Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Like everything else M$... (Score 0) 208

by tonywestonuk (#49173495) Attached to: What Would Minecraft 2 Look Like Under Microsoft?
I agree, you wouldn't want to do GTA5 in java...... However, Minecraft is currently chugging away on my laptop at 512MB, and performing quite well.....Even low end laptops have at least 2gb, and most of the graphics is offloaded to the GPU. It is very possible to make things run in half the memory, and be very strict about deallocating stuff after you allocated them....reference counting, etc. But, one mistake, and you've core-dumped your app. It is much harder to make something using C, than Java....especially cross platform. I would say Java is good enough, in this instance.

Comment: Re:Toaster DRM (Score 4, Funny) 303

by tonywestonuk (#48727263) Attached to: Anthropomorphism and Object Oriented Programming
What you can buy is an 'Toast Decorator' - its a Chinese import, probably not the most legal thing as they've cracked the DRM........ what you do is just slip your generic, non toastable bagels in this toasting bag, and then shove it in your toaster. It accepts the 'self.toast()' method, and does whats required to make sure your bagels are toasted to perfection every time. Result!

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 4, Insightful) 688

by tonywestonuk (#48615599) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates
The only reason the robot exists, is because the man who owns it paid someone to build it for him, or if he built it himself, paid someone for the components. He would only do this if he expects a return on his investment. I assume, that for him, a robot would be cheaper than paying for a human to do the work. So, he would be able to make more profit. > So we can all agree that we have all things for free since robots made them No, the man who owns the bot wont let that happen. >or we have to create bullshit jobs no one needs to distribute the money No one is going to pay anyone for doing a bullshit jobs. The only way out of this problem, is if everyone gets paid a Basic Income by the government. Money for nothing. Its inevitable this will have to happen.

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 1) 688

by tonywestonuk (#48615557) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates
BUT.....wait, without these people, those who have the machines wont have enough customers to turn a profit, and will probably go bankrupt after investing so much in the first place..... This is a house of cards. Get rid of the poor people, and those above them will fall.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 144

mx+b - I used to think, as you did. Then I read this. - - and then I still didn't believe it. So, as a computer programmer, I tried to make a program that would mock what was happening. My theory was if I could model it in code, then it wasn't spookiness. Well, after trying for a few days, I couldn't do it. I realised the *only* way I could make my program work, would be to make the emulated particles in my program communicate with each other..... which means one of two things 1) Entangled particles have some way of Faster than light communication with each other.... (I still think this is impossible!) or 2) The universe we live in is just so weird, that nothing actually exists as we know it. Its only our observation that makes things real. everything is somehow influenced by everything else. That space and time and thought... aren't the separate things they appear (As Wesley Said)..... thinking this way, two entangled particles don't need to communicate - they behave like they do, because they can only ever behave this way in the observational field we project, and that they inteact within..... this observational field isn't something that only intelligent beings can produce - but more, any particle can be an observer of other particles if it is able to receive information about those particles. This I believe to be more the truth. Have you seen a speckle pattern made by a laser as it hits a wall?..... have you notice when you move, the speckle patten moves? How does the speckle patten know where you are, in order to move? It doesn't. You are just effecting it, by your observation of it. A different observer, sees the speckle patten differently. I think, somehow, something similar to this is going on. However, the observed quantum behaviour is caused by every observer of the event, causing it to show a particular result.

Comment: Re:Signals (Score 1) 144

by tonywestonuk (#47415547) Attached to: Physicists Spot Potential Source of 'Oh-My-God' Particles
Maybe not communication..... ....but, maybe its part of a super ion-drive thruster, that can accelerate ions to near lightspeed before throwing them out the back of their spacecraft. This would give them very close to an actual impulse drive, without violating that annoying Newton's Third Law.

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."