Excellent point.

Along the same lines, does a C++ rand() function have free will?

I would say it doesn't, even though it appears that it does.

Being a /.er, I won't let my complete ignorance of this project stop me from commenting.

I have to say, though, that this sounds like what happens to a large scale basic science research project when a Project Manager gets a hold of it.

"Maybe regular status reports will help those discoveries get made on schedule!"

Although it's getting scarce, it's still very cheap.

I went out to buy a pound of helium, and they wound up paying me $50.

Is it just me, or is there an echo in here?

If they use the remaining $99 million for advertising, it might actually work.

I can see a subtle difference in my expectations, depending on my mood.
When I'm in a good mood, I just want my smart phone to do what I tell it to do.
When I'm in a bad mood, my phone damn well better do exactly what I tell it to do, if it knows what's good for it.

Word is they want to expand into content, maybe with a built-in RSS feed of headlines from a news organization.

Too bad there's no real news company with a similar name.

Actually, I do have an image in my head.

Bill Nye is on one end of the board room table with bubbling beakers and flasks connected with plastic tubes, Seth Green is on the other end of the table building obscene clay figures of celebrities, and Richard Branson parachutes in through the skylight.

> supported by Richard Branson, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Seth Green

My imagination can't comprehend what a business meetting or board meeting would be like with these three, but I bet it's awesome!

If you turn it on, you should be able to just pull it along behind a train, assuming the tracks could be electrified as needed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev for details if necessary).
Then again, if this "superconductor" really has super powers as its name implies, it should be able to fly.

Could someone take a look at this?
There appears to be a bug in the Slashdot code (is it still Slashcode?) that posts random release notes from obscure development projects as front page stories.

Let me check. It might be sitting on my desk.

Umm - this might take a couple of hours ...

I think this is almost certainly wrong for two reasons.

1) It would be wonderful if "want" will disappear in the future when information technology, or technology in general, will have advanced in ways we can't imagine. But we are physically limited to whatever resources we have on the planet, and maybe a few close asteroids. Right now, even clean water, clean air, and food aren't as available as we would like everywhere on the planet, and it doesn't look like we can assume that will get better as the population continues to grow.

2) Even if we had unlimited energy and maybe a Star Trek replicator to create any kind of matter we need, wouldn't that tend to make a species more curious about the rest of the universe? Humans who are barely surviving don't wonder much about other planets when they're wondering where the next meal will come from. But humans (and maybe also aliens) who have most of their wants already answered would be much more likely to look farther afield for challenges.

In short, I believe in more of a Star Trek/Star Wars future than a Wall-E future.

How much do you plan for disaster cleanup? Probably the best you can do is base costs on history, which I believe have generally been fairly low, at least until now.

But then, to be fair, you'd have to include potential disaster cleanup costs for other industries too. I don't believe the LNG plants and other generators that were wiped out in that huge tidal wave included disaster cleanup costs, either (although it may be that rebuilding them all may be cheaper than decommissioning the Fukushima plant in the long run. I haven't heard much about those costs).

Also, while I agree that calculating long term storage costs should be included for nuclear power generation, how do you calculate the cost of the greenhouse gases generated by a coal-based generator? As I understand it, the CO2 we generate now will likely be affecting us for hundreds of years.

So in your scenario, if a Chinese citizen would attack the US power grid, and the Chinese government did nothing, the US government should declare war on China? Or are you saying it's okay to kill another country's citizens without declaring war?

Also, you didn't answer my questions. Does this work both ways?
For example, does the Iranian government, assuming they knew that an American citizen wrote Stuxnet, have the right to kill that American?