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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Yeah, you do... but no, we don't. (Score 1) 248

I drive on highways with 55-65 MPH speed limits, just like everyone for the last 50 years, with cars built for those speeds.

From time to time, I drive a 2016 corvette on Montana highways with 80 mph speed limits. It is fair to say that the car loafs along. It was absolutely built for these speeds, and speeds considerably higher. I often reach those higher speeds. [Um. Allegedly. Cough.] Many other models are built with similar capabilities. The highways here are well designed for those speeds. Even many of the secondary roads here are pretty good for them, though not as good.

Methinks you are thinking well inside your own box. Poorly. Which makes me raise my eyebrows at your assertion that you are a physicist. That may be unfair; many people are notably vertical in their strengths. But still, my eyebrows are raised. :)

We can also (if we are honest) observe that progress, and the potential it unleashes in many cases, is not all that closely linked with what's commercially available or common around the time of the fundamental invention. In the first decade after lasers were invented, for instance, there was no significant commercial application. When the integrated circuit was invented, it wasn't much to look at and functionally speaking, for decades, it was outright pitiful compared to ICs today. We're still dealing with developing a full understanding of how neurons do what they do. In laser parlance, in 2017 we are yet pre-laser, and anyone who tries to tell us that lasers can't do X at this point should be considered, at most, a hand-waver in the grips of a fit of profound hubris.

WRT the subject at hand - intelligence and consciousness resulting from information processing - nature has, fortunately enough, provided numerous models at various levels. So we know it can be done at least one way - neural-like systems. Sure, it's obviously not easy. Brains use very small, very complicated, and very difficult to understand computing elements.

But achieving a manufactured intelligence is also obviously highly interesting and to many, highly desirable. Assuming only that our technological progress doesn't actually halt due to some unrelated factor (war, asteroid, runaway climate, alien invasion, etc.), there are many reasons, all supporting one another very, very well, to assume that we will "get there from here." Not the least of which is there are many (sub-)reasons to presume that will be a great deal of economic leverage in such technology.

And, perhaps most relevant to you, there are no known physics related reasons to presume that we won't get there eventually. As you should know very well. If one is (or multiple are) discovered - for instance, should it be determined at some point in the future that brains use some heretofore unknown physics mechanism(s) to do what they do - then we may quite suddenly be on different grounds in terms of ultimate practicality. But there isn't even a hint of this as yet. It definitely appears to be chemistry, electricity, and topology all the way down as far as brains go. That stuff, we can do. Larger and clumsier and perhaps even slower... perhaps even only as emulation... yet we can do it. We just don't know exactly what to do. Yet.

Comment Re:App is not gone (Score 1) 117

Nope. That's not how it works. An app installed with permission to open a port can't open that port until you run the app. That alone proves you wrong.

That proves you either cannot read, nor think. The original post is complaining about an OPEN PORT you doofus, which means the app HAS BEEN RUN. I'm not saying anything about the app before it is run, I am talking about where there is OPEN PORT there is a security risk.

Also, the app will shut the port when the app is closed.

What is really funny here is that it just goes even further to prove what I was saying, that an open port on Android is a security risk. What you are saying is that that there cannot be an open port without an app behind it which means 100% of the time an open port on Android is a security risk.

Which is what I said.

So thanks for the support, even if you don't understand why it went that way.

The other way is to leave a connection open permanently. This uses more resources and data than an open port.

Innocent question - why would a malicious app care about using more resources and data?

Comment Re:The Singularity (Score 1) 248

I did, and I found it quite difficult to believe that the authors had read any of the originals, let alone any notes. They completely missed all of the subtlety from the originals and made all of the characters painfully two dimensional. Reading the bit in the foreword when Brian Herbert opines that Kevin J Anderson (who has yet to write a single book with an ending that didn't feel like he got bored and had 5 pages to tie up all of the loose ends and is best known for some embarrassingly bad Star Wars novels) was the only person who could write something on a scale of the Dune sequels tells you that it's not going to go particularly well.

Comment Re: Well it's easy to show superhuman AI is a myth (Score 1) 248

Exactly. It's something that works at the level of a human subconscious: the leftover bits of evolved junk in our minds from before we developed sentience. The sorts of things that let us shout at the sky before a thunderstorm and then assume that we've made Thor angry, not the sorts of things that allow us to build a modern technical society.

Comment Re: But how will I trick investors!?! (Score 4, Informative) 248

Except that the claims of strong AI 'real soon now' have been coming since the '60s. Current AI research is producing things that are good at the sorts of things that an animal's autonomic system does. AI research 40 years ago was doing the same thing, only (much) slower. The difference between that and a sentient system is a qualitative difference, whereas the improvements that you list are all quantitative.

Neural networks are good at generating correlations, but that's about all that they're good for. A large part of learning to think as a human child is learning to emulate a model of computation that's better suited to sentient awareness on a complex neural network. Most animals have neural networks in their heads that are far more complex than anything that we can build now, yet I'm not seeing mice replacing humans in most jobs.

Comment Not torture, also laughter (Score 1) 141

No.

Yes.

The death penalty is public torture and it does not stop murder.

For some time now the death penalty has been the opposite of torture, with great lengths gone to to insure it is eater painless or instant.

I think we all want a "shadow" internet that includes all the features of the current one except that it would be off limits to monetization.

HA HAHAHAHAHAH HAH HA AH AH AH AHAHA H AAH AH AHA HA AH AHAH AH A HAH HA *gasp*!

Comment Routing (Score 4, Interesting) 141

IPv6 addresses are allegedly distributed in a way that reduces the routing table bloat seen in IPv4. With no central authority, how do you manage that?

Storage and processing are both getting cheaper sorta fast-ish, so it may be practical now or in the near future to have a routing table with 2^36 entities (or whatever) and 3 or 4 entries per entity. But how do you pass it around? If my westbound link goes down, I'm no longer the fastest relay to half of the world from a not-trivial portion of my region. How many megabytes is that update?

I'm not sure that the problem is unsolvable, but I don't have any reason to believe that someone out there is sitting on a revolutionary global mesh routing algorithm, waiting for the right time to publish.

Comment App is not gone (Score 1) 117

u are hand waving a bunch of dumb shit like "app opens a port and then the app is gone

There's the exact problem though. Why do you THINK the app is gone?

If the app has permission to open a port that means it had permission to have a long-running service sitting on that port.

Why else would it open the port if it were not going to do just that?

Most non-technical users rarely if ever delete apps...

I mean, I agree that android phones are utter shit

They aren't at all, they work really well.. it's just that they ALSO bring the same security risk as any PC to a group of users who by and large have no technical ability to understand, or deal with the risk they are taking on. Sp it propagates the decades of horrible security flaws the PC world has enjoyed, like bank account being compromised, or identities stolen.

It bullshit to claim that is OK, that it's not really a problem when it is a massive problem that affects the people who can least afford to deal with it.

Comment Read Original Quote (Score 1) 117

What is the difference between an open port on an Android device and the dozens that are open on your personal computer? Nothing.

That is absolutely correct, and we all know that personal computers are rife with security flaws.

Part of that is because services are sitting at a number of different open ports, every service that is doing so increases the chances of a successful attack vector being present on your system,

So now we bring forward this same, known to be failed and dangerous, security model to the phone? Remember the original comment was talking about how open ports "are not dangerous" - with the implication that nothing is necessarily behind those open ports. But just like the PC we all know today, if something opened those ports that almost certainly means there is a service sitting there, listening, possibly vulnerable...

Or would you like to ignore decades of failed PC security?

Slashdot Top Deals

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.

Working...