Her actions are the actions of someone who quite rationally fears 'just talking' to people who might return armed and bearing a warrant if rebuffed. In a world where the POTUS bombs wedding parties with flying robots and cracks jokes about it, if you aren't a criminal you aren't doing enough.
Don't forget that official policy against recording their interviews, and felony charges for 'making false statements' if they can manage to trip you up on something.
This is false; Isis does a lot of valuable work on Tor and on some related projects like bridgedb, but she does not have commit rights on the Tor daemon itself. The people who do are me (Andrea Shepard), Nick Mathewson and Roger Dingledine. All patches are reviewed by at least one committer other than the patch author.
No, I'm afraid of the perfectly known horror of *utter personal annihilation* If you're so enthused about death, go enjoy yours and stop shoving your murderous naturalistic fallacy anti-'ethics' on the rest of us.
Feel free to enjoy my death for me. Oh, wait, you're an omnicidal psychopath and you mean you get off on the thought of *everyone else* being erased from existence.
I think you're assuming she's actually human without much supporting evidence there. I'm betting on her being an immortal blood-sucking space lizard, personally.:)
No, getting 'razzed' isn't fine. A certain subset of mainly hetero men seem to think 'friendship' is expressed through taunts and insults, and the rest of us wish they'd knock it the fuck off but know it's pointless to say anything because they'll take that as a sign of weakness and get even more obnoxious. This does not constitute a 'fine' situation for anyone other than the overgrown frat boys in question.
On the opposite end she could be a geek girl herself and know even "better" jokes than the guys.
Just because she knows how to respond doesn't mean she should have to. Shockingly, not everyone enjoys the way groups of straight men always seem to set up a status hierarchy expressed through 'harmless' jokes. I've even (*gasp!*) heard a few guys complain about it now and then.
Whenever someone says 'cyber' unironically, just think of it as shorthand for "I'm a blithering nitwit and you should ignore anything I say from here on."
One IP or AS number is just like another, so all you need is a simple administrative body to make sure two people don't try to use the same one.
Yeah, true with current or foreseeable future protocols. Not necessarily impossible to avoid, though - what if networks were addressed by public keys in a large sparse space, and you could just randomly generate them when needed?
That's a source of endless disputes, and so long as those domains remain a source of substantial income that will be the case. So a body is needed to resolve them.
You're presuming I recognize the legitimacy of intellectual property there, I think. I do not, and see no reason to object to "whoever claims it first owns it".
On the other hand, DNS is probably the most administratively problematic protocol around due to the need for someone to run the root zone. That one would sure be nice to find a workaround for....
Pfft, what a boring distinction to make. A *proper* home server room would combine the functions of both. Haven't you ever heard of a cat5-o'-nine-tails?
Please do kindly explain how you can censor a corporation without censoring some specific person associated with said corporation? Have you merely never thought about it for the two seconds it takes to notice that before regurgitating this tripe, or do you simply not care about censoring people as long as they're evil corporate-type people rather than saintly progressives who plainly can do no wrong?
Or is it that Cold Fusion is totally dismissed in the serious science community for obvious reasons that escape a novice like me.
That. There's no source of energy to overcome the electrostatic repulsion between nuclei in any of the (quite implausibly) alleged cold fusion reactions.
So are you claiming the revenue is zero or negative for all tax rates other than 0% or 100% under all conditions, or concede that, holding all other parameters equal, there necessarily must exist some tax rate within that range which maximizes revenue? Apparently, freshman calculus is ideologically motivated. Who would have guessed?
They cold be a Dirac fermion with sterile right-handed counterparts. You can even make the mass of the right-handed neutrinos different: Seesaw Mechanism.
Difficult, sure, but saying 'impossible' is pretty much walking around with "I have no idea what entropy actually means" tattooed on your forehead. The human body is in no way a closed system, and the second law of thermodynamics says nothing about the change of its entropy over time as long as it has an energy input and a universe-sized heat sink to dump excess entropy into.
Cancer just means that evolution is hack piled upon hack until it stumbles onto something, so it does much better than human engineers at designing really complex interacting systems without very much abstraction or modularization, but much worse at discovering things which you'd never, ever stumble onto without conceptual understanding, like Reed-Solomon codes. If it had, then it could make the mutation rate exponentially low for only a linear increase of complexity and energy requirements for manipulating genetic material, and cancer would be worth worrying about roughly as much as brute force attacks against AES-256.
Of course, re-engineering such a fundamental, low-level feature of an organism might very well be harder than just designing a new one from scratch, but 'impossible' doesn't pass the giggle test. There's nothing anywhere in the laws of physics to say such a thing is any less possible than the mutation-prone organisms we already do have.
Coherence is not required for me to interact with the rest of the classical world, so why should it be required for me to interact with other universes?
