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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Asking the wrong question (Score 1) 370

I'm impressed with people who see the absurd level of technological advancement humanity pulled off in mere 400 years of the scientific method, and think "gee, we'll never surpass nature's trial and error process!!!"

Come on. Unless you think in Biblical time scales, what we did so far was many, MANY orders of magnitude faster than nature managed to do in any equivalent time frame. Human engineering is astoundingly fast. We fly over nature's rate of problem solving. 400 years and we're on the brink of creating artificial brains. Whether it takes us 40 years or 400 more, it's still an eye blink compared to the alternative.

And afterwards things will accelerate even more.

Comment Re:Asking the wrong question (Score 1) 370

It's simple. Do you know how, once we applied human brain power over the problem of flying we managed, in a matter of decades, to become better at flying than nature ever did in hundreds of millions of years of natural selection? Well, what do you think will happen now that we're focused on making AI better than brains? As in, better than any brains, including ours?

AI is catching up to human abilities. There's still a way to go, but breakthroughs are happening all the time. And as with flying, it won't take thousands of centuries of research and development until we make that happen. It'll take decades.

And once that happens, bye, bye, relevance of human brains for problem solving. AI will have solved it before you managed to articulate the problem.

Comment Re:As if this is new (Score 4, Insightful) 370

The problem is that AI is becoming faster at learning the new job opportunities than people are, thereby gulping them before people even were there to be replaced. And this speed is growing. You cannot beat an exponential growth with a linear one, or even with just slightly slower growing exponential one.

Comment Re:That sounds good to me (Score 1) 158

A few hosts offer pay-as-you-go models for both storage, CPU usage and bandwidth so you can host anything you want and pay almost nothing or a lot, but still something fair. One I like a lot, targeting technical folk in particular (no wizards for anything: you get a shell account, a BSD jail, an SSH account, and move from there) is As the name implies they also have almost no content restriction, the only one being that it must be legal under US law.

I guess I should point out I have no relationship with them other than the fact I host a few Wordpress sites with them.

Comment Re: I'm going to make a prediction (Score 1) 230

Where is the end product? Why isn't it available?

Because it costs several billion dollars to create the whole infrastructure needed to make any of these things at an industrial scale, while the infrastructure for Li-Ion one is already in place and can be cheaply adapted to new improvements on the already proven technology. Besides, Li-Ion has the "advantage" of forced obsolescence, requiring user to purchase new ones for their devices every few years.

Down the line it might be worth it to invest in these new technologies, particularly if some new technology appears that requires such massive power densities and speeds and there's huge demand for it, as was the case with electric cars and the new battery tech they require. Right now however the economics of scale, coupled with the potential lower long term profits, don't favor investing in it.

Comment Re:Wonderful! (Score 3, Interesting) 128

Oh, really? Do tell.

From the Books and Media section of the Vatican Observatory Foundation's website:

"Intelligent Life in the Universe: Catholic belief and the search for extraterrestrial life", Br. Guy Consolmagno, SJ

Originally published by the Catholic Truth Society in London, and long out of print, this pamphlet outlines what we know about the search for intelligent life, both how we search and why we search, and what it can mean for Catholics and our understanding of our faith.

Download Now (1.5MB PDF) Suggested Donation $5.00

Comment Re: Doll. Fin. (Score 2) 305

Isn't that an Americanism, i.e. optional?

I've read originally, in handwriting, the punctuation used to come below the quotation mark, both forming what nowadays would be considered a single character. When people transitioned to print, there was no easy way to do that, so some began placing the punctuation before the quotation mark, others began placing the quotation mark before the punctuation, and over time either style became the standard in print. Most countries went for quotation-then-punctuation. The USA went for punctuation-then-quotation. And that's it. There's no right or wrong option there, just an arbitrary usage that eventually became normative.

By the way, if we were to do it "right", as in, to become historically accurate, we should ask the Unicode Consortium to provide us ligature version of the different end-quotation marks with the different punctuations available, then have word processors replace them when typed, as they sometimes do when you type three dots and those get replaced by the single ellipsis symbol. Maybe those already exist? After all, there's no technological reason for keeping them separate anymore.

Comment Re:Doll. Fin. (Score 1) 305

In none of which you'd end a sentence with a preposition.

Yes, you do. This has been a standard feature of English language for centuries, until prescriptive grammarians hell bent on adapting English to Latin began saying it shouldn't be done. Ignore that nonsense. Ending sentences with prepositions is one of the beautiful features of English, and one I, as an English as second language speaker, use as much as I can, as it provides for compact sentences that remain fully intelligible.

Comment Re:Addons = wasteful & you're quoted! (Score 1) 534

Yes, I was referring to my previous quote. Thanks for finding it, I wouldn't have been able to find it on my own.

To elaborate: both my old quote and my previous answer don't contradict each other. "Low speed, low memory, low power, battery-based devices" are one of the "cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources". In other words, my old quote ("case in which...") is a set, of which my previous answer ("low speed, low memory...") is a subset. And "smartphones" is a subset of "low speed, low memory...".

Ah! And I forgot to mention! I have an old EeePC, the first one, 600 MHz CPU version, running a trimmed down version of Windows XP SP-3. In it I also use hosts based ad blocking by means of Spybot S&D 1.6.2 and SpywareBlaster hosts blocking. I haven't powered up that machine in about two years though, so it's most certainly outdated.

Therefore, as you can see, I'm consistent in my opinions, and also truthful to my word.

Can you please provide the research links? I'm certainly interested.

Comment Re:NOW you agree w/ MY point... apk (Score 1) 534

Ah! It's not now, I did agree previously. Hosts file ad blocking is particularly useful in low speed, low memory, low power, battery-based devices. I use hosts file ad blocking in my smartphone, for example.

In my desktop computer however, I don't notice a difference in performance. It's so fast that the difference in ROI between hosts based ad blocking and JavaScript based ad blocking cannot be perceived.

Hmm... I'm curious though: if you're against advertisements, why do you advertise APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit?

Comment Re:Tell you what: Why don't you do it? (Score 1) 534

IF you're concerned about it, build a better tool then yourself.

I guess I'll continue using a combination of uBlock Origin, Tampermonkey and Reek's Anti-Adblock Killer to deal with the Facebook ads that APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit won't be able to block then. It's easier to use those tools than to build a new tool from the ground up myself.

Comment Re:Best adblocker (protects vs. most threats) (Score 2) 534

Can APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit block ads that come from the same domain of the content?

For example, if I'm visiting "", and it serves ads sourced from "", can APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit block them?

Because that's what Facebook is going to do to try thwarting ad blocks, including thwarting APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.