Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Quothe the raven, "Forevermore". (Score 1) 202

"But really think about it, and now think that there could be things in the Universe just like light which we simply do not have organs to perceive."

I don't need to think. I *know* for certain that we don't have organs to percieve most of the electromagnetic spectrum, only a very short range we know as "light" and "heat".

"How can we understand it? We have no conceptual framework for it perhaps."

Maybe not. What a joy it would be if we could fathom something we could call -I'm going wildly speculative here so forgive me, microwaves, radio spectrum, cosmic rays, atomic particles. We might be able to sort all that knowledge by means of some also unfathomable concepts I for one may call Mathematics...

But let's go back to earth again and forget about all those unthinkable things.

Comment: Re:Sure we can (Score 1) 680

by turbidostato (#49797967) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

"I imagine this saying would stop once the parent knows he can become immortal"

Probably yes. But that wouldn't stop the heir knowing the output of his ancestor's decease.

"being immortal means you can wait longer for something."

Can and want are two very different things. On one hand, people has shown once and again their desire to take shortcuts -even if the output in case of failure is their own death; on the other, the ability to wait basically forever means nothing if you are expected to wait exactly that long -you are immortal, but so is your father.

Comment: Re:Sure we can (Score 2) 680

by turbidostato (#49797371) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

"Or it could be a legal requirement - want to not die of old age? The price is X dollars and your ability to reproduce."

That could work on a socialist society, no way in a capitalist/modern fascist one. The rich guy will always be able to take his cake and eat it too.

"People are still going to die (accidents, murder, suicide etc)."

If that "immortality pill" happens, the funny thing is that murder rates will increase among the wealthy.

Juvenal already advised wealthy parents about the risk of saying "One day son, all this will be yours", since this clearly shows what is taking them apart from their fortune. Imagine if the parent happens to be immortal.

Comment: Re:Money class, breeder class (Score 2) 680

by turbidostato (#49797345) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

"Only the rich will be able to afford this. And by rich I mean on a global ranking"

Exactly that. It's only about the details. We -as of now, at least, live in a capitalist society. Left to its own, money will put things on their place.

How much it costs to produce that "immortality" is a first approach on who will get it. The way it is marketeed, will put a price -probably way above its cost, at least at the begining.

But it is stupid to say "most people in America and Europe and only the obscenely rich from the Middle East, India, China, Brazil, etc" since rich people in "everywhere else" are still richer that "most people in America". Just look at sales distribution of, say, over 500K US$ cars. And it looks that the rich/middle class gap it's only to be made wider and more global with geographical boundaries mattering less and less.

On the other hand, it is also stupid to say "Even at our current growth rate there's not enough for everyone." No, what makes for starving people is not resources' scarcity but resources' redistribution. It is due to our global socioeconomic system, not a natural limit, not yet at least.

What this news -and most of the comments, fails to see is that this is not a black & white scenario and capitalism is quite efficient at coping with grey scenarios (a very different thing is if it manages them on an ethical way). Immortality neither will come in a pill (it will be a lot of different technologies, each one developing at its own pace and its own price tag) nor it will become avaliable to everybody or nobody at all, but just like any other market product: luxury at first, then more and more common, down to its production costs, only slower than it could, since it will be a patent mine field that will allow for artificial scarcity for quite longer than due.

Comment: Re:This works 100% (Score 1) 255

"Endocrine disorder which totally mucks up metabolism, causing your body to metabolize muscle (including your heart, oh joy) and connective tissue, in order to create huge mounds of fat which are mostly water. It's called "Cushing's Syndrome"."

Yes, another case of "armchair nutritionist" coupled with reading comprehension problems.

Unless the Cushing's Syndrome somehow implies termodynamics laws' violation, which I strongly doubt, I don't think you can increase *weight* simply by metabolizing tissues into fat.

Corporal *volume*, on the other hand...

And yes, I know Cushing's Syndrome usually curses with obesity, but you can bet it is not because of what you say but because the way you eat more (specially when it curses with depression) and how you transform what you eat mainly into fat at the expense of other tissues, which in turn makes you move less, which in turn makes your intake even more -relatively speaking, excessive.

Oh! and another one: fat being "mostly water"? C'mon, man, c'mon. You know fat is "drier" than even bones, do you?

Comment: Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist! (Score 1) 255

"the guy is a JOURNALIST not a scientist. (He may have a science degree but he acts as a journalist).

If a scientist had done this they would be losing their job any minute. Any of the following would be enough to disgrace a practicing scientist (I am one)
What it does reveal is that people cannot rely on popular press stories about science as journalist pay no attention to the important details of publications"

Have you paid attention to the references, you mister scientist?

At least one of the points of this Slashdot entry is that:
a) You *can* have a scientist career breaking all the nice points you cite.
b) It is not that people can't rely on popular press for science but that they can't rely on (open-access) scientific press either.

See an example:

"good news arrived in the inbox of Ocorrafoo Cobange, a biologist at the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara. It was the official letter of acceptance for a paper he had submitted 2 months earlier to the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals" followed by " the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals. It describes itself as "a peer reviewed journal aiming to communicate high quality research articles, short communications, and reviews in the field of natural products with desired pharmacological activities." The editors and advisory board members are pharmaceutical science professors at universities around the world." and "In fact, it should have been promptly rejected [...] I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine [...] More than half of the journals accepted the paper"

Comment: Re: Will Technology Disrupt the Song? (Score 1) 158

by turbidostato (#49780841) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Will Technology Disrupt the Song?

