Plus, you don't get your IP logged. So you have a better change of actually getting away with it. Yes, this is highly debatable. Let me put it this way, you have a better chance of getting away with it after the deed.
This makes me think of a local ad-campaign where they show scary-looking people in masks stealing stuff, and then liken it to music piracy. Soon, they might just be right on the button.
Using space for survival does not mean you have to actually go there....
One could have a eden-like device that contains human DNA, and re-plants the seeds of life if the earth should get wiped out by some catastrophe.
Such a device could spawn humans, raise them, train them, etc. To re-build what was destroyed.
Or even fly off and colonise another planet hundrends/thousands of lightyears away. (Cue: "This has already happened" theories)
So yes, I disagree with that reason. Humans in space are not necessary for human survival, using space.
Of course. This totally removes the cool-factor and leaves everyone depressed. Cause we won't be there. Is it really about survival of the species then? Or do we just want to go flying around in space?
Knowing those types, they'll likely be called "People for the Humane Treatment of Robots."
Re:Games HAVE had a drastic effect on a generation
on
Got Game
·
· Score: 1
We're always looking for the shortcut, believing fully that it exists.
Oh my, I just saw myself in that sentence... I've been working at my company for almost 2 years, and I'm still on a quest to find the quickest route from my house to the office. Seriously. This week alone I've done 3 different routes that I've never taken before. Always looking for that sweet spot between distance and time-taken.
How exactly are you going to overthrow the American government with handguns?
I'd say you'd need a couple of nukes to do that. Nukes for everyone then!
BTW: I do agree that citizens should be allowed to have guns when cops and criminals have them. Just like I think all nations should be "allowed" to have Nukes, and not just the "Cops" and "Robbers".
I saw an interesting insert on TV a while back documenting the efforts of film-makers in Africa.
What these guys do is write a "quick-hack" script, get some actors, a couple of (their own) cars, camera's, some lights, etc. And go make a movie.
1. Shoot footage you need in about 3 days.
2. Edit
3. Make lots of VHS tapes.
4. Sell to street vendors.
5. Profit!
Notice there's no ???, and that's because it's actually a booming business. Their clients don't want to see Americans blowing up aliens. They want to see people like them, in situations they can relate to.
They also create jobs for a lot of people down the food chain: From Cameramen, actors, editors, right down to the guy that sells you the tape on the street.
You don't need big budgets, millionnaire actors, and 4000 people to make an engaging film.
Re:My Rights? What's this got to do with...
on
China Bans 50 Games
·
· Score: 1
Well, "my" is a very relative term. Isn't it?
If I were a chinese citizen and saw this story, it would be about "my rights".
What about stories covering EU software patents, or the DMCA? They certainly don't cover every living human being in the world. You prob. live in one of these countries (I'm guessing, really), and those stories would have relevance to you.
But I don't. So how is the "my rights" part of it any more true in those cases? In fact, I've never even seen a story covering "my rights", specifically. Are you suggesting that they create a section for every country in the world?
When I was a kid I learned english by using my computer, so I'm not surprised by this article. And the cool part is, I wasn't even trying, all I wanted to do was play the games.
The Sierra games at the time (Space/Kings/Police Quests, etc) really helped me along and forced me to learn correct spelling, and to read a lot too.
Likewise, I was also ahead of my class when it came to english.
BUT, When trying to learn a third language via a class in school, I totally failed to remember even the most basic grammar and vocabulary.
I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm smarter than those around me. I know some very smart folks who I absolutely cannot have a conversation with because we have different interests.
I always find I can talk continuously with people who work with me, because we share more-or-less the same interests. Then I go home and try to mix with some old school friends, and I find I cannot really partake in the conversation, because, yes, they do not know what I'm going on about. But not because they're somehow stupid. It's because *I* have too narrow a field of interest.
Said group of friends don't have similair jobs, but they can still talk about the same stuff because they have wide, shallow fields of interest. By that I mean that they know a lot of things, but not to a very detailed level. Whereas I know a lot of detail about a handful of fields (programming, electronics, science..).
