Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Submission + - The inexplicable case of conciousness locality and continuity ( 1

Artem Tashkinov writes: Ars has published a monumental article on beaming in Star Trek and its implications, and more importantly whether it's plausible or not to beam consciousness without killing us in the process. It seems possible in the Star Trek universe, however currently physicists find the idea absurd and unreal because there's no way you can transport matter and its quantum state without first destroying it and then recreating it perfectly due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. The biggest conundrum of all is the fact that pretty much everyone understands that conciousness is a physical state of the brain, which features continuity as its primary principle, yet it surely seems like copying the said state produces a new person altogether which brings the problem of conciousness becoming local to one's skull and inseparable from gray matter which sounds a bit unscientific because it introduces the notion that there's something about our brain which cannot be described in terms of physics, almost like soul. This also brings another very difficult question: how do we know if we are the same person when we wake up in the morning or after we were put under during general anaesthesia?

What do slashdotters think about all of that?

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 306

Hence, my claim that you are glorifying drugs is correct

You seem to think that's a bad thing. Why?

Perhaps you can read up on the definition and meaning of "Spiritual" while brushing up on basic logic.

Fun fact: I've never seen anyone who goes on and on about "logical fallacies" who has any background in logic. (Though many who are under the mistaken impression that they do! Like programmers who fancy themselves mathematicians, it's just self-delusion.)

Comment Re:MECH WARRIOR (Score 1) 56

Google "EEG computer mouse" or "Star Wars Force Trainer". If you can't stand Google, find anyone with an EE undergrad degree. Chances are, they or one of their former classmates has done something similar.

Yes, this technology is with us today, and has been with us for ages.

No, it's not reading your mind. That's just what marketing wants you to believe.

Comment Re:Ruby (Score 1) 349

What about JS is harder to write, debug, and deploy?

This is the only point with any detail:

deployment seems to be more or less identical, just copy the file where you need it.

That's not how it works. Try this: Set up two different php applications on the same server, then do the same for node. You'll see what I mean.

Comment Re: Ruby (Score 1) 349

"Stockholm syndrome"? Ridiculous.

I've used Java for more than 20 years. I loved it at first, I even advocated it. I can't stand it today, and hate it more the longer I use it.

Javascript, I've used for a little over 10 years or so. I hated it at first, but now I think it's a pretty nice language. The exact opposite of my experience with Java.

C, which I've used longer than either language, I'm still pretty neutral about. I feel about the same way about it now that I did when I first started using it.

If what you're saying was true, I'd love C more than life itself and prefer Java over JavaScript.

Now, had you bothered learning the language before declaring it unsuitable for any purpose then you'd be able to offer legitimate insight in to the languages design, rather than pointless platitudes and allusions to amorous pigs.

Comment Re:ah (Score 1) 349

Because being easy to use is a bad thing?

If harder is better, why don't we all switch to whitespace or brainfuck? All systems development will be in raw machine code and we'll use base 3 for added complexity.

We'll also start calling loops 'cycles' in honor of your great insight...

Comment Re:Ruby (Score 2) 349

PHP is and was popular, because it was better than the alternatives. Imagine a world where JSP or ColdFusion came out on top...

Whatever warts the language might have, it's trivial to write, debug, and deploy. Those three things are more important than ideological purity or whatever it is that informs your opinion on the language when it comes to adoption and longevity.

To replace PHP, you need a language that is at least as trivial to write, debug, and deploy.

NodeJS, while it's the hot new trend, isn't likely to replace PHP as it's more difficult to write, debug, and deploy. Whatever benefits it might have, without those three factors, it's not likely to knock PHP out of it's little niche.

Comment Re: Ruby (Score 2) 349

JavaScript isn't even a real language.

What an odd thing to say. I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the language.

See, everyone hates JavaScript when they first use it. I suspect it's because they're trying to use the language like they'd use Java or C#. That's not a good idea. Once you learn the language, you'll find it's has very simple design that allows for a lot of depth. The biggest "warts" in the language come from where it's been unnaturally extended to make it look more like Java (the new keyword, for example).

It's unusual in that the language seems to get better the more you learn about it. Contrast this with Java, which seems to get worse the longer you use it.

At the moment, I'm wading through an unholy amalgam of C and Java that should never have been, so I might be a jaded today. Still, I'll stand by my comment. JavaScript isn't a bad language at all. Though if you're an inexperienced developer that tries to treat the language like Java or C#, it can certainly seem that way.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.