Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 284

Okay, you've confused me, I'm not even sure which of my reasoning you think is flawed, let alone why. I'll try again from the start.

You said this:

And on the other hand, as soon as a civilization is living in a simulation, it cannot create a simulation of equal complexity anymore, so as soon as it has happened, the complexity of the possible simulations drop (for simplicity, assume below 0.5 of the surrounding simulation), so withing a small number of steps (simulation-in-simulation-in-simulation...), we have that any simulated world will have a simulation complexity very close to zero.

Which seems reasonable enough, but then you said this:

As our world clearly has a complexity significantly above zero,

which isn't actually clear at all, but even if we assume that it was:

the probability of us living in a simulation is essentially zero.

...this doesn't follow. If you picked a simulation at random, the probability of it having humans in it would indeed be close to zero. However, the number of simulations that are complex enough to support humans will still vastly outnumber the number of real universes, so we're still more likely to be in a simulation than not.

Comment Re:When the fuck are people who suggest this.... (Score 1) 284

No, it would still be evolution. Why would it suddenly stop being evolution just because our physics was running on some computing substrate rather than ${whatever the base universe is running on}? Likewise, I'd still argue we have a real existence even if we're on a computer -- everything is real enough from our perspective, which is the only one we have access to.

(Unless you define "real" as "not simulated", in which case obviously it's by definition not real; that's not the definition I'm using above.)

I feel like you completely ignored the AC grandparent post, went off on a tangent and then continued conflating those two different types of ID. Don't do that; the distinction is important.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 284

As our world clearly has a complexity significantly above zero

This isn't actually clear. Even the post you responded to points this out: this isn't a call you can make without knowing what the parent universes look like (or without theoretically ruling out the possibility of much more complex universes than our own).

But it doesn't even matter if the vast majority of simulated worlds are too simple to support our human life. The important part is whether the majority of worlds that do support human life are simulated or not, since we already know that we're in one of those worlds. The existence of many more simple simulations won't alter the "complex simulated worlds":"non-simulated worlds" ratio.

Comment Re:When the fuck are people who suggest this.... (Score 1) 284

Are you arguing that it's not possible for our universe to be a simulation? Or rather, that it's not worth seriously considering the possibility that it could be? Because I can't see the basis for that. We've made our own physics simulations, and they do tend to be small-scale and don't incorporate every physical law, but that's basically just a limitation of our knowledge and computing power. Nothing I've seen suggests that it'd be fundamentally impossible to produce a simulation that, from the inside, looks the same as our universe.

Also, a simulated universe doesn't necessarily imply that somebody designed it. For instance, it may be possible to enumerate the set of possible physics rules and then try them out one-by-one. (Please read this blog post for a longer and more convincing version of the previous sentence.)

Comment Re:DDG!!! (Score 1) 241

Fun fact: most sentence fragments of about 5 words or so are unique (excluding things like idioms and quoting).

For example, take "And yet Google has complied" from the summary. 14 results, all of which are quotes from this article. The folks at OMG Ubuntu are the first people to ever utter the phrase "And yet Google has complied" on the internet.

Comment Re:Does anyone make tinting tape? (Score 3, Informative) 294

Not quite a roll of tape, but check out LightDims. You get one set of stickers that dim "50-80%" (or rather three sets, in black, silver and white) and another set that, as far as I can tell, are completely opaque.

They only really stick on flat surfaces, but they look better than using a random bit of tape, and the opaque ones really are opaque.

Comment Re:Only possible with unreasonable tax rates (Score 1) 630

I'm not completely convinced that's the case, at least from your numbers.

You're already paying social security for 20% of the population, so that's 20% of the money covered right there. About 50% or so work and will thus essentially pay their own basic income via the basic income tax. Eliminating bureaucratic overhead in SS/M will also save a bunch of money. All of that accounts for about three quarters of the total amount needed to pay for the basic income.

Okay, sure, "three quarters" is very different from "all" and you'll still have to work out where the rest comes from. But that sounds a damn sight more doable than "we've covered a fifth, now what?".

