Also, even with all the perpetually shifting estimates, it really does appear to be getting closer. It's not a case of "always 50 years away": 50 years ago, it was "50 years away"; 20 years ago, it was "25 years away"; now, it's "15 years away". That is actual progress -- not as fast as we'd like, or as was once expected, but progress.
> (Or should I be expecting a Whooshing sound any minute now?)
> I suspect the answer is: the "Chicago Exchanges" have nodes on the low-latency Wall Street network.
No doubt they've got the most expensive, premium, low-latency network connection money can buy; you're right that far. But did you seriously mean to suggest that money can currently buy a faster-than-light connection? That they have negative latency?
"Win7 is mediocre."
"Win7 is by far the best OS Microsoft has ever made."
A prime example of how two different statements can be true simultaneously.
Well yeah of course I could let you add a negative Debit for an Asset but your accounting department will come at you with sharpened coffee mug or something.
If you're very, very lucky.
Ah, but see, the point of the article is that, unlike all the rest of us, this guy actually is smart enough to predict exactly how our 1000-times-smarter hyper-advanced post-human descendants will think.
What makes you think they won't name the series of Laser gunboats after sharks?
ITYM Sea Bass.
If you RTFS, you might notice that it mentions "replicat[ing] the energy-efficient nature of jelly movement". Any task that's useful to perform in water can be done better by making the vehicle more energy-efficient. Other properties of the design will no doubt make it more suitable for some tasks than for others. That'll all shake out as the technology becomes available to designers of machines for all sorts of purposes. Adding another mode of locomotion to the toolkit available to such designers can only be useful.
There's a definite machismo pecking order in the natural scientists
As opposed to the real scientists? *ducks*
Just wait a while and see which comments percolate to the top: they will contain the essence and seeds of knowledge which you seek.
Essence and seeds perhaps. But look Ye not unto Slashdot for answers, for Ye shall be told both Yea and Nay.
Ah, my kingdom for a mod point! Well done.
You know, from the cat's point of view, it's the physicist who keeps cutting his probability of existence in half every time he performs the experiment. She might wonder why he commits this series of half-suicides. If she cared.
Are you an asshole when you delete a program you wrote?
In most cases, no. But if you've achieved true "Strong" AI, and the program is a sentient entity, then yes, yes you are.