I think we are rather ingnorant/arogant in thinking that we know that we can't go any faster than light.
It is completely meaningless as it simply violates causality. If FTL accn is possible, then our entire understanding of physics is almost completely wrong, and there is ample tangible evidence to suggest that is not so.
You know here's me thinking that one of the nice things about science in general is that discussion about other viewpoints is a "Good Thing" and that although things can be certain now they are certain built upon the foundations of our current knowledge. If in the future we discover that something doesn't quite fit in our understanding of the world and its rules then maybe it might be possible to do something that was previously proven to be "impossible".
I'm not sure that arrogant is the best discription of our view of not being able to travel faster than light and I don't think that being ignorant given our current knowledge is a good description either. Maybe foolishness that we stubborn enough to make such a statement whereas "Faster than light travel is not possible given our current understanding of the universe and it's principles" may have been better. As Einstien once said "The important thing is not to stop questioning."
I need a rocket launcher button that works on the self-absorbed asshole yapping on his cellphone while driving his enormous SUV 52 in the 65 passing lane and backing up traffic for a mile behind him! I push the button, he moves his ass over and life goes on.
Well, I guess a "get the &#^$ out of my way" would do, too.
True, although converting it using iTunes does rather make having it on a CD a moot point, my point being that the medium itself is rather pointless these days. Personally I would rather only download the songs on the album that I want (usually 2 or 3 tracks out of 14 or so) for much less than the whole album. You can always burn the songs to a CD if you want to back them up.
However if you want to go travelling, are going from work directly to the gym (or vice versa) or would just like to listen to different styles of music throughout the day, having to cart more than half a dozen CD's around with you changing them on the player as you go is a lot more hassle than just having them all on a single device.
In a discussion about cannibalism maybe "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" is more appropriate. Alternativly "Do not meddle in the affairs of psychiatrists, for you are crunchy and taste good with fava beans" might be even more topical.:-)
Who needs fake licence plates? All you need in ultra violet paint and it will screw up any camera (as far as I know) from taking a photo of it yet is still readable for the human eye.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." -- Douglas Adams
The worms you are thinking of are Warhol worms and flash worms, first published in a paper by Staniford and Weaver which use hitlists to find targets and can spread to 95% of vulnerable hosts in about 15 minutes or under 30 seconds for a flash worm. A varient of the flash worm also proposed by Weaver in a later paper in 2004 and had a theoretical flash worm spread in 510ms, unfortunately I can't find the paper at the moment.
I would call Slammer a 'polite' worm as it did no harm other than flooding networks.
Thats quite a generous optinion of the slammer worm considering it basically ground sections of the internet to a holt by the amount of traffic it generated.
It's certainly possible to write an impolite worm. One that doesn't just spread itself, but after 20 minutes of attempting to spread itself decides to stop all of your services and then wipe the data off your hard drive.
I've always wondered why peoples immediate thought of a worst case senario is loss of data. There are far worst things you could do if you had access to someones machine: stealing confidential information for blackmail, sending out emails in that persons name from their machine damaging that persons reputation, downloading kiddie porn to the machine, removing yourself and then informing the authorities.. data can be recovered by various mechanisims but reputations or finances are a lot harder to rebuild.
Technically speaking you just mimic as well, for your initial method of learning at least, so as a starting point it is to expected that AI gives the impression of mimicing others. Whether they can reach conclusions on their own with the information they already have is more interesting.
Of course on that same form, when I flew across to the states a few years ago (about 2000 I think), was a section which was only applicable to males between the age of 16 and 45. Aside from the "Do you plan on carrying out any terrorist activities?" question there was one which asked if you were involved in the persecusion of the Jews between 1939 and 1945, which I found highly amusing.
Of course the real question is that if you say yes to the question: Are you a terrorist would you get a more lenient sentance if caught? Well your honour, I did say I would carry out terrorist activites so you only really have yourselves to blame!
Slashdot Mirror
I think we are rather ingnorant/arogant in thinking that we know that we can't go any faster than light.
It is completely meaningless as it simply violates causality. If FTL accn is possible, then our entire understanding of physics is almost completely wrong, and there is ample tangible evidence to suggest that is not so.
You know here's me thinking that one of the nice things about science in general is that discussion about other viewpoints is a "Good Thing" and that although things can be certain now they are certain built upon the foundations of our current knowledge. If in the future we discover that something doesn't quite fit in our understanding of the world and its rules then maybe it might be possible to do something that was previously proven to be "impossible".
I'm not sure that arrogant is the best discription of our view of not being able to travel faster than light and I don't think that being ignorant given our current knowledge is a good description either. Maybe foolishness that we stubborn enough to make such a statement whereas "Faster than light travel is not possible given our current understanding of the universe and it's principles" may have been better. As Einstien once said "The important thing is not to stop questioning."