Comment Re:Won't work in America (Score 1) 630

A universal basic income might actually help here. With all the various government aid programs replaced with a single monthly payment (or maybe make it weekly?), it makes it a lot easier to say "Look, you fucked up. You'll have to wait until the next payment day.". When other nearby cities are still running those food aid programs it makes it a lot harder to resist the calls to run your own too.

Also there's two posts further up that I think are worth quoting here too:

The other thing you'll see with the poor is they're used to everything going to shit. It's tough to plan ahead and stick to the plan when you've spent your entire life having shit fall apart around you. When things are going well you don't expect it to last, so you live for the moment.

When you're poor you can only afford low-quality goods that break all of the time and if you're on welfare you need to be sure to use it all before the end of each month. That is why they and especially their kids get into this habit of acting as if money is a perishable good that needs to be spent ASAP.

A basic income that's universal and reliable (as in, something we maintain for generations rather than a few months or years) seems like it might work out differently.

Comment Re:Won't work in America (Score 1) 630

That's not actually that much money. The US already spends $1tn/year on welfare (which would be replaced by the basic income), and if 125 million working adults contributed $7,200/year of tax into the fund you'd have the other $0.9tn/year. But how would all those people afford an extra $7200/year of tax, you ask? From the basic income. Duh.

(I'm sure the numbers in both of our posts are very approximate, but hopefully you get the idea.)

I can't see it flying either though. Somebody would call it communist and the whole idea would be finished. The US would prefer half their population on the streets before they do a basic income.

Comment Re:GPL (Score 1) 137

If the GPL applied, then yes, that's right, but you don't need to put your documents under the GPL just to edit them with a GPLed piece of software. The only way they'd end up GPLed is if you deliberately licensed them as such for some reason (at which point you have only yourself to blame if you decide you didn't want to do that).

Comment Re:Oh yawn... (Score 2) 238

btw, I've noticed a change in the GPL busy-bodies' approach to evangelism. It used to be "set your code free with GPL" or some such. I could never understand how my code could be more free with more restrictions placed upon how it can be used.

The only extra restriction the GPL has over BSD is "you can't add more restrictions to this code". Saying BSD is more free than GPL is a bit like saying anarchy is more free than democracy because you can imprison/enslave whoever you like. In practice you end up being less free with anarchy.

Now I'm noticing the change to more of a "your code isn't good enough to be GPL-licensed" style of approach.

Well I have no idea what that's about. There's no minimum quality bar for GPLed code; go for it.

I never understood why the GPL busy bodies were so concerned with what i did with the code i write. :)

Because it affects everyone, or perhaps more to the point it affects them a lot more than it affects you (because you can always do whatever you like with your own code).

Ultimately it's your call, of course. It would just be nice if your call contributed to the network effects of open-and-will-stay-open code.

Comment Re:64 allows 2 billion IPs per person. 2GB limits (Score 1) 150

I think overkill was the right call. I'm not convinced that 64-bits would be sufficient for everybody to get away with NAT indefinitely. I think it might be, but even if so I think realistically ISPs would've given allocations that were too small.

Case in point: ISPs giving /60s or even /64s in 128-bit v6, even though they easily have enough space to do /48s. In a 64-bit v6 world, that would probably translate into people getting 256 individual address or so, which technically is enough for "most" people today but actually starts to look really tight when subnetted or if you include future growth. That would lead to NAT, and I don't think that's a risk we should've taken.

And being bothered about how 128 bits don't fit neatly into a register is being bothered over nothing. It just doesn't matter that much. Very few systems are constrained by how many millions of IP addresses they can add together per second. Common-place NAT would (does) have a much bigger impact on people's lives, and it's much more important that we avoid that.

Comment Re:Linux is far worse than Microsoft (Score 5, Informative) 541

Realistically, the Linux ecosystem forces you to pick between running a minor distro that you don't want to use, running a major distro with systemd removed (with broken functionality) or giving up and using systemd.

I suppose you could technically call that "not forcing" on the basis that you made the choice to use Linux in the first place, but... nope. Still being forced.

Slashdot Top Deals

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Working...