Do you think this is their shortcoming or mine?
I guess if you think about it, it's neither. We're just different.
Now instead of the 20 car pile-up, we can have a 200 car pile-up.
Point partially taken. I still believe that the automated system would handle this better than humans, even when humans are given the advantage of a bigger following distance. But that remains to be seen. But surely the cars in the adjacent lanes could still make space for avoidance, if not for the first cars, for the ones further back.
Humans still have the problem that we can't see through cars, DON't maintain adequate following distances, and generally don't know we're in the middle of a pile-up until we hit the guy in front of us.
but it could just as easy be a chair falling off the dilapidated old truck in front of you.
This raises an interesting point. Would you allow a dilapidated old truck to drive on a highway where the other cars are going super-fast using automated systems? IOW: How do you decide who gets to use these automated systems, and do those users have a highway to themselves? The entire thing is just as strong as it's weakest link.
That said, it still leaves you with something falling off the fast-moving-electronically controlled truck. If it is something light, like a chair, it wouldn't even hit the ground immediately, because you're 5cm behind it. It would skim from car to car until the traffic stops itself. Wouldn't slow down cars enough to cause a huge pile-up. If it is something like, say, a huge block of concrete, then yes, you have a point.
Additionally, assuming that the lanes to its left and right are filled with cars separated by only 5 cm
And finally, just cause I like to nitpick...;) How far would a deer get when walking into a solid wall of speeding cars? Would it do it at all? If the road is not busy enough to contain said wall of cars, then there is room for avoidance.
I guess what I'm saying is that doing the 150mph thing at 1 inch apart would necessarily not be something you do other than on a highway, and then, doing so in a controlled environment.
That was not the point. The point was that if and when said deer and tree causes the front person to slam on the brakes. The car(s) behind it can immediately react in the same manner. A human would only react after he sees the brake-lights of the car in front of him. So, if front-cars reaction time is x, trailing car's reaction time is 2x. Is that not what the whole following distance thing is about? To compensate for human reaction times.
I frequently see on the highway how a not-so-rapid stop for a person leading the pack turns into a tyre-screeching billow of smoke for someone 5 cars back.
But the car in front also knows not to brake too hard and cause a pile-up if it's not absolutely necessary for avoiding the deer. Which hopefully would include some steering and not only braking. And the computer CAN safely make split-second steering decisions because it has eyes in the back of it head, and to the sides, etc. And can also let oncoming traffic know to slow down, and get out of the way. When this happens, the following car can take exactly the same course.
It prob. wouldn't need to brake that hard anyway because computers can react to hypothetical deer (or real deer, if you really want it to) much quicker than a human.
Would your really need a safety margin between the vehicles? I mean, if the cars are communicating with each other, then they can tell each other their respective stopping distances, and agree to decelerate at a specified pace.
Remember that this all can happen in a fraction of the reaction time of a typical human. Conceivably you can be driving along at 150mph, in the wet, a single inch behind the car in front of you, and carry out a emergency stop in perfect unison with each other.
There's also no reason you couldn't have long queues of cars reacting like this. It would have a positive impact on CO2 emmissions and fuel economy if people could slip-stream like that.
There is a company in South Africa selling educational "computers"... Labeled the "IntelliGameStation" (just makes you sick, doesn't it?). And it's basically a NES in a little tower case, that comes with some custom educational software in the traditional NES cartridge. I think they throw in one of those "X in 1" game carts as well.
I've always wondered if this is legal, and whether they license the tech from nintendo. From your post, it doesn't seem to be above board. Which I find surprising, seeing as they run infomercials on national TV.
You might want ot start with yourself. I don't know what the output of these things would be, but certain wavelengths of UV light are very dangerous.
For example: UV lights used to erase EPROMs have to be totally shielded to avoid exposure of your eyes and skin to the rays. Both of which could be severely damaged.
Basically, those wavelengths kill living tissue, and are fequently used to sterilise water, hospital equipment, etc.
