You wouldn't want to do that though, since this would basically be incest++. If we ever get the tech to make impregnating yourself with yourself possible, it'll probably get banned because it'd lead to a higher chance of birth defects.
The 'multithread bandwagen'? Multithreading is not just some temporary hype that will be gone and forgotten next year. It is A Good Thing. If they get it right it'll be a big improvement to the browser.
Having said that, your concerns that it may be a pain to implement in a browser that was not designed to support them are valid. While I expect them to succeed, you can always stick with an older (single-threaded) version for a while while the most problematic bugs get fixed.
> once mankind develops some kind of neural interface (which will definitely happen in the next 100 years)
I don't think a direct neural interface is going to happen in the next 100 years, why perform extensive brain surgery just to play computer games? I expect we'll simply use the pre-existing brain input channels (eyes, ears, etc.) and settle for cheap high-quality vr-goggles.
> but might be the case if you control a game with your thoughts and nerves
Unlikely, the nerves you'd use to control your avatar would be different than the ones that control your body (or you'd be knocking things over all the time while playing and you'd get very tired) so you could easily distinguish reality from virtual reality simlpy by waving your arm in front of yourself.
Even if we get the neural interface thing that is indistinguishable form reality at some point in the future, then is when we'll deal with this, not now.
You're free to walk so you don't have the countdown. The thing is, if you're going to do PvE instead of PvP, the countdown doesn't hinder you, but it does speed up the boring walking a lot. If you want to do PvP on arrival, go walk. If you want to duel another person, teleport to him and let him initiate the battle (being attacked would remove the timer).
But without of war campaigns travel time is just a bore. How about an MMO where players can instantly travel from point A to B, but can't initiate PvP with other players for some time based on the distance traveled?
I think his point is that 'the human species' is not worth protecting. I want all humans to be happy and healthy like GP, but if some meteor were to kill us all, then who cares that 'the human race' is extinct. The human race is merely a concept. People are real. If (or 'when') a global extinction event comes, but we have bases on the moon and mars and titan and whatever, I for one will not think 'well at least the human race lives on' moments before I die, because I could not care less.
If aliens read about the extinction of the human race on their/., they'd tag the article 'andnothingofvaluewaslost':p
> To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction. You may not care about the long term survival of the human species (or any other species), but some of us do, and the best way to increase our chances of survival is to spread out.
Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel. If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter. If you really care so much about the survival of the species, you'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours, rather than trying to get a colony on titan.
It's funny how you're using "Won't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE?!?!?!?!" like politicians would use "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!", using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.
No we shouldn't. Firstly, because there is simply no way we can mine fast enough to significantly change the mass of the moon within the forseeable future. Secondly the moon is becomming heavier all the time because rocks from space crash there (same applies to the earth). And last but not least since gravity scales with mass, making the the moon lighter should not (significantly) affect its orbit.
How does that make sense? First you thought the US was ass-backwards and overly-conservative, then you hear about another country doing something really stupid, and this suddenly makes your country no longer ass-backwards and overly-conservative (do we really need that hyphen? It looks wrong to me, but english is not my native language)?
I see this kind of thing more often (usually from americans, but since I expect you guys to be overrepresented on/. it's probably not fair to draw conclusions from those observations), and it never ceases to amaze me when people think their country is a beacon of hope, freedom and enlightenment just because it's not in the top 3 worst (for very strange values of 'worst') countries. Example: you appear to think your country is better than Germany because it scores better on a *single* issue. And even if your country were to be superior to Germany in every single way, that still doesn't mean it can't also be ass-backwards and overly conservative.
> The core scientific evidence for a deity's existence is the persistent worldwide belief in one. While this is far from sufficient, it is non-zero, greater than Russell's teapot, and sufficient to render a deity's existence "scientifically plausible but untestable."
There are many, many worldwide beliefs that are incorrect. Many people believe that the number 13 is an unlucky one. That black cats bring bad luck to those who cross their paths. That flying is more dangerous than driving. That a stranger is going to molest your children rather than someone you know. That four-leaved clovers, rabbits feet, and other such objects bring 'luck' (as if the laws of the universe will somehow change to reflect the presence or absence of a dead herbivores appendages on your person). That people can change into ('real') monsters and eat other people. That the position of large glowing balls of hydrogen and helium dozens if not hundreds of lightyears away (the star whose light we are observing may not even exist any more!) will affect your life.
If there is anything we can conclude from peoples beliefs, in particular those concerning existence of supernatural phenomena, it must be that they are usually (if not always) based on misinterpretation of evidence, indoctrination, misinformation, groupthink, confusion of cause and effect, and so forth and so forth. 'Millions of people can't be wrong' when used to defend religion is silly: the most 'popular' religions are mutually exclusive and have millions/billions of supporters each -> even if one of those religions is correct billions of people were still wrong.
