make for a good sci-fi story, but it makes for a rather lousy news story. We're just nowhere near close to having anything even remotely resembling human intelligence.
If we don't even know what human intelligence is, how could we possibly make artificial copies of it?
Hard AI currently looks for all intents and purposes impossible, and soft AI is just not a threat.
The US banned it because it was European and because the domestic Boeing 2707 never even got to the prototype stage.
Both France/UK (Concorde) and Russia (Tu-144) had actual flying production aircraft but the US couldn't even get a prototype airborne.
That's the sad truth about the US SST program and why (in part) the Concorde never really made it big - what's the use of a very, very expensive airliner whose only redeeming feature is that it's very, very fast if it isn't allowed to go faster than a regular wide-body passenger jet except over international waters?
If we're smart, we start using thorium reactors instead (so we don't add any more waste than necessary), and build some breeder/burner reactors to reduce the current waste handling to manageable amounts/time spans.
Yeah, nuclear energy research has moved on from the 60's, even though we still use reactor designs from back then. We should really, really stop doing that.
Twenty years from creation (copyright is currently defined as starting at creation) is way too short. I'm about to publish a trilogy of novels, and I started on the first one in 2001. By your standards, six years of profiting from my works should be enough. That's laughable.
You wrote the first one in 2001 and sat on it for 13 years, then complain that 20 years would be too short?
Twenty years from first publication might be reasonable
20 years from publication is about twice as long as is reasonable. Most novels make the vast majority of their sales in their first year, after that it just peters out to nothing over a number of years. It's a rare novel indeed that still makes sales after ten years, let alone twenty.
On the one hand, you have individuals creating works, and on the other hand, you have big corporations creating works.
That one is easy - disallow corporations from owning copyrights. There's no sane reason why copyrights should be allowed to be transferred from the creator anyway - and a corporation is not an entity that can create things anyway.
Either way, a flat twenty years is absurd.
No, what's absurd is the current situation of life+95, with renewals allowed every time that term is in danger of coming to an end.
Copyright is supposed to be a restriction of our right to copy the works of others so that the other can profit from it for a short while - thereby giving the other an incentive to create. But giving up our right to copy forever was never the intention of the deal.
It's high time to renege on a deal that's been perverted by one side into something that no longer even resembles the original intent.
They are "doing it right", there's just no way to do it the way you seem to think it should be done because of the speeds involved and the physics of orbiting.
Low Earth Orbit is only achievable with a speed of roughly 7.8 km/s (17,450 mph, 28,080 kph). Compare that to our regular "smooth controlled flight just like regular flight", with airliners topping roughly 600 mph (1,000 kph), and the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft ever made (the magnificent SR-71) only approaching 2,200 mph (3,500 kph).
The mechanics of orbiting says that to keep a stable orbit you keep a stable speed; if you increase speed you go to a higher orbit, and if you decrease speed you go to a lower orbit. So to get out of orbit we need to slow down.
So you're starting re-entry from a speed roughly ten times faster than a M-16 bullet - at these speeds any interaction with any kind of atmosphere is going to create "major high temperatures", but the physics say that you can't slow down without lowering your orbit and hence entering the atmosphere.
So we're in a bit of a bind here; we're orbiting at 28,000 kph, and we need to slow down to about a tenth of that to even have a chance of "smooth controlled flight" - but as soon as we slow down, our orbit lowers and we hit atmosphere, creating "major high temperatures" because of our speeds.
It should also be noted that it took the better part (70-90% or so) of our launchpad mass to get us up to this speed, and we simply do not have enough fuel to do much of any brake thrusting - the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is a harsh mistress indeed.
So you see, it's not really that they're "doing it wrong", it's that you don't understand the problem. To be up there in the first place means you have to go really, really fast, and that means re-entry cannot be done "slowly, [...] gliding down gracefully", because as soon as you start to slow down your orbit decays and you start re-entry.
Not every bank. Unlike the US, banks in other parts of the world aren't in the dark ages. Sending and receiving money via your bank account can be done instantly, even from your smart phone (no Apple Pay or NFC software required, just email or whatever other system you choose to use from the various options the banks offer).
When I (living in an EU country) need to transfer money to someone, I * start up my bank's app (for me, it's an Android app, but it's available for iPhone as well) and log in * ask the person for their bank account number (or pick it from a list of previous transfers) * enter the amount * press "send" and validate with my electronic ID.
It takes all of ten seconds, and there's no fee involved. The money usually shows up in the receiver's account immediately.
When I get a bill, I use the same app to OCR it (using my phone's camera), pick an account to debit, and store it to be processed on a date I choose. Takes about ten seconds per bill, then I send them all at once to the bank with one security validation.
