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:If it ain't broke... (Score 1) 224

Assuming that those options aren't problems from the code maintenance or security points of view

All options are problems from a code maintenance and testing point of view. Every feature has an ongoing cost. If the cost exceeds the benefit, which is almost certainly the case if the feature is very little-used and there are other more often-used and roughly equally-convenient/effective ways to accomplish the same thing, then the feature should be removed.

That said, I use close-to-right all the time and hope it doesn't get axed. OTOH, another poster pointed out that it's also possible to multi-select then use Ctrl-W to close the selected tabs, which is almost as convenient when close-to-right is what I want, and also handles other cases where I want to batch close but close-to-right isn't what I want, so I won't be too annoyed if close-to-right is removed.

Submission + - Trump team communications intercepted w/o foreigners in conversation (

bongey writes: The intelligence community is coming clean. Telling congress there was "incidental collection" of the Trump transition team from Nov-2016-Jan-2017. The intercepts included reports of communications between Trump team members, with team members being unmasked that were wildly disseminated throughout the intelligence community. The intercepts had little to no foreign intelligence value, and the intercepts had nothing to do with Russian investigation.

Comment Re:In some areas (Score 1) 126

Yup, they've got my town's balls in a vice. Sure, there's NTC (exclusive to some apartments, those poor schmucks) and Verizon (if 7Mb/768k is your idea of high speed internet), but otherwise it's Comcast or nothing. So it's $90 for 75Mb service, and $89 for 75Mb service plus basic cable. Add $10 to kick in ESPN and the other mid-tier channels that DTV charges $35 for and Sling charges $20. When they own the last mile, you're going to pay.

Comment Re:They own the networks and content (Score 5, Insightful) 126

When I cut the cord, Time Warner kept pestering me with bundled offers, including one that basically gave me cable and internet for the same price that I'm paying now for internet only. When I turned the offer down, it drove them nuts. They clearly wanted to be able to still count me as a cable TV subscriber even if I wasn't even using the cable TV. I suspect that offers like this keep the number of cable subscribers artificially high. There are probably a lot of cord cutters out there who only still have cable because cablecos are basically giving it to them for free.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 5, Insightful) 374

1. Due to limited computational resources, the simulated universe would be granular or "quantum".
2. To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how a GPU running OpenGL will skip the generation of hidden polygons.
3. The maximum speed of information transfer would be finite, to limit the propagation of changes through the universe.

All of these are actually true in our universe, ergo, we are very likely a simulation.

And this, sir, is why you really need to consider taking a course in formal logic and maybe learn about logical fallacies.

None of these assertions, even if they were true in some useful way, constitute a statistical or logical argument for the conclusion. This is true at an openly embarrassing level. Suppose one were designing a rock because you wanted to build a rock wall and for some reason didn't want to use actual rocks. Due to the cost of raw materials, rocks would be finite in size. Because you don't want the wall to be boring, rocks would come in many different colors, sizes, and shapes. Because you don't want the fake rock wall to fall down, rocks would be solid, as opposed to liquid, glass, plasma, gaseous.

All real rocks are actually finite in size, come in many different sizes, shapes, and colors, and tend to be solid to the point where "rock solid" is a standard metaphor in human speech. Ergo, all rocks are obviously designed.


Teleological arguments are pure bullshit, which is what the physicist in question (as well as myself, also a physicist) are happy to point out.

When one actually looks at rocks or Universes, there is an utter lack of either evidence or a plausible, consistent, evidence linked chain of reasoning that increases the probability that the notion/hypothesis "Rocks are designed" or "We are living in a computer simulation" is/are true from their rightful place (so far) of 0.0000.....(0 until you get bored with writing 0's)...001 to something with a tiny smidgen of actual measure.

These are not independent assertions, by the way. If you take the assertion that the Universe is a simulation seriously, then rocks ARE designed objects, even though there is absolutely nothing about rocks to suggest that they actually are designed.

One could then deconstruct the truth of each of your statements individually. For example, there is nothing in quantum theory that limits computational requirements -- quite the opposite. Indeed, quantum theory is built on top of complex, non-discrete numbers in every quantum textbook ever written -- C-numbers. That is, quantum objects are described in general by (at least) TWO real numbers, not just one. If you attempt to represent the quantum state of a very simple -- the simplest -- two level quantum system such as |\psi> = A|-> + B|+>, one discovers that it requires two continuous degrees of freedom and that the states of the system map nicely into points on a 3D spherical hypersurface. If you try to describe the most general quantum state of N such 2 level objects, it requires 2^N or so continuous degrees of freedom. Consequently, we are limited in our solutions or simulational studies of fully correlated quantum systems to a tiny, tiny handful of e.g. "two level atoms" -- perhaps 20 to 30 of them -- because one very quickly runs out of computational resources to perform even very small general computations.

