Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:How about healing spinal cord injuries first? (Score 1) 210

by Ihlosi (#49150333) Attached to: Surgeon: First Human Head Transplant May Be Just Two Years Away
There is a huge difference between repairing trauma damage and repairing a clean planned surgical cut.

These guys aren't planning to repair a surgical cut, they're planning to graft the spinal cords of two different bodies together.

Maybe they should try to fix a regular decapitation first. Put the head back on the same body and prove that most of the nervous connections still work.. Even that would be worthy of a Nobel prize in medicine.

Comment: Re: How about healing spinal cord injuries first? (Score 1) 210

by Ihlosi (#49146359) Attached to: Surgeon: First Human Head Transplant May Be Just Two Years Away
Do heart transplants involve cutting the organ in halft and putting it back together?

This isn't like pursuing heart transplants before being able to fix each and every heart defect. It's like pursuing heart transplants before being able to do surgical sutures.

Comment: How about healing spinal cord injuries first? (Score 5, Insightful) 210

by Ihlosi (#49146071) Attached to: Surgeon: First Human Head Transplant May Be Just Two Years Away
Right now, we can't even repair spinal cord injuries where head and body belong to the same person. Once that becomes a routine medical procedure, we might think about head transplants and how to solve the problems associated with them.

Seriously, are the people who cleam this serious? I don't think so.

Comment: Reminds me of a programming competition .... (Score 3, Interesting) 148

by Ihlosi (#49135017) Attached to: Artificial Intelligence Bests Humans At Classic Arcade Games
Reminds me of a competition to program a computer player for the classic Asteroids a few years ago.

The best entries, however, didn't rely on AI, but on the fact that the RNG of the arcade game isn't random. Once the Asteroids-bot figured out the internal state of the RNG, it could basically use hyperspace to make targetted jumps (and never one that lead to the destruction of the ship), shoot at asteroids that haven't appeared yet and various other tricks. It was very impressive to watch one of these bots in action.

Comment: Re:Darwin never suggested "survival of the fittest (Score 1) 249

by Ihlosi (#49072795) Attached to: Game Theory Calls Cooperation Into Question
'Fittest' must mean ' most fit in a certain environment', but how is that measured?

Producing more offspring that manages to procreate.

'Most fit' must can only be meaured as the ones 'that survive'.

No, survival is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion. Reproduction rate is what actually counts. If there are two groups with different reproduction rates, the larger one will eventually become completely dominant, especially when the two groups start getting into conflicts about resources.

Comment: Re:Already legal? (Score 1) 157

by Ihlosi (#49029579) Attached to: DMCA Exemption Campaign Would Let Fans Run Abandoned Games
Instead of the company going through that hassle, why can't these 100 users find another game?!

Maybe they like this particular game? I'd love the chance to play City of Heroes or Earth&Beyond again. I wouldn't mind paying for that opportunity, either.

Few users means this game is not that much fun anymore.

Dictating what other people have to consider "fun" is ridiculous. This is just a super lame excuse to trick/force companies to share their code for nothing/free.

They could keep a server running. Or charge for the server module. Their choice.

That's bullshit. The code belongs to the copyright holder to do as he/she sees fit during the copyrighted phase, they should not lose it.

Sorry, copyright law was supposed to beneficial for both the public (which profits through the promotion of, er, the sciences and useful arts) and the creator of the work (who has an easier time monetizing it). Using copyright to force the public to stop using the old stuff and spend money on the new stuff is flat-out abuse of copyright law and should not fall under its protections.

Comment: Re:Counter-productive (Score 1) 157

by Ihlosi (#49027863) Attached to: DMCA Exemption Campaign Would Let Fans Run Abandoned Games
Recorded copyright law goes back to the 1700's in England, ...

The 1700's are about a few thousand years after authors started producing works in writing, and about a really, really long time after the first cave paintings (which, under todays copyright laws, would absolutely qualify as protected works). So, copyright laws are a recent phenomenon compared to the type of activity they apply to.

... printing privileges date back to the 1400's in Venice.

Printing privileges were more about using a certain technology and less about the intellectual property of the produced works. Copying a work by hand wasn't covered by printing privileges.

That's roughly 500 years of precedent.

Really short when compared to more mature laws, e.g. laws against theft and murder. Those have been around for thousands of years. Or are you somehow saying that laws more recent than that lack validity?

They lack maturity. And, had such laws been in place during the time of the Roman Empire, we'd still be stuck in the Dark Ages. That's obviously not the case for laws against theft and murder.

Comment: Re:Counter-productive (Score 1) 157

by Ihlosi (#49027281) Attached to: DMCA Exemption Campaign Would Let Fans Run Abandoned Games
And it has history and law behind it.

This must be from an American perspective. The history of copyright law is, compared to other types of law, so short that it really doesn't have much history.

If copyright laws had history, we would have lost a lot more works of authors from antiquitity to, say, Mozart, than we actually did. Had the concept of copyright existed 2000 years ago, building up culture (for lack of a better word) would have been impossible.

Also, copyright laws should promote the sciences and useful arts, at least that's how it's worded in the US. Using them to deprive the public of (commercial or noncommercial) access to the work is against the spirit of copyright law.

Comment: Re:The whole idea is crazy (Score 2) 288

by Ihlosi (#49025521) Attached to: Quantum Equation Suggests Universe Had No Beginning
But, our language and consciousness are so dependent on the concept of time that we lack the language to describe a state of being without it.

Photon. Time is nonexistent.

Or $TIMELESS_DEITY. Time exists, but has about as much meaning as the time index of a video. It makes more sense to watch everything in proper order, but you're free to watch the thing in reverse if you like.

But time-ordered sequences of events are only possible after t=0.

Imagine you're a CPU and your perception of time is in clock cycles. Would you be able to give an ordered sequence of events of all the things that happen before your clock generator starts, e.g. voltage ramp-ups, etc?

Eureka! -- Archimedes