Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067 1067

Mathematicians don't know which rule has precedence for 0/0,

Ouch. +5, Informative indeed. <sigh>

Mathematicians can argue for any value at all, not just zero or one. This means that neither of your "rules" could take precedence.

Annnnd, on to your rules. Any number multiplied by zero is zero. Any nonzero number divided by itself is one. Of course, mathematicians are wont to generalize "number" to "field element". Go crack out on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

Comment: Re:Dependencies (Score 1) 119 119

Sure, better technology exists than topological sort ! Thanks for pointing out a better approach. OP's point, and mine, is that a few minutes of thought can be used to replace a horrible, unmaintainable cludge a graceful, robust approach. In fine Unix tradition, epoch wants to keep ritual animal sacrifice as a neccessary part of system administration. Good for the goat industry, bad for your coldroom floor.

Comment: Re:Dependencies (Score 1) 119 119

Sounds like you don't know what a topological sort is. Look it up. True, it's designed for a single processor, but the parallel approach is essentially the same: if you have a thread free, take the first thing in the list whose deps are all satisfied. It'll finish faster than a priority system, it's more robust, and much easier to configure.

Comment: Re:Funny, that spin... (Score 2) 421 421

Spin, sure, but it's a waay bigger minority than I expected. I'd even say even shockingly large.

Shockingly? I think it's good that we have experts in a field developing high-impact tools who are pessimistic about the uses of those tools. If 100% were like "yeah guys no sweat, we got this!" then I would be more concerned. The result of this poll, in my mind, is that we have a healthy subset who are going to be actively working towards making AI safe.

Comment: Re:Only geeks can vote? (Score 2) 103 103

Probably not. The authors made the newbie mistake of saddling their scheme with purpose-built crypto. They make a slight nod to the danger of this in the appendix, and sweep it under the rug (IND-CPA is nice and all, but it's not a proof of security). Experience says that they're overrating the security of their system, and there's a good chance it's broken. Thus, geeks will think they're voting, but The Man will actually be doing the voting for them.

Comment: Re:Yeah, disappointing (Score 5, Funny) 776 776

Itâ(TM)s whether men in America and around the world are going to be duped by explosions, fire tornadoes, and desert raiders into seeing what is guaranteed to be nothing more than feminist propaganda, while at the same time being insulted AND tricked into viewing a piece of American culture ruined and rewritten right in front of their very eyes.

Is that message "Australia is a crucial part of the USA"? I'm a little confused.

Comment: Re:hardly surprising (Score 1) 649 649

Right, cut out the expensive appeals process. Remove the sliver of legitimacy and watch the innocent death rate climb. My primary problem with the death penalty is the certainty that we kill innocent people. Second is a difference of opinion with our criminal justice system: I think we should optimize human wellbeing, not just focus on punishment. Third is a desire to keep our government out of the business of killing civilians or causing civilians to be killed.

But people aren't persuaded by moral or ethical considerations. Big Government Wasting Money... now that makes people mad.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.

Working...