It's required because otherwise your state vector gets entangled with the state vector of the rest of the universe, and then unitary time evolution requires that if you have a superposition alpha |psi_U> x |psi_O> + beta |psi_U'> x |psi_O'> [1] at time t = 0, and U(0,T) is the time evolution operator from time 0 to time T, then at time T the state must be alpha U(0,T) |psi_U> x |psi_O> + beta U(0,T') |psi_U'> x |psi_O'>, so the amplitude for any of the components which contain |psi_O> at time T can't depend on the amplitude for any of the components with |psi_O'> at time 0 unless U(0,T) mixes |psi_V> x |psi_O> with |psi_V> x |psi_O'> for some state of the rest of the universe V, which just amounts to postulating that the observer has an unreliable memory which depends on the rest of the universe.
[1] Here, |psi_U> and |psi_U'> are different states of the rest of the universe corresponding to projecting onto different values of some observable you have just measured; |psi_O> and |psi_O'> are different states of the observer (you) corresponding to having made (and, since they are distinct states, remembered) some observation, and x is the tensor product operator.
Well, I wasn't really considering the body per se either - if I'm still around to have to worry about the heat death of the universe, I expect I will have long since uploaded. That creates one obvious necessary condition for 'strong' (i.e., infinite subjective time) immortality (as distinguished from just the weaker requirement of indefinitely extended conscious experience given adequate physical prerequisites that medical approaches could satisfy): the ability to execute infinitely many computations.
Even a heat death of the universe scenario doesn't necessarily rule this out, because in an open (infinitely expanding, asymptotically hyperbolic) universe the temperature also asymptotically approaches absolute zero (there are other possible heat death scenarios - in an asymptotically flat universe, the temperature asymptotically approaches some non-zero value, but that does not appear to be this universe), and thus minimum the energy cost per computation also approaches zero, and if you compute sufficiently slowly in the limit, you can get infinitely many computations in infinite elapsed time for only a finite energy expenditure. This may be rather difficult to implement with the specific physics we have, though, since masses of elementary particles set a natural energy scale for differences between energies of different states, but maybe something clever could be done.
That in itself is not sufficient, though, since any finite state machine necessarily repeats after finitely many steps. This perhaps does get at your notion that the necessary evolution of consciousness over time challenges personal identity - to experience infinite subjective time, a conscious entity must transform itself in such a way that its state size increases without bound. As far as physical possibility goes, though, I think this makes it fairly clear that the question of whether 'strong' immortality is possible is isomorphic to whether a universal Turing machine is physically realizable.
Slashdot Mirror
Her actions are the actions of someone who quite rationally fears 'just talking' to people who might return armed and bearing a warrant if rebuffed. In a world where the POTUS bombs wedding parties with flying robots and cracks jokes about it, if you aren't a criminal you aren't doing enough.
Don't forget that official policy against recording their interviews, and felony charges for 'making false statements' if they can manage to trip you up on something.
This is false; Isis does a lot of valuable work on Tor and on some related projects like bridgedb, but she does not have commit rights on the Tor daemon itself. The people who do are me (Andrea Shepard), Nick Mathewson and Roger Dingledine. All patches are reviewed by at least one committer other than the patch author.
No, I'm afraid of the perfectly known horror of *utter personal annihilation* If you're so enthused about death, go enjoy yours and stop shoving your murderous naturalistic fallacy anti-'ethics' on the rest of us.
Feel free to enjoy my death for me. Oh, wait, you're an omnicidal psychopath and you mean you get off on the thought of *everyone else* being erased from existence.
I think you're assuming she's actually human without much supporting evidence there. I'm betting on her being an immortal blood-sucking space lizard, personally. :)
Stop blaming amphetamine users for stuff the government does to screw you over. Causality and responsibility are not the same thing.
No, getting 'razzed' isn't fine. A certain subset of mainly hetero men seem to think 'friendship' is expressed through taunts and insults, and the rest of us wish they'd knock it the fuck off but know it's pointless to say anything because they'll take that as a sign of weakness and get even more obnoxious. This does not constitute a 'fine' situation for anyone other than the overgrown frat boys in question.
On the opposite end she could be a geek girl herself and know even "better" jokes than the guys.
Just because she knows how to respond doesn't mean she should have to. Shockingly, not everyone enjoys the way groups of straight men always seem to set up a status hierarchy expressed through 'harmless' jokes. I've even (*gasp!*) heard a few guys complain about it now and then.
Wow, I see someone's a fucking bootlicker.
Send in a resume claiming to be BloodNinja ?
Whenever someone says 'cyber' unironically, just think of it as shorthand for "I'm a blithering nitwit and you should ignore anything I say from here on."
One IP or AS number is just like another, so all you need is a simple administrative body to make sure two people don't try to use the same one.
Yeah, true with current or foreseeable future protocols. Not necessarily impossible to avoid, though - what if networks were addressed by public keys in a large sparse space, and you could just randomly generate them when needed?
That's a source of endless disputes, and so long as those domains remain a source of substantial income that will be the case. So a body is needed to resolve them.
You're presuming I recognize the legitimacy of intellectual property there, I think. I do not, and see no reason to object to "whoever claims it first owns it".
On the other hand, DNS is probably the most administratively problematic protocol around due to the need for someone to run the root zone. That one would sure be nice to find a workaround for....