Hopefully the designers of these drives will stay away from the more dangerous wavelengths of UV. And not just shield it a bit and slap a warning sticker on it (I bet this is exactly what they do). Because we all know people tend to ignore these warnings.
But you would have to be careful when designing oddly-shaped boards to place the surface-mount components on flat spots. I don't think they would work very well on a curve.
And If you're struggling to fit a board into a housing, chances are that you will use surface-mount components quite heavily.
This problem is alleviated somewhat if the PCB is flexible, because you could solder the components in place before bending the PCB into it's desired shape.
... And the slashdot crowd should fit their profiles quite neatly. No mass-elimination here, just about everybody has the required skills and background.
They'll have to carefully sift the hackers from the crackers.
OR, they will just realise it's pointless and catch the criminals some other way.
I was not, and it is quite interesting. It made me think of other possibilities. Like augmenting your natural intelligence with a ArtIntellicorp 5x Brainpower Module (patent pending) completely designed by AI.
Also, this site actually breaks down my previous argument. The rate of improvement would not stick to Moore's law, because that's the rate human intelligence has been improving technology. Once you have intelligence levels above that, Moore's law should look comparatively slow.
What is be really interesting is that when we get these human-brain-equivalent machines, the technology does not stop there.
So the intelligence level of this thing would prob. double in accordance to Moore's law, and in a year outclass it's master two fold. In about another year it will be four times as intelligent as any human being. And, of course, it doesn't stop there....
The implications that this would have on society would be very interesting. Would we believe everything it told us, or claimed that we know better? Would we like all the answers it gave us. Would it start deceiving us for our own good? etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, you don't get your IP logged. So you have a better change of actually getting away with it. Yes, this is highly debatable. Let me put it this way, you have a better chance of getting away with it after the deed.
This makes me think of a local ad-campaign where they show scary-looking people in masks stealing stuff, and then liken it to music piracy. Soon, they might just be right on the button.
That's because Americans have never chopped their leaders' heads off for not listening to the people.
Nothing like a guillotine to instill a bit of moral fibre.
Using space for survival does not mean you have to actually go there....
One could have a eden-like device that contains human DNA, and re-plants the seeds of life if the earth should get wiped out by some catastrophe.
Such a device could spawn humans, raise them, train them, etc. To re-build what was destroyed.
Or even fly off and colonise another planet hundrends/thousands of lightyears away. (Cue: "This has already happened" theories)
So yes, I disagree with that reason. Humans in space are not necessary for human survival, using space.
Of course. This totally removes the cool-factor and leaves everyone depressed. Cause we won't be there. Is it really about survival of the species then? Or do we just want to go flying around in space?
Knowing those types, they'll likely be called "People for the Humane Treatment of Robots."
We're always looking for the shortcut, believing fully that it exists.
Oh my, I just saw myself in that sentence... I've been working at my company for almost 2 years, and I'm still on a quest to find the quickest route from my house to the office. Seriously. This week alone I've done 3 different routes that I've never taken before. Always looking for that sweet spot between distance and time-taken.
How exactly are you going to overthrow the American government with handguns?
I'd say you'd need a couple of nukes to do that. Nukes for everyone then!
BTW: I do agree that citizens should be allowed to have guns when cops and criminals have them. Just like I think all nations should be "allowed" to have Nukes, and not just the "Cops" and "Robbers".
Yes, one day our kids can sit back and recall how their parents tucked them into bed:
"And then little red riding hood..... NO CARRIER"
I saw an interesting insert on TV a while back documenting the efforts of film-makers in Africa.
What these guys do is write a "quick-hack" script, get some actors, a couple of (their own) cars, camera's, some lights, etc. And go make a movie.
1. Shoot footage you need in about 3 days. 2. Edit 3. Make lots of VHS tapes. 4. Sell to street vendors. 5. Profit! Notice there's no ???, and that's because it's actually a booming business. Their clients don't want to see Americans blowing up aliens. They want to see people like them, in situations they can relate to.
