Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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).

User Journal

Journal: in which i am a noob all over again 17

Journal by CleverNickName

I haven't posted a journal here in almost three years, because I couldn't find the button to start a new entry. ...yeah, it turns out that it's at the bottom of the page.

So... hi, Slashdot. I used to be really active here, but now I mostly lurk and read. I've missed you.

Comment: Re:The future? Or already the past? (Score 1) 308

by StarkRG (#34383164) Attached to: Ray Kurzweil's Slippery Futurism

The Internet may have augmented people's minds with the ability to find solutions to problems people already found solutions for. It's also, through things like BOINC and other distributed computing schemes, able to complete repetitive tasks on enormous amounts of data. The Internet, though, still can't actually solve a problem that nobody else has solved. It still requires people to do the actual thinking.

You're right, though, that the Internet can't be killed, at least not without wiping out a significant amount of our technology (massive EMP would do it). Even if a bunch of governments got together to strictly control, or completely wipe out the Internet people would band together and, within a few months or years, there would be a more robust, more independent Internet. Perhaps instead of using wires it'd use HAM radio (this idea already exists as the Hinternet). The Internet, as an idea, can't be killed. Things ON the Internet are also hard to kill (they killed suprnova only to be replaced a few days later with ten or fifteen copies, which were killed and replaced by more)

The Internet is like a virus or bacteria. What doesn't kill it makes it stronger, and since nothing can kill it (besides the aforementioned world-wide EMP) it's always getting stronger.

Comment: Re:I disagree w/ his predictions (Score 1) 308

by StarkRG (#34383060) Attached to: Ray Kurzweil's Slippery Futurism

I think you're getting electrical power and computing power confused. Computing power has increased exponentially without any kind of correlation in electrical power, either increase or decrease. In some cases the electrical requirements are increased, in many others it's decreased. My phone runs on a 3.7v Li-ion battery and is far more powerful than the building-sized computers of the early computing years which used incredible amounts of energy.

It's entirely plausible that we could increase computing power almost indefinitely without significantly increasing the energy requirements. At some point we'll reach a wall, then we'll need some new scientific discovery to push beyond it (faster than light communication would decrease the latency so much as to make computing speeds almost limitless, assuming such a thing is possible).


Quantum Physics For Everybody 145

Posted by kdawson
from the this-time-without-the-math dept.
fiziko writes in with a self-described "blatant self-promotion" of a worthwhile service for those wishing to go beyond Khan Academy physics: namely Bureau 42's Summer School. "As those who subscribe to the 'Sci-Fi News' slashbox may know, Bureau 42 has launched its first Summer School. This year we're doing a nine-part series (every Monday in July and August) taking readers from high school physics to graduate level physics, with no particular mathematical background required. Follow the link for part 1."

Comment: Re:Wash your hands! (Score 1) 374

by CleverNickName (#29392669) Attached to: Swine Flu Outbreak At PAX

This is good advice, and gives me an opportunity to speak to the community at large: some of us who go to cons and are in a position to shake tons of hands politely decline. It's not because we're being dicks, it's because we know it's a good way to substantially decrease our chances of catching and spreading any germs.

Comment: Oh, cruel irony (Score 2, Interesting) 374

by CleverNickName (#29392641) Attached to: Swine Flu Outbreak At PAX

I played the PAX Pandemic game, where the Enforcers handed out stickers to attendees that read [Carrier] [Infected] or [Immune] (There was also a [Patient Zero].

I got the [Immune] sticker, and by the time I got home on Monday, it was clear that I had the flu. I've had a fever between 100 and 104 all week that finally broke last night, but I'm going to the doctor today because I think whatever I had settled into my lungs. I'll tell him about the H1N1 outbreak and get tested if he wants to run the test, but at this point I think it's safe to assume that I was [Immune] to the Pig Plague, but definitely [Infected] with the damn PAX pox.

Even though it's been a week of misery, it was entirely worth it, and I don't regret going to PAX for a single second.

Comment: Re:Can I close the frame? (Score 1) 210

by StarkRG (#27801049) Attached to: Controversial Web "Framing" Makes a Comeback

The problem with most of those "close this frame" or "view only main frame" or whatever links/buttons tend to just go to whatever the frame was originally. This doesn't work if you've navigated away from the original page. It also will be painful if there's a half-filled out form on the page.

What we need is the ability to remove frames without reloading the page.

Also, Firefox has a "view this frame only" option in the context menu (right click), this is usually better than the site-provided buttons since it stays on the same page if you've browsed around (though it still reloads the page).

"Success covers a multitude of blunders." -- George Bernard Shaw