Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:And less than four years later... (Score 1) 211

by 14erCleaner (#47505119) Attached to: Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45
Space travel is a big dead-end. Outside of sci-fi, nobody really wants to live in anyplace remotely as horrible as the friendliest of non-Earth planets. Think about the worst places on Earth: summit of Everest, South Pole, bottom of the ocean, middle of the Sahara. All of those places look like Eden compared to the nicest environment available within 10 light-years of here. Get real - we're stuck with our one Earth, and we should take care of it.

Comment: Limited Imagination (Score 1) 97

by 14erCleaner (#47503337) Attached to: UEA Research Shows Oceans Vital For Possibility of Alien Life
This result (which basically says that any planet with life has to look like ours) reminds me of an article I read long, long ago speculating on what ETs would look like. The author basically concluded that they'd have to look exactly like us, i.e. two arms, two legs, head on top with two eyes and a mouth and a nose, etc., and he had arguments for why each of these things was necessary. Of course, almost none of the thousands of other species on Earth look exactly like us, but that didn't faze him in the least in his application of logic...

Why does everyone always assume that life requires water, anyway? Couldn't there be a planet out there infested with silicon-based life forms who live at 300 degrees Celsius, or whatever?

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 1) 285

So now anything we understand is not intelligence???

When I was in grad school back in the 80's, I knew a guy who was researching AI. He complained that as soon as some technique was understood, people would say it wasn't AI any more, so as a result the AI profession as a whole never got much credit for advancing.

Comment: Re:How to prove the source code maps to the binary (Score 1) 178

The other way to hide the backdoor is to make it a hard to find bug. Plausible deniability is quite high.

Reading a huge codebase is an unlikely way to spot backdoors anyway. After a few thousand lines the reader's eyes would glaze over, and anything subtle would be missed. This isn't as easy as looking for two-digit year fields a la Y2K reviews.

Besides, the Heartbleed bug should have been a clue that open source alone doesn't make security issues "transparent". Somebody has to both read and understand the code to detect these things, and an OS like WIndows is so huge that nobody can understand the whole thing. Even a relatively small, specialized module like OpenSSL slid by for years without anybody noticing the problem.

Comment: Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score 1) 389

The biggest problem with general jury duty is it is unbounded.

IMO, the biggest problem is that the two sides get to reject jurors. If they just picked 12 random people without any challenges allowed, then required (say) only 10 of 12 to agree on the verdict, the system would work more efficiently and with less gaming. Maybe exceptions could be made for hardship or disruptive jurors could be ejected (and fined), but the current system is mostly gamesmanship. Lawyers don't want intelligent jurors, they want jurors they can manipulate.

You've been Berkeley'ed!