They also create jobs for a lot of people down the food chain: From Cameramen, actors, editors, right down to the guy that sells you the tape on the street.
You don't need big budgets, millionnaire actors, and 4000 people to make an engaging film.
So, what we really need is hardware SQL.
Well, "my" is a very relative term. Isn't it?
If I were a chinese citizen and saw this story, it would be about "my rights".
What about stories covering EU software patents, or the DMCA? They certainly don't cover every living human being in the world. You prob. live in one of these countries (I'm guessing, really), and those stories would have relevance to you.
But I don't. So how is the "my rights" part of it any more true in those cases? In fact, I've never even seen a story covering "my rights", specifically. Are you suggesting that they create a section for every country in the world?
"can run circles around the mousey admins...."
IMHO the command-line hackers are usually in far worse shape than the mousey ones.
When I was a kid I learned english by using my computer, so I'm not surprised by this article. And the cool part is, I wasn't even trying, all I wanted to do was play the games.
The Sierra games at the time (Space/Kings/Police Quests, etc) really helped me along and forced me to learn correct spelling, and to read a lot too.
Likewise, I was also ahead of my class when it came to english.
BUT, When trying to learn a third language via a class in school, I totally failed to remember even the most basic grammar and vocabulary.
So, it's 3g with a landline. Somehow I don't think it'll take off (in countries with 3g).
I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm smarter than those around me. I know some very smart folks who I absolutely cannot have a conversation with because we have different interests.
I always find I can talk continuously with people who work with me, because we share more-or-less the same interests. Then I go home and try to mix with some old school friends, and I find I cannot really partake in the conversation, because, yes, they do not know what I'm going on about. But not because they're somehow stupid. It's because *I* have too narrow a field of interest.
Said group of friends don't have similair jobs, but they can still talk about the same stuff because they have wide, shallow fields of interest. By that I mean that they know a lot of things, but not to a very detailed level. Whereas I know a lot of detail about a handful of fields (programming, electronics, science..).
Do you think this is their shortcoming or mine?
I guess if you think about it, it's neither. We're just different.
/dev/null
Now instead of the 20 car pile-up, we can have a 200 car pile-up.
Point partially taken. I still believe that the automated system would handle this better than humans, even when humans are given the advantage of a bigger following distance. But that remains to be seen. But surely the cars in the adjacent lanes could still make space for avoidance, if not for the first cars, for the ones further back.
Humans still have the problem that we can't see through cars, DON't maintain adequate following distances, and generally don't know we're in the middle of a pile-up until we hit the guy in front of us.
but it could just as easy be a chair falling off the dilapidated old truck in front of you.
This raises an interesting point. Would you allow a dilapidated old truck to drive on a highway where the other cars are going super-fast using automated systems? IOW: How do you decide who gets to use these automated systems, and do those users have a highway to themselves? The entire thing is just as strong as it's weakest link.
That said, it still leaves you with something falling off the fast-moving-electronically controlled truck. If it is something light, like a chair, it wouldn't even hit the ground immediately, because you're 5cm behind it. It would skim from car to car until the traffic stops itself. Wouldn't slow down cars enough to cause a huge pile-up. If it is something like, say, a huge block of concrete, then yes, you have a point.
Additionally, assuming that the lanes to its left and right are filled with cars separated by only 5 cm
And finally, just cause I like to nitpick...;) How far would a deer get when walking into a solid wall of speeding cars? Would it do it at all? If the road is not busy enough to contain said wall of cars, then there is room for avoidance.
I guess what I'm saying is that doing the 150mph thing at 1 inch apart would necessarily not be something you do other than on a highway, and then, doing so in a controlled environment.
That was not the point. The point was that if and when said deer and tree causes the front person to slam on the brakes. The car(s) behind it can immediately react in the same manner. A human would only react after he sees the brake-lights of the car in front of him. So, if front-cars reaction time is x, trailing car's reaction time is 2x. Is that not what the whole following distance thing is about? To compensate for human reaction times.