Second, you are building a whole mountain of assumptions into what appears to be a misinterpretation of the Planck length. To quote Wikipedia's page on this topic:

There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length...

so you are quoting something for which there is no direct evidence as evidence in a bad teleological argument for something for which there is no evidence at all.

You also don't address the actual numbers associated with the Planck length/time. If the Planck length \ell_p is order of 10^{-35} meters, and the visible Universe (alone) is ~10^11 light years across, and a light year is 10^16 meters then there are 10(11+16+35)*3 = 10^{186} cubic Planck lengths in the visible Universe, and making Planck time out of \ell_p/c we end up with another factor of 10^70 x 10^186 = 10^256 discrete space-time points. That's a hell of a lot of data, and one has to compute all of this for all of these time slices.

Now speaking only for myself, if I were building a simulation of the Universe, it would NOT look like this microscopically. That's because when one plays a game with a physics simulation, all one has to do is present a perspective view into a purely classical representation of various surfaces, plus some sounds, plus some sundry nervous/sensations. Humans can't see microscopic things anyway, even with a microscope we don't see microscopic things, we see images that our brains plus some cognitive work identify as microscopic things. I don't have to make a virtual world that has actual simulations of individual viruses to simulate the nervous sensations of "feeling viremic". Reality need never be more than skin deep, perception deep. I'll point out that empirically (there's that word once again) ALL actual reality simulations present precisely this sort of a Universe BECAUSE it doesn't require an enormous representation. When a dark iron dwarf in WoW throws a bomb at you, the simulator doesn't compute the quantum chemistry ot a gunpowder explosion all the way down to the Planck scale, it just manipulates a few pixels and sprites according to a very simple model of what an explosion LOOKS LIKE.

Similarly, it is really irrelevant as to what the "speed of propagation of causality" is in a simulation. It doesn't even matter how fast your computer is, since you are just stacking up large arrays of numbers with some index you are identifying with some sort of discretized timestep. And don't get me started about relativity and simultaneity and the ordering of events separated by spacelike intervals and COMPUTATIONS of all of these things -- suffice it to say that your argument itself is in fact naive and incorrect per point as well as collectively.

Could the world of our experience by a simulation? Sure. Of course it could. And pink unicorns COULD fart rainbow colors. There is nothing fundamentally contradictory about either one, especially when you get to make up the terms that aren't being contradicted.

It's just that we haven't a shred of actual evidence that either assertion is true. Or that the Universe is a made/designed thing. Or that we could somehow DISTINGUISH a designed "real physical" Universe from a designed "simulation, unreal" Universe from the real, undesigned, physical Universe we appear to live in. Teleological arguments are just as dumb in religion as they are in the assertion that we are all living inside "the Matrix" in reality. How could you even know?


Comment Re:Huh? I use these all the time. (Score 1) 224

I'm sure the real reasoning behind this is to pad their usage stats. Chrome users spend 25% more time on your website and spend $fake_dollars more!

Padding usage stats in this way would be a bad idea for Google, because it would appear to sites that Chrome users spend more time on their sites... but spend less per unit of time (because no one buys from an idle background tab), making the Chrome user base appear to be less desirable than the user base of other browsers.

Comment Re:Huh? I use these all the time. (Score 1) 224

It's fucking stupid. It's rarely needed function that is rarely used. IT'S STILL NEEDED.

I use "close tabs to right" all the time[1], myself, so I hope this doesn't go away. That said, I disagree with your idea that if something is rarely used it should be kept. Your other example (clearing cookies) is a bad one because there is no other way to do that, but in this case tabs can be -- and generally are -- closed one at a time, and in fact Chrome is careful to move the tabs around so that the close button for the next tab is under your cursor when you close one. This means that "close to the right" can also be done by moving your mouse to the "x" on the first tab to remove, then tapping the mouse button rapidly until all of them are gone. Unless you have more than the 20-30 tabs that I typically have open, that's really not so terrible. Plus, as others in this thread have pointed out, you can multi-select tabs then batch close them that way. There are other reasonably-good ways to achieve the goal, so if this is one is rarely used, there's no way to argue that it's actually necessary.