I haven't been at a physical bank location in seven years, and the only reason I went there then was to get a mortgage. I haven't been to a physical bank location to pay bills this century.
So yeah. If this is news for Americans, you really do live in the dark ages of banking.
you are effectively requiring someone to act against his will and work for the company without being able to quit--which is akin to slavery.
Isn't that the whole idea behind capitalism in the first place? Make people act against their will and work for a company without being able to quit? Sure, you can quit working for a specific company, but it's a bit harder to quit working for any company.
There's some delicious irony in forcing the company owners into the same shoes as their employees - I approve of your idea:)
I thought this looked familiar, and sure enough, google turned up this article from 2007 about the system and the guy who spent eight years and 5 million GBP to try to solve it.
"Every time a train runs over a pile of leaves, they are squashed into a hard, black, shiny, Teflon-like substance that makes it more difficult for trains to slow down and stop."
"Rofin-Sinar created a monster. The final version of the laser railhead cleaner contains two lasers capable of producing 2kW each. The pulsed energy is channelled via a fibre optic, which delivers a round beam in a straight line across the rail. The pulsed beam hits the rail 25,000 times per second. The leafy mulch absorbs each 5,000C pulse of light, causing it to heat rapidly, expand and lift off the rails. Tests have found that the laser cleaner also works on oil, grease, ice and other problematic substances."
Some huge trucks still have things based on variable transmission technology, so the entire gearbox doesn't have gears but just slides into the most convenient gearing automatically. They've been around for decades. And they work by using a strong belt that can slide up and down a conical shaft. I kid you not. Every few years, they are re-invented under another brand / patent / material and actually do quite a good job. But they are still considered specialist parts because we can't overcome their weaknesses.
My 2012 Toyota iQ most definitely isn't "some huge truck", and its Super CVT-i transmission most assuredly doesn't have any "weaknesses" that needs to be overcome, nor is it considered "a special part" - it's just another option on the options list.
In fact, after having driven one for three years, I'm not sure I'd want to have a "regular" automatic gearbox, and I'm absolutely sure I don't want to go back to manual. Rush-hour traffic no longer feels like sitting in a pedal car...
However, someone coming into a bar recording everything (both visually and via audio) that should be private [...] being constantly recorded in a place where privacy is expected
I don't know what kind of bars you have where you live, but around here bars are public places. In fact, they're usually called "pubs" (short for "public house", apparently). There's no more expectation of privacy at the bar than in a park or other public place.
With Google Glass, at least you see them recording; the cellphone that's on "record" two tables over is just lost in the clutter...
In the EU, if you're serving by the pint, you have to either have glasses with fill lines, or pumps that are certified as dispensing a pint of liquid per pull. It's actually illegal to do otherwise. See Pint glass
It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here.... I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
Sure, it's expanded by 41% in the last two years. What you fail to mention is that 2012 was a record low.
Guess that didn't fit into your "global warming scam" world-view?
It's not actually an acronym. It's just a word with no phonetic pronunciation -- a treasured and carefully-guarded point in the space of four-character strings.
Slashdot Mirror
You recall correctly; Pluto hasn't even made it half a lap around the sun since we discovered it.
It was discovered in 1906, 108 years ago, and it's orbital period is 247.68 years.
computers are already capable of "hypersonic flight" - they can process information FAR faster and more accurately than any human
Only true for a subset of "process information" - those that lend themselves to computerized calculations (i.e. math).
Humans are rather faster and more accurate than computers at just about any other task.
Also, saying that "all that's missing is sentience" is missing the point that it is exactly this sentience that is the hard (and rather badly defined or even understood) part. We just don't have a clue what sentience is, so there's no way we can even begin to emulate or implement it artificially.
it's not like we have to build AI from the ground up. we have a prototype already. it's called the brain. your brain is just a meat processor. it's a system of cells, interconnections, chemicals, and electric pulses. all of that can be modeled in software, and run a million times faster, run itself in parallel, interface with other electronic systems in vastly superior ways, nearly limitless, perfect storage, and so on.
A couple of things:
Our understanding of how the brain works is less than perfect, to put it politely.
More to the point, we have basically no idea what consciousness actually is, how it works, or what makes it appear.
Further, we have a very tenuous grasp of what intelligence is in the first place - we can't even agree on a single definition of it.
So worrying about mankind developing self-conscious artificial intelligences might make for a good sci-fi story, but it makes for a rather lousy news story. We're just nowhere near close to having anything even remotely resembling human intelligence.
If we don't even know what human intelligence is, how could we possibly make artificial copies of it?
