Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - The universe may be finite and bounded afterall. (johnhartnett.org) 1

An anonymous reader writes: The question is discussed whether the universe is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In modern science it is presumed to unbounded and since the discovery of the accelerating universe, for which the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2011, that it is also infinite. However Hartnett has found that using the cosmology of Moshe Carmeli that the same equations that successfully fit the observational evidence in the cosmos can also be derived from a finite bounded universe. This means our location is space may indeed be special after all. The work was published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics titled “A valid finite bounded expanding Carmelian universe without dark matter” (Int J Theor Phys (2013) 52:4360–4366).

Comment Re:Why would anyone install this? (Score 2) 202

It's ransomware: it encrypts your files with a public key. The private key is controlled by the gang. You don't pay, you end up with a bunch of random-looking data substituted for your files, since the gang destroys the unique private key after the time is up.

Unfortunately, I couldn't afford the $300. Fortunately, I never liked my data anyway.

Comment Re:I for one (Score 1) 246

The assumption that we humans will be able to develop AI that can then create new and better technology is a logical fallacy.

How is it a logical fallacy? Isn't it just an empirical question as yet unanswered?

For this the AI must become sentient, or can only optimize existing processes and technology, but never create new one.

Why? The fact that no one has yet invented a robot-designing robot is no guarantee that no one ever will. I work with neuroscientists who build animats and cultured neural networks that interface with computers. The latter have been shown to learn. Sure, those examples are to robot-designing robots as protozoa are to humans, but that's the point. Protozoa evolved and here we are. The real logical fallacy is in assuming that because we claim to be sentient now that we have evolved, that the eventual robot-designing robot will make the same claim.

Comment Re:red v blue (Score 1) 285

In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power

Does it, in practical effect, count as reducing government power if all you actually do is transfer that power from the constitutional government to large corporations? If so, is that a good thing? Isn't it in fact marginally worse for me if completely unaccountable corporations wrest power from a nearly unaccountable government? Government does a lousy job of protecting me from AT&T, Goldman Sachs, and Monsanto...but AT&T, Goldman Sachs, and Monsanto don't protect me from government at all, and certainly not from themselves.

Comment Re:Cut the cord years ago... (Score 1) 261

Who gives a crap about sports? Grown men fighting over a ball...

Fighting over a ball and generating a huge load of statistics. Fantasy football is a fun intellectual pastime...if you have an interest in predictive analytics...which I do. Watching actual games not only provides some insight regarding what to include in modeling, but also makes the process more interesting...even exciting at times. But if there were no actual grown men out there fighting over actual balls, there would be no fantasy football. So I guess I'd have to say that I, for one, give a crap about sports.

Submission + - Facebook tracks the Status Updates and Messages You Don't Write too. (slate.com) 1

Jah-Wren Ryel writes: Do you think that facebook tracks the stuff that people type and then erase before hitting (or the “post” button)? Turns out the answer is yes. If you start writing a message, and then think better of it and decide not to post it, Facebook still adds it to the dossier they keep on you.

Submission + - Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram (nature.com)

ananyo writes: A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.
In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.
Maldacena's idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein's theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa. But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive.
In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...