As for why to remove it... features cost. Every feature you keep in a product is a feature that has to be maintained and tested. Development and testing resources are not infinite -- not even at Google -- and the accumulated burden of lots of old and rarely-used features gradually slows progress on new features, security fixes, etc. It makes a great deal of sense to remove features that aren't used much and which have more often-used alternatives.

[1] My normal browsing style is to open every link in a new tab, and to use Ctrl-W to go "back". So my tab bar ends up being a breadcrumb trail of my path through a web site, and when I'm done with something I close the "site" with "close tabs to right". I also keep a couple of pinned tabs (email and calendar, in that order), so when I want to close "everything" I've been doing, I "close tabs to right" on the calendar tab.

Comment Re:The objection ignores Bostrom's basic argument (Score 1) 374

The objection in question ignores Bostrom's basic argument.

Irrelevant. The objection is orthogonal to Bostrom's argument, but could absolutely refute it, if valid (which I don't believe, more below).

Bostrom argues that if simulation is possible, it must eventually be done which means there probably are a large number of simulated universes and only one non-simulated one (I'm simplifying here, but that's the core of it). If a counterargument demonstrates that there is some reason our observed physics is incompatible with any possible simulated physics then Bostrom's argument becomes irrelevant, because we have proof that our universe is not simulated, regardless of whether simulation is possible or whether it has been done. Or, if the weaker counterargument that our observed physics is incompatible with any reasonable simulated physics, then Bostrom's argument becomes weaker, though it's not refuted because one could postulate that the creator of the simulation chose to create an unreasonable simulated physics in order to fool any intelligences that arose within the simulation and looked (note that this latter argument also works against any proofs of the non-existence of any form of god who has some reason to demand faith -- you can always say "Yeah, but god made it that way so that we'd have to take his existence on faith.")

However, I think Hossenfelder's argument is flawed because she's making a crucial and unjustifiable assumption: that any simulation must necessarily simulate every detail of the simulated universe, i.e that the simulation in question must be a finite element model. Not only is there no reason to make this assumption, there's every reason to assume its opposite, because it's clearly more efficient to simulate at a higher level of abstraction. In that view, the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics actually supports the simulation theory, because we can surmise that the simulation does not in fact model elementary particles but only their aggregate behavior and what we're actually seeing when we try to look very closely is a predictable result of this incompletely-detailed simulation.

Note that I'm not saying I think we live in a simulated universe. I think it's probably impossible to know, but to the extent that we think we might be able to search for artifacts of the simulation, QM's very weirdness is probably the best artifact we have to support the notion, not a refutation.

Comment So you own it? (Score 1) 225

If I don't own it then you can pay all associated recycling fees for the device, if it's left in places that are not appropriate you will be responsible for removal of it, if it's stolen you need to provide the replacement and you need to pay the insurance for it as well, since you own it, not me.

It doesn't get stolen from me, it gets stolen from you. Since I paid for the use of the product within a warranty period, you can ensure I have it for that time regardless what happens to it.

Sounds far fetched? So does the rest of the shit you guys are trying to do.

Comment Re:Use Mahindra & Mahindra (Score 2) 447

But then you've just wasted 4 hours of your day and prevented your neighbor, Joe, from getting commission so you've wasted his 4 hours too. To John Deere, there's no loss - you weren't going to buy that tractor to begin with. The dealership lost $30 in Joe's time and incremental costs (copying and such) since they pretty much just pay him on commission and the office would have been open anyway. Nobody cares except you, who now don't have the new tractor you need, and Joe, who just lost 1/10 of his weekly pay because of your hijinks and whom you are going to have to look in the face at Church on Sunday, along with his wife and three kids.

Comment Re:At least there's a way around it (Score 1) 447

But you didn't buy it, you licensed it. It looks like you bought it, but the agreement you signed only means you own the scrap value of the base metals in the item - not any control or influence on the software that's inside it that allows it to run.

It's how everything is "sold" now. You can buy the scrap, but to operate it you have to agree to a (very limited) license on the 1s and 0s that make it useful.

Comment Thanks but no (Score 0) 128

"You can't simply write a post and have it appear across the network which can make it difficult to get your voice heard."
So you're saying that this new system will enable people to vomit their meaningless content even further and wider? Reddit is already generally a toxic echo-chamber of superficial snowflakes CERTAIN that their opinion is the most important one. This will make it even worse.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work smarter, not harder, and be careful of your speling.