Hard AI currently looks for all intents and purposes impossible, and soft AI is just not a threat.
The US banned it because it was European and because the domestic Boeing 2707 never even got to the prototype stage.
Both France/UK (Concorde) and Russia (Tu-144) had actual flying production aircraft but the US couldn't even get a prototype airborne.
That's the sad truth about the US SST program and why (in part) the Concorde never really made it big - what's the use of a very, very expensive airliner whose only redeeming feature is that it's very, very fast if it isn't allowed to go faster than a regular wide-body passenger jet except over international waters?
We need these to store it. For 100.000 years.
Sure. If we're stupid.
If we're smart, we start using thorium reactors instead (so we don't add any more waste than necessary), and build some breeder/burner reactors to reduce the current waste handling to manageable amounts/time spans.
Yeah, nuclear energy research has moved on from the 60's, even though we still use reactor designs from back then. We should really, really stop doing that.
More's the pity. It seems to work rather well in those countries that do have it.
Although, to be fair, those are social democratic countries, not ultra-capitalist like the U.S.
Twenty years from creation (copyright is currently defined as starting at creation) is way too short. I'm about to publish a trilogy of novels, and I started on the first one in 2001. By your standards, six years of profiting from my works should be enough. That's laughable.
You wrote the first one in 2001 and sat on it for 13 years, then complain that 20 years would be too short?
Twenty years from first publication might be reasonable
20 years from publication is about twice as long as is reasonable. Most novels make the vast majority of their sales in their first year, after that it just peters out to nothing over a number of years. It's a rare novel indeed that still makes sales after ten years, let alone twenty.
On the one hand, you have individuals creating works, and on the other hand, you have big corporations creating works.
That one is easy - disallow corporations from owning copyrights. There's no sane reason why copyrights should be allowed to be transferred from the creator anyway - and a corporation is not an entity that can create things anyway.
Either way, a flat twenty years is absurd.
No, what's absurd is the current situation of life+95, with renewals allowed every time that term is in danger of coming to an end.
Copyright is supposed to be a restriction of our right to copy the works of others so that the other can profit from it for a short while - thereby giving the other an incentive to create. But giving up our right to copy forever was never the intention of the deal.
It's high time to renege on a deal that's been perverted by one side into something that no longer even resembles the original intent.
Docker is an open platform for developers and sysadmins to build, ship, and run distributed applications.
They are "doing it right", there's just no way to do it the way you seem to think it should be done because of the speeds involved and the physics of orbiting.
Low Earth Orbit is only achievable with a speed of roughly 7.8 km/s (17,450 mph, 28,080 kph). Compare that to our regular "smooth controlled flight just like regular flight", with airliners topping roughly 600 mph (1,000 kph), and the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft ever made (the magnificent SR-71) only approaching 2,200 mph (3,500 kph).
The mechanics of orbiting says that to keep a stable orbit you keep a stable speed; if you increase speed you go to a higher orbit, and if you decrease speed you go to a lower orbit. So to get out of orbit we need to slow down.
So you're starting re-entry from a speed roughly ten times faster than a M-16 bullet - at these speeds any interaction with any kind of atmosphere is going to create "major high temperatures", but the physics say that you can't slow down without lowering your orbit and hence entering the atmosphere.
So we're in a bit of a bind here; we're orbiting at 28,000 kph, and we need to slow down to about a tenth of that to even have a chance of "smooth controlled flight" - but as soon as we slow down, our orbit lowers and we hit atmosphere, creating "major high temperatures" because of our speeds.
It should also be noted that it took the better part (70-90% or so) of our launchpad mass to get us up to this speed, and we simply do not have enough fuel to do much of any brake thrusting - the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is a harsh mistress indeed.
So you see, it's not really that they're "doing it wrong", it's that you don't understand the problem. To be up there in the first place means you have to go really, really fast, and that means re-entry cannot be done "slowly, [...] gliding down gracefully", because as soon as you start to slow down your orbit decays and you start re-entry.
It's built by Boston Engineering, not Boston Dynamics.
Also, it was developed as BIOSwimmer for the DHS orignially, the GhostSwimmer (PDF warning) for the navy is just a modified version.
Oh, and it's designed to resemble a tuna, not a shark.
Not every bank. Unlike the US, banks in other parts of the world aren't in the dark ages. Sending and receiving money via your bank account can be done instantly, even from your smart phone (no Apple Pay or NFC software required, just email or whatever other system you choose to use from the various options the banks offer).