Ideally, the Internet would be run by a meritocratic UN group, ...
No. Ideally it wouldn't be 'run' at all.
Pfft, what a boring distinction to make. A *proper* home server room would combine the functions of both. Haven't you ever heard of a cat5-o'-nine-tails?
Please do kindly explain how you can censor a corporation without censoring some specific person associated with said corporation? Have you merely never thought about it for the two seconds it takes to notice that before regurgitating this tripe, or do you simply not care about censoring people as long as they're evil corporate-type people rather than saintly progressives who plainly can do no wrong?
Or is it that Cold Fusion is totally dismissed in the serious science community for obvious reasons that escape a novice like me.
That. There's no source of energy to overcome the electrostatic repulsion between nuclei in any of the (quite implausibly) alleged cold fusion reactions.
There was already a perfectly good word for that.
So are you claiming the revenue is zero or negative for all tax rates other than 0% or 100% under all conditions, or concede that, holding all other parameters equal, there necessarily must exist some tax rate within that range which maximizes revenue? Apparently, freshman calculus is ideologically motivated. Who would have guessed?
They cold be a Dirac fermion with sterile right-handed counterparts. You can even make the mass of the right-handed neutrinos different: Seesaw Mechanism.
Wow, I see someone sure must enjoy his taxpayer-funded groping.
They'll just set up a checkpoint to get in line for the real checkpoint if that happens. What could possibly go wrong?
Difficult, sure, but saying 'impossible' is pretty much walking around with "I have no idea what entropy actually means" tattooed on your forehead. The human body is in no way a closed system, and the second law of thermodynamics says nothing about the change of its entropy over time as long as it has an energy input and a universe-sized heat sink to dump excess entropy into.
Cancer just means that evolution is hack piled upon hack until it stumbles onto something, so it does much better than human engineers at designing really complex interacting systems without very much abstraction or modularization, but much worse at discovering things which you'd never, ever stumble onto without conceptual understanding, like Reed-Solomon codes. If it had, then it could make the mutation rate exponentially low for only a linear increase of complexity and energy requirements for manipulating genetic material, and cancer would be worth worrying about roughly as much as brute force attacks against AES-256.
Of course, re-engineering such a fundamental, low-level feature of an organism might very well be harder than just designing a new one from scratch, but 'impossible' doesn't pass the giggle test. There's nothing anywhere in the laws of physics to say such a thing is any less possible than the mutation-prone organisms we already do have.
Coherence is not required for me to interact with the rest of the classical world, so why should it be required for me to interact with other universes?
It's required because otherwise your state vector gets entangled with the state vector of the rest of the universe, and then unitary time evolution requires that if you have a superposition alpha |psi_U> x |psi_O> + beta |psi_U'> x |psi_O'> [1] at time t = 0, and U(0,T) is the time evolution operator from time 0 to time T, then at time T the state must be alpha U(0,T) |psi_U> x |psi_O> + beta U(0,T') |psi_U'> x |psi_O'>, so the amplitude for any of the components which contain |psi_O> at time T can't depend on the amplitude for any of the components with |psi_O'> at time 0 unless U(0,T) mixes |psi_V> x |psi_O> with |psi_V> x |psi_O'> for some state of the rest of the universe V, which just amounts to postulating that the observer has an unreliable memory which depends on the rest of the universe.
[1] Here, |psi_U> and |psi_U'> are different states of the rest of the universe corresponding to projecting onto different values of some observable you have just measured; |psi_O> and |psi_O'> are different states of the observer (you) corresponding to having made (and, since they are distinct states, remembered) some observation, and x is the tensor product operator.
Well, I wasn't really considering the body per se either - if I'm still around to have to worry about the heat death of the universe, I expect I will have long since uploaded. That creates one obvious necessary condition for 'strong' (i.e., infinite subjective time) immortality (as distinguished from just the weaker requirement of indefinitely extended conscious experience given adequate physical prerequisites that medical approaches could satisfy): the ability to execute infinitely many computations.
Even a heat death of the universe scenario doesn't necessarily rule this out, because in an open (infinitely expanding, asymptotically hyperbolic) universe the temperature also asymptotically approaches absolute zero (there are other possible heat death scenarios - in an asymptotically flat universe, the temperature asymptotically approaches some non-zero value, but that does not appear to be this universe), and thus minimum the energy cost per computation also approaches zero, and if you compute sufficiently slowly in the limit, you can get infinitely many computations in infinite elapsed time for only a finite energy expenditure. This may be rather difficult to implement with the specific physics we have, though, since masses of elementary particles set a natural energy scale for differences between energies of different states, but maybe something clever could be done.
That in itself is not sufficient, though, since any finite state machine necessarily repeats after finitely many steps. This perhaps does get at your notion that the necessary evolution of consciousness over time challenges personal identity - to experience infinite subjective time, a conscious entity must transform itself in such a way that its state size increases without bound. As far as physical possibility goes, though, I think this makes it fairly clear that the question of whether 'strong' immortality is possible is isomorphic to whether a universal Turing machine is physically realizable.