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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Why? (Score 3, Interesting) 159

There aren't enough cables. The Internet is such absurdly critical infrastructure, and we have only a handful of cables even for the most-dense connections. While the Internet routes around damage efficiently, the amount of time it takes to route around damage is longer than would be desired these days (where an assumption of failure is the norm for critical applications), and a small reduction in capacity could easily be catastrophic.

Comment The problem won't be "We can't figure out how" (Score 1) 209

When AI goes rogue, the problem won't be "we can't figure out how to turn it off", it will be "We can't figure out how to turn off just the parts we don't like, without accidentally disable the parts of it which we have become completely dependent on for the past decade"

As an absurdist example: preventing Tesla AI from intentionally ramming human drivers when it detects them, without also requiring all 100,000,000 drivers worldwide suddenly pay attention and take emergency manual control of their vehicles (not to mention the 200,000,000 with no human operator, which will suddenly become obstacles that it would be really nice to have a coordinated AI to navigate around)

Comment "Billions" is far too low a number (Score 1) 951

If we make the assumption that it is possible to simulate this reality multiple times, it follows that the odds of living in the "top universe" are practically nil.

That first part is already a huge leap, but it would make much more sense to estimate: "how likely is it that we will (eventually) be able to simulate this universe", and just assume that we are living in a simulated universe if and only if this is possible.

Comment Re:Put some in the stores too (Score 3, Insightful) 106

The test for whether or not someone ought to be provided a mobility scooter is "can they comfortably walk through a Wal-Mart in order to retrieve the item they want to purchase?", and has nothing to do with what the specific reason for their being uncomfortable with walking that far might be.

Wal-Mart's prime competitor is one which requires zero walking, so it makes sense to offer a reduced-walking option for any customer who might desire it.

Comment Context, for Americans (Score 0) 602

in England, even roads with a "central white line" are almost universally only wide enough for a single car at a time to drive down them by any sane measure. When there is no white line, cars will often drive down the middle of the road, and "slow down"/"move over" when another car approaches, entirely out of necessity.

When there *is* a white line, most cars won't do this, despite the same necessity still being there.

England's roads (the ones they are talking about) are basically foot-paths which were widened over time enough to allow horses through, but which were never widened or maintained enough to allow multiple cars through in any case. Two American cars would literally not fit side-by-side on these roads.

What is actually needed is wider, better-lit roads, with real shoulders and barriers at the side. But that costs money, so instead we get proposals like "what if we don't bother to even repaint the lines anymore?" and "people will slow down if we stop lighting the roads entirely"

As for "slowing down", the speed limit on most roads (even ridiculously tiny roads) is "meh, whatever". If they really want people to slow down, reducing the speed limit would be the *first* thing I'd try. It seems not to have occurred to anyone in England, though.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)