Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re: Why is this guy still talking (Score 1) 437

That's probably a sign to switch markets, i.e. work in an entirely different part of industry. You need to stay ahead of the development (change of demand) - keep the initiative - otherwise you'll end up on the sidelines.

Today's connected world makes it easier to acquire new skills and also advertise yourself (via LinkedIn - if you have relevant skills, the new job will find you). But you need to be smart, see where trends are going and keep the initiative.

Comment Re: Of course (Score 1) 210

The question is whether we (or who) will have control over the AI that becomes highly advanced. IMO it will be one of the business giants Alphabet, Amazon, IBM or Wolfram Research who will operate the first such AI, probably secretly and very likely it will connect to the internet, otherwise it would have very limited background.

The scary thing is such AI being controlled by someone like Alphabet enabling them to dominate everybody else even more.

At some point an advanced AI would be as intelligent as a human. This itself would not be such a huge benefit for a company (which have tens of thousands of employees). However companies could run many instances of the AI, in fact they'd probably run as many as they can support.
Also AIs would be basically immortal which means you don't lose their experience due to retirement.

We should also keep in mind that the intelligence of humans varies wildly. Not everyone is Einstein. Then consider that the truly big breakthroughs are usually driven by a single or very few extraordinary individuals, rather than a combined mass of average individuals.

Comment Re:The toothbrush test is idiotic (Score 2) 97

That's entirely correct. There are other implications when selling machinery, i.e. capital goods: the individual client has much more power over the manufacturer. A toothbrush consumer represents only one-billionth of your revenue and has virtually no power over the manufacturer. A capital goods customer can represent several percent of your revenue - in some industries several ten percent. That is on the order of the operating profit, i.e one customer can influence a lot the economic outcome.
To deal with such customers you need not only to have a very good product, but also very good sales people (key account managers) and a very responsive field service, both of which are expensive to have. You cannot afford to have a homepage with no email to write to or no phone number to call.

Submission + - Continuing progress on "In Situ Resource Utilization" for space exploration. (arxiv.org) 2

RockDoctor writes: Many Slashdot readers will have heard of Robert Zubrin with his plans for launching self-contained rocket fuel plants to Mars to convert 1kg of hydrogen (supplied from Earth) to 18kg of oxygen/ methane to be used as rocket fuel to return explorers to Earth. This is an example of Utilizing (using) In Situ (already there) Resources (Mars' CO2 atmosphere) to reduce launch costs (masses) from Earth to achieve desired aims in space exploration at more affordable costs.

In 2013, the Journal of Aerospace Engineering ran a special volume on "In Situ Resource Utilization" with 20 papers on the subject. (These are paywalled, unless you know of tools like Sci-Hub to read the work paid for by your taxes.)

Yesterday, one of the editors of that special volume, Philip Metzger (a NASA planetary scientist specialising in the properties of Lunar soils) released a paper on Arxiv expanding on his contribution to that 2013 volume and detailing a roadmap for humanity to take gain control of the Solar System in order to solve problems on Earth. In the 2013 paper, Dr Metzger asserted (with working) that

bootstrapping can be achieved with as little as 12 t landed on the Moon during a period of about 20 years. [ I know it's Slashdot but RTFAFFS ! ...] The industry grows exponentially because of the free real estate, energy, and material resources of space. The mass of industrial assets at the end of bootstrapping will be 156 t with 60 humanoid robots or as high as 40,000 t. [...] Within another few decades with no further investment, it can have millions of times the industrial capacity of the United States. Modeling over wide parameter ranges indicates this is reasonable, but further analysis is needed.

The 2016 Arxiv paper produces some of the results of that further analysis, concentrating in particular on the need to develop a "water economy [..] to manufacture rocket propellant" from in situ resources on the Moon and later the asteroids.

The 2013 paper's abstract ends with one of the milder understatements in history.

"This industry promises to revolutionize the human condition."

Without doubt, Slashdot will contribute much heat and little light from typing hordes who haven't read either paper to dilute their ignorance, but analyses like this are not, as frequently described, the work of "space nutters" but realistic possibilities. Realistic until the author sees the fatal stumbling block to all such dreams :

"It will require a sustained commitment of several decades to complete."

— a level of dedication that humans have not shown themselves capable of for centuries, even for their highest achievement to date, war.

Comment Re:What's the big problem? (Score 1) 675

No, there's no photo involved in the transaction, though I wouldn't be surprised if individual merchants trained their store cameras on that spot should there ever be a need to confront a customer over a contested charge

Wouldn't that be questionable? A camera could be used to spy on the PIN entered or the signature given. I bet the CC processors would not like such kind of cameras in the shops.

Comment Re:Small minds, here. (Score 1) 306

We could start by reading


It becomes obvious that space will be the next big thing after IT. Billionaires are otherwise running out of options of investing their money. Thanks to Elon Musk et al. in only ten years we'll be looking at another economic revolution, maybe even less than ten years.

Damn, I live in the wrong country.

Comment Re:Population, not resources. (Score 1) 306

In a way, yes. Global warming presumably is caused by less efficient heat removal from earth to space ("greenhouse effect"). Others claim it could be caused by variation in solar radiation (i.e. increased impinging energy flow on earth).

Significant additional energy transport from space to earth could accelerate global warming (e.g. from solar power that wasn't originally going to hit earth). It would be smarter to use the additional power in space for heavy industry, e.g. aluminum electrolysis and only bring the finished goods down to earth (pieces of aluminum won't contribute to solar warming, unless you'd burn them in an exothermic reaction). Of course, you'd mine asteroids, not shoot up raw materials from earth.

Comment Re:Why shouldn't we freeze population growth? (Score 3, Interesting) 306

The problem is that's is very difficult to freeze population to a constant level (see China). You might be able to freeze the head count but run the risk of severly skewing your age pyramid, which can lead to massive problems a generation later. Moreover, birth control isn't popular in the free world, you'd be limiting an essential human freedom (and the purpose of life).

The danger is declining population.
You don't actually want declining population:
1) Most pension schemes rely on at least constant population. Smarter pension schemes rely on economic growth (which is possible with slightly declining population), but not all countries have them implemented.
2) Declining population can also trigger massive problems with economy: You'll have to divest in a controlled and smart way. Example: real estate values are likely to drop if head count goes down. See former East German towns: some of them have become almost ghost towns, many with only retirees living there. This triggers business closings, which in turn makes young people move away. A self enforcing negative trend.

More population is no problem. There's lots of space on earth. If it becomes too crowded people will move to Mars or space. In fact, that could become a driving force, eventually.

Slashdot Top Deals

A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is called an obscene triangle.