"I think you should read the article a little more closely."
:-)
You insensitive clod. I would, but some giant bird just clawed my eyes out!
I mean honestly, how could you not see a comment like that comming..
I'm sorry, I'll get my coat.
Sounds like Microsoft joining up with Dell to compete with Apple on the desktop.
Don't they already?
If the inventor (either private or company) decides to sell it's assets, then any patents become void and the knowledge public domain.
Who pays the inventor for the assets if it becomes public domain?
I need a rocket launcher button that works on the self-absorbed asshole yapping on his cellphone while driving his enormous SUV 52 in the 65 passing lane and backing up traffic for a mile behind him! I push the button, he moves his ass over and life goes on.
:-)
Well, I guess a "get the &#^$ out of my way" would do, too.
Fixed that for you.
Think of it as evolution in action.
:-)
Sounds very intelligently designed if you ask me..
/. readers actually reading the article? You must be new here..
True, although converting it using iTunes does rather make having it on a CD a moot point, my point being that the medium itself is rather pointless these days. Personally I would rather only download the songs on the album that I want (usually 2 or 3 tracks out of 14 or so) for much less than the whole album. You can always burn the songs to a CD if you want to back them up.
However if you want to go travelling, are going from work directly to the gym (or vice versa) or would just like to listen to different styles of music throughout the day, having to cart more than half a dozen CD's around with you changing them on the player as you go is a lot more hassle than just having them all on a single device.
New dance, same old song.
:-)
Yep, thats the music industry.
In a discussion about cannibalism maybe "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" is more appropriate. Alternativly "Do not meddle in the affairs of psychiatrists, for you are crunchy and taste good with fava beans" might be even more topical. :-)
Unless you get it posted on /. of course
Or is a statement? Kansas, Bored of Education.
Yeah, if you do something wrong it totally screws you..
Who needs fake licence plates? All you need in ultra violet paint and it will screw up any camera (as far as I know) from taking a photo of it yet is still readable for the human eye.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. -- First Commandment
Were the other Gods Intelligently Designed as well as everything else?
Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't.
Too bad I can't mod you up, so here is another one for your list, anyone here wear glasses or contact lenses?
Prove to me there is no God.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." -- Douglas Adams
I have one that runs on unicorn hairs, phoenix tail feathers and wood if you are interested. Finding the fuel is a bitch tho. :-(
Tin Foil Router! Limited time! $99.99 with 802.11X! Stop those nasty data packets from going through to the websites you visit! www.x10.com
Provided you haven't bought one...
For they have turny buttons on them and they lie to us -- Eddie Izzard.
Also, you are obviously an early riser, anything that makes noise with the intention of waking me up in the morning is evil.
When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself. -- Peter O'Toole
The worms you are thinking of are Warhol worms and flash worms, first published in a paper by Staniford and Weaver which use hitlists to find targets and can spread to 95% of vulnerable hosts in about 15 minutes or under 30 seconds for a flash worm. A varient of the flash worm also proposed by Weaver in a later paper in 2004 and had a theoretical flash worm spread in 510ms, unfortunately I can't find the paper at the moment.
I would call Slammer a 'polite' worm as it did no harm other than flooding networks.
Thats quite a generous optinion of the slammer worm considering it basically ground sections of the internet to a holt by the amount of traffic it generated.
It's certainly possible to write an impolite worm. One that doesn't just spread itself, but after 20 minutes of attempting to spread itself decides to stop all of your services and then wipe the data off your hard drive.
I've always wondered why peoples immediate thought of a worst case senario is loss of data. There are far worst things you could do if you had access to someones machine: stealing confidential information for blackmail, sending out emails in that persons name from their machine damaging that persons reputation, downloading kiddie porn to the machine, removing yourself and then informing the authorities.. data can be recovered by various mechanisims but reputations or finances are a lot harder to rebuild.
Technically speaking you just mimic as well, for your initial method of learning at least, so as a starting point it is to expected that AI gives the impression of mimicing others. Whether they can reach conclusions on their own with the information they already have is more interesting.
Of course on that same form, when I flew across to the states a few years ago (about 2000 I think), was a section which was only applicable to males between the age of 16 and 45. Aside from the "Do you plan on carrying out any terrorist activities?" question there was one which asked if you were involved in the persecusion of the Jews between 1939 and 1945, which I found highly amusing.
Of course the real question is that if you say yes to the question: Are you a terrorist would you get a more lenient sentance if caught? Well your honour, I did say I would carry out terrorist activites so you only really have yourselves to blame!