I frequently see on the highway how a not-so-rapid stop for a person leading the pack turns into a tyre-screeching billow of smoke for someone 5 cars back.
But the car in front also knows not to brake too hard and cause a pile-up if it's not absolutely necessary for avoiding the deer. Which hopefully would include some steering and not only braking. And the computer CAN safely make split-second steering decisions because it has eyes in the back of it head, and to the sides, etc. And can also let oncoming traffic know to slow down, and get out of the way. When this happens, the following car can take exactly the same course.
It prob. wouldn't need to brake that hard anyway because computers can react to hypothetical deer (or real deer, if you really want it to) much quicker than a human.
Would your really need a safety margin between the vehicles? I mean, if the cars are communicating with each other, then they can tell each other their respective stopping distances, and agree to decelerate at a specified pace.
Remember that this all can happen in a fraction of the reaction time of a typical human. Conceivably you can be driving along at 150mph, in the wet, a single inch behind the car in front of you, and carry out a emergency stop in perfect unison with each other.
There's also no reason you couldn't have long queues of cars reacting like this. It would have a positive impact on CO2 emmissions and fuel economy if people could slip-stream like that.
There is a company in South Africa selling educational "computers"... Labeled the "IntelliGameStation" (just makes you sick, doesn't it?). And it's basically a NES in a little tower case, that comes with some custom educational software in the traditional NES cartridge. I think they throw in one of those "X in 1" game carts as well.
I've always wondered if this is legal, and whether they license the tech from nintendo. From your post, it doesn't seem to be above board. Which I find surprising, seeing as they run infomercials on national TV.
You might want ot start with yourself. I don't know what the output of these things would be, but certain wavelengths of UV light are very dangerous.
For example: UV lights used to erase EPROMs have to be totally shielded to avoid exposure of your eyes and skin to the rays. Both of which could be severely damaged.
Basically, those wavelengths kill living tissue, and are fequently used to sterilise water, hospital equipment, etc.
Hopefully the designers of these drives will stay away from the more dangerous wavelengths of UV. And not just shield it a bit and slap a warning sticker on it (I bet this is exactly what they do). Because we all know people tend to ignore these warnings.
But you would have to be careful when designing oddly-shaped boards to place the surface-mount components on flat spots. I don't think they would work very well on a curve.
And If you're struggling to fit a board into a housing, chances are that you will use surface-mount components quite heavily.
This problem is alleviated somewhat if the PCB is flexible, because you could solder the components in place before bending the PCB into it's desired shape.
... And the slashdot crowd should fit their profiles quite neatly. No mass-elimination here, just about everybody has the required skills and background.
They'll have to carefully sift the hackers from the crackers.
OR, they will just realise it's pointless and catch the criminals some other way.
I was not, and it is quite interesting. It made me think of other possibilities. Like augmenting your natural intelligence with a ArtIntellicorp 5x Brainpower Module (patent pending) completely designed by AI.
Also, this site actually breaks down my previous argument. The rate of improvement would not stick to Moore's law, because that's the rate human intelligence has been improving technology. Once you have intelligence levels above that, Moore's law should look comparatively slow.
Food for thought, thanks.
What is be really interesting is that when we get these human-brain-equivalent machines, the technology does not stop there.
So the intelligence level of this thing would prob. double in accordance to Moore's law, and in a year outclass it's master two fold. In about another year it will be four times as intelligent as any human being. And, of course, it doesn't stop there....
The implications that this would have on society would be very interesting. Would we believe everything it told us, or claimed that we know better? Would we like all the answers it gave us. Would it start deceiving us for our own good? etc.
(I haven't RTFA, It's slashdotted)
Or, have just enough propulsion to turn the ship around 180 degrees, and use the main engine to stop you.
Or, use the gravity of whatever planet you're going to, to slingshot you back the way you came from.
In both cases you just need to be able to steer the craft. Which seems like a reasonable design criteria to begin with.