When I (living in an EU country) need to transfer money to someone, I
* start up my bank's app (for me, it's an Android app, but it's available for iPhone as well) and log in
* ask the person for their bank account number (or pick it from a list of previous transfers)
* enter the amount
* press "send" and validate with my electronic ID.
It takes all of ten seconds, and there's no fee involved. The money usually shows up in the receiver's account immediately.
When I get a bill, I use the same app to OCR it (using my phone's camera), pick an account to debit, and store it to be processed on a date I choose. Takes about ten seconds per bill, then I send them all at once to the bank with one security validation.
I haven't been at a physical bank location in seven years, and the only reason I went there then was to get a mortgage. I haven't been to a physical bank location to pay bills this century.
So yeah. If this is news for Americans, you really do live in the dark ages of banking.
you are effectively requiring someone to act against his will and work for the company without being able to quit--which is akin to slavery.
Isn't that the whole idea behind capitalism in the first place? Make people act against their will and work for a company without being able to quit? Sure, you can quit working for a specific company, but it's a bit harder to quit working for any company.
There's some delicious irony in forcing the company owners into the same shoes as their employees - I approve of your idea :)
Not sure I'm 100% committed to this rock'n'roll lifestyle:
"I wanna rock'n'roll all night,
and part of every day"
- KISS
42.2 Joules, actually.
But since that energy was delivered in 40 femtoseconds, they multiplied the two values and said it is a petawatt laser.
Funny what a wikipedia search might teach you :)
They're not "just leaves".
I thought this looked familiar, and sure enough, google turned up this article from 2007 about the system and the guy who spent eight years and 5 million GBP to try to solve it.
"Every time a train runs over a pile of leaves, they are squashed into a hard, black, shiny, Teflon-like substance that makes it more difficult for trains to slow down and stop."
"Rofin-Sinar created a monster. The final version of the laser railhead cleaner contains two lasers capable of producing 2kW each. The pulsed energy is channelled via a fibre optic, which delivers a round beam in a straight line across the rail.
The pulsed beam hits the rail 25,000 times per second. The leafy mulch absorbs each 5,000C pulse of light, causing it to heat rapidly, expand and lift off the rails. Tests have found that the laser cleaner also works on oil, grease, ice and other problematic substances."
Some huge trucks still have things based on variable transmission technology, so the entire gearbox doesn't have gears but just slides into the most convenient gearing automatically. They've been around for decades. And they work by using a strong belt that can slide up and down a conical shaft. I kid you not. Every few years, they are re-invented under another brand / patent / material and actually do quite a good job. But they are still considered specialist parts because we can't overcome their weaknesses.
My 2012 Toyota iQ most definitely isn't "some huge truck", and its Super CVT-i transmission most assuredly doesn't have any "weaknesses" that needs to be overcome, nor is it considered "a special part" - it's just another option on the options list.
In fact, after having driven one for three years, I'm not sure I'd want to have a "regular" automatic gearbox, and I'm absolutely sure I don't want to go back to manual. Rush-hour traffic no longer feels like sitting in a pedal car...
However, someone coming into a bar recording everything (both visually and via audio) that should be private [...] being constantly recorded in a place where privacy is expected
I don't know what kind of bars you have where you live, but around here bars are public places. In fact, they're usually called "pubs" (short for "public house", apparently). There's no more expectation of privacy at the bar than in a park or other public place.
With Google Glass, at least you see them recording; the cellphone that's on "record" two tables over is just lost in the clutter...
No, because there's almost half a decade worth of FUD been spent on making people equate "nuclear" with "bad."
"Half a decade"? If you mean "half a century", you're about right.
Google "breeder reactor" and "thorium reactor".
Engineering-wise, nuclear waste is basically a solved problem. It's political and economical factors that are making it a problem still.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can really hurt me".
In the EU, if you're serving by the pint, you have to either have glasses with fill lines, or pumps that are certified as dispensing a pint of liquid per pull. It's actually illegal to do otherwise. See Pint glass
It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
Sure, it's expanded by 41% in the last two years. What you fail to mention is that 2012 was a record low.
Guess that didn't fit into your "global warming scam" world-view?
It's not actually an acronym. It's just a word with no phonetic pronunciation -- a treasured and carefully-guarded point in the space of four-character strings.
http://xkcd.com/about/
simply stacked the blocks
I think this is the part you mistakenly think is easy.
There's roughly 2.4 million stones in the Great Pyramid of Giza, some of which weigh up to 80 tons. "Simply stacking" them is anything but.
Without any mod points today the next best thing I can do is to say "Bravo AC, bravo!" and hope someone with mod points mods you up.
It always amazes me that the McCarthy-era Red Scare still lives and breathes in 21st Century America.