"Mostly not 'songs' though. A Mozart opera might be a couple of hours long, but the majority of the individual arias are probably under 5 minutes"

Yes, an arbitrary under-5-minutes cut of a longer composition, be it an opera, a sonate or a symphonic concert lasts, well uh, under 5 minutes.

The point is that when you think "opera", you are thinking "two hours"; when you think "concert", you are thinking "forty minutes"; when you think "sonate", you are thinking "twenty minutes"... heck, even if you think "lied" you go for good ten minutes.

And then, when you think "pop music", you think 2'40'' and it is because of technology.

Comment: Re:Funny, that spin... (Score 1) 416

by turbidostato (#49769273) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

" Characterizing them as pushing the "omg Terminator" line is just lowering the level of discourse here. That is clearly NOT what they are doing."

Are you sure?

"they are pointing out, rightfully so, that any entity much more intelligent than us, and with a goal set alien to us (like maximization of the number of paperclips in its collection) might as well be out to exterminate humanity"

'AI' means "Artificial Intelligence". The "Artificial" part means it's built by us, human beings, so there it goes the "alien goal". But, oh, you could tell that this AI, being selfconcious and autoevolutive, can develop its own goals... Tell me how that is *not* "omg Terminator" when we are today as far from artificial selfconciousness as we were back in Eliza's day.

And then, the "Intelligence" part means, well, it's not clear what it means but, in the end, it surely doesn't necessarily mean "MORE intelligent THAN US". And even then, one thing is planning for something, quite a different one achieving the intended goal. You see, we are to be considered more intelligent than cockroaches or mosquitoes and we certainly have gone the path of exterminating them (that it would be such a good idea is a different issue), but they are still there.

"because it will do so through simple outcompetition"

Yes, the Secret Council Of Mosquitoes And Cockroaches' fearmongering members also used that argument. But, letting aside the SCOMAC, it is not enough to have the intelligence to, and the goal of, eradicating humankind (both quite unplausible things as of now), you also need a viable interface to the real world, you know, these Terminators were real things, not just ones and zeroes, and that's why they can go overthere killing people.

In the end, we don't need to resort to an AI that it is as of now lightyears of being possible when we have true and tested nuclear arsenals that could achieve the same goal in a very humanly way.

So, yes, everything basically goes down to "omg Terminator".

Comment: Re:Funny, that spin... (Score 1) 416

by turbidostato (#49769089) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

"Why do you assume that the comments against AI must come from the same person?"

Because I'm a HI. Being good at assumptions is a quite successful evolutionary trait in our species.

I'm, of course, not saying that all AC comments come from the very same person but that an obvious subset of them do.

Comment: Re:Funny, that spin... (Score 1) 416

by turbidostato (#49766111) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

"Not to mention the fact that he is funding MIRI. If you were giving millions of dollars to a research institute devoted to mitigating existential risk from AI, you would probably become pretty knowledgeable on the subject too."

Or you just demonstrated yourself to be gullible enough to give your money to a certain kind of snake-oil sellers after watching Terminator one time too many.

Remember that being outstanding in some fields doesn't preclude you to be stupid in others (specially when your previous success makes you think about yourself like some kind of infallible demi-god).

Comment: Re:Yeah, no. (Score 1) 416

by turbidostato (#49766083) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

"This, of course, means we can use them in the same way you use a canary in a coal mine. If they all mysteriously end up dead at or around the same time, we know to be on the lookout for a murderous rogue AI bent on eliminating dissent."

Quite rite.

And, just for the record, I for one welcome our superior AI overlords.

Comment: Re:Funny, that spin... (Score 1) 416

by turbidostato (#49766051) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

"You know, if AI research suddenly gets heavily regulated or even banned, their jobs might fly away."

You know, if their jobs weren't heavily regulated they'd soon discover you (the repetitive Anonymous Coward going with the same boring arguments again and again in these comments) are nothing more than a trolling AI, and a lame attempt at it, and would return you to the dirty pits you belong.

Comment: Re:*shrug* (Score 5, Insightful) 387

by turbidostato (#49757623) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0

"IBM's PC strategy from the mid '80s to mid '90s could be summed up as using their influence to prevent networking, multi-tasking and file permissions from happening on the same platform at the same time."

Of course yes.

That explains why in the mid '80s to mid 90's IBM was busy in a joint venture with Microsoft first and alone afterwards... to produce a PC system with networking, multi-tasking and file permissions and even 32 bits (OS/2).

Or maybe you are wrong.

Comment: Re:Do people really take this risk seriously? (Score 1) 236

by turbidostato (#49755749) Attached to: Asteroid Risk Greatly Overestimated By Almost Everyone

"An ELE shows up about every 60 million years. If it kills 6 billion people, then that is on average 100 people per year, which is small, but still much larger than they imply."

It would directly kill those 6 billion but then, it would stop humanity from growing at least 25x that number (provided it takes 25 generations to rise back to 6 billions and that 6 billions is more or less the max capacity of the Earth). This would mean -as per your numbers, about 2500 people/year, and that is without taking into account the life standars for the survivors or if it doesn't manage to extinguish the species altogether.

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming