Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Give specific technical arguments or go away (Score 1) 109 109

You might have a point if his argument was something more nuanced than "it's hard and I don't understand how it will ever work" with a few marketing = boogeyman slams thrown in for good measure.

It was. You mischaracterize the post in question.

Comment Re:Every new technology... (Score 1) 109 109

So because you can't understand it, it must not be of any consequence?

If you're spouting such straw man platitudes, then you don't know enough about quantum computers to condemn someone else. In the defense of the previous poster, I'll note that there are a number of phenomena that permeate all of the Solar System (gravity, neutrinos, and thermal radiation) that may place an upper bound on the reliability of quantum computing no matter how magical your technology is.

Comment Re:There's Very Few Things (Score 1) 80 80

You tell me. I'm not you, I don't know why you do the things you do. I'm not trying to tell you why you did something. I'm just telling you what you did.

Since I didn't do what you are "telling" me I did, and you are now claiming that you didn't imply this either, then there's no point to this thread. We can communicate or we can imagine things of other people. I'd rather communicate.

You tell me.

No, I won't.

Comment Re:Yes! (Score 1) 295 295

I fear it's something ingrained in humanity, so long as we have the capacity to imagine, it seems possible to become deluded in this particular way given the right conditions.

I think it starts with the idea that one knows best usually combined with a ridiculously oversimplified model of how things work.

Comment Re:There's Very Few Things (Score 1) 80 80

Yeah so? Doesn't mean you can't be ALSO predicting a die off. It's not a false dilemma.

Why would I be predicting that? To claim that die-offs are necessary for prosperity is in my view a non sequitur, another sort of fallacy.

China is wealthier and better off than before. Doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of dying off on its way here.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. And really, die offs are associated in Chinese history with chaotic periods which don't have prosperity.

Exactly, and I'm saying you have pointed out how there are many people right here on slashdot who show all the signs of walking right into those screw ups, making things a lot worse before they could get better.

That's a lot of vague talk. What are "many people"? What are "screw ups"? And what is "better" versus "lot worse"?

Comment Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 1) 566 566

And in other nations, it's a faction of what you spend in the USA.

For the OECD, it's 35% (from countries like Mexico and Estonia) to 70% of the US's spending per GDP (France and Netherlands). It's considerably better than the absolute worst, but it's still a big and growing problem.

Comment Re:Two birds with one stone (Score 0) 566 566

She'd have my vote except for the fact that I don't live in the U.S.A.

And I'm sure there's some dumbshit in your country that I'd rather have running things.

My view is that the US has better things to do with itself than to heavily subsidize Chinese solar power manufacturers.

Comment Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 1) 566 566

It could be a bit better I suppose. But really, what is stable about the current public spending schemes? There isn't a stable public pension fund out there in the developed world, for example. Medical care takes an increasing portion of the developed world's economies. Businesses become more and more risk clueless due to (often highly profitable) government nannying.

Comment Re: Easiest question all week. (Score 1) 252 252

Do you have a mental reaction time measured in microseconds? Machines have superhuman functionality. It is perfectly rational not to insure humans.

We all have mental reaction times measured in microseconds. As I understand it, the current expectation is that you can react to an accident in about half a second, which is only a half million microseconds. That's quite ample for vehicle control as we demonstrate every day.

And why wouldn't we continue to insure humans? It's far riskier now to insure people, what changes to make insurance not viable?

IBM Advanced Systems Group -- a bunch of mindless jerks, who'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes... -- with regrets to D. Adams

Working...