I say that a large number of random people believing a certain thing doesn't make it true, and does not even make it plausible.
> its most likely something once useful that is on the way out. Evolution doesn't happen overnight.
Unless NOT having fingerprints is more useful than having them (and the difference in 'usefulness' is a significant one), they is no pressure to get rid of them, meaning we may just keep them indefinitely.
Perhaps the cells that detect touch and temperature were also damaged? Do people who temporary remove their fingerprints (would this be doable with a file without damaging the living cells underneath?) notice the same loss of sensitivity?
Maybe it's less obvious than you think. Even when it is, your uncle alone would not be sufficient proof.
> The Cop never possessed the drugs, it was temporarily loaned to the Cop by the Government under strict guidelines. He could not smoke it, for example (unless the Government stated that he could). Same as a Soldier who signs for a HMMWV, it's his, but still the Governments.
So if a friend of mine loans me some drugs to carry around (he'll want them back next week), and made me promise I won't use or sell the drugs, then I will not get convicted for possession (my friend will) when a cop arrests me?
I agree with your first point, but 5 years may be a little short. Maybe 10 to 15 years? The whole life + X thing is crazy.
> Stop persecuting people who share files and persecute those that download them. Since when is leaving your garage door open a crime? You prosecute the person who steals from your open garage, not the home owner who leaves the garage door open. They should be prosecuting those that download the files, not those that share them. Seems to me that folks who share files out are similar to those using entrapment to lure someone into a crime. IANAL, but isn't a case thrown out if someone uses entrapment to lure someone into a crime?
That makes no sense, when people download the files that YOU chose to make available to them by sharing them, they are not 'stealing from your open garage'. File sharing is more like leaving your garage open and having a sign in your garden saying 'feel free to copy anything you find in my garage and take it home!:)'. Even if you did lose your files when others download them, it would be like leaving your garage open with a sign saying 'take whatever you want from my garage!'. People wouldn't be stealing if they took your stuff because by sharing you gave them permission.
Where did you get those numbers? Are you seriously suggesting 50% of all women are stronger than 45% of all men? Based on personal experience that doesn't sound right, but I have been wrong before. Can has sources?
When I order something in a restaurant that I've never had before, and I don't like it, should I get a refund? If the quality of the food is good, then most certainly not. I gambled, I lost.
When you buy something you've never tried before there is always a chance you might not like it. That is a risk YOU choose to take.
If the game in tfa was not complete crap and the guy who made it did not lie about its contents, then no way should the buyer get a refund. He tried something new, and he lost. Tragic, but if he's not willing to risk 99 cents when trying something new, then maybe he should limit himself to products that he can try before buying.
> The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.
It's part of a plan to collect a huge amount of resentment bread, then use that bread to feed the poor and bring about world peace. How can you be against that?
> Maybe your thought processes are not as reliant on chemical messaging as you think.
But they probably are. Since neurons have no (known) mechanism for aiming and firing beams of light (and given the amount of research done on neurons, it is rather unlikely we would have overlooked such a mechanism if it did exist), all light-based communication would be omnidirectional, which is rather useless if you want to build a cool neural network.
Also, if such communication was used by neurons, it would be easy to measure, but so far it such communication has never been detected, so it probably doesn't exist (but I suppose if nobody has ever done such an experiment someone should do it just to make sure).
Why would nature invent a brain that uses light to send messages when it has a perfectly good chemical messaging system already in place?
What is the point of your post? GP says 'the police need oversight because they screw people' and then you come in and say 'the police doesn't need oversight because they screw people and get away with it'.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't want to do that though, since this would basically be incest++. If we ever get the tech to make impregnating yourself with yourself possible, it'll probably get banned because it'd lead to a higher chance of birth defects.
The 'multithread bandwagen'? Multithreading is not just some temporary hype that will be gone and forgotten next year. It is A Good Thing. If they get it right it'll be a big improvement to the browser.
Having said that, your concerns that it may be a pain to implement in a browser that was not designed to support them are valid. While I expect them to succeed, you can always stick with an older (single-threaded) version for a while while the most problematic bugs get fixed.
> The first time a quest asked me to kill a female human NPC in WoW, I felt distinctly uncomfortable - now, I'm used to it and don't even notice.
So you're saying violent video games contribute to gender equality? :p
> once mankind develops some kind of neural interface (which will definitely happen in the next 100 years)
I don't think a direct neural interface is going to happen in the next 100 years, why perform extensive brain surgery just to play computer games? I expect we'll simply use the pre-existing brain input channels (eyes, ears, etc.) and settle for cheap high-quality vr-goggles.
> but might be the case if you control a game with your thoughts and nerves
Unlikely, the nerves you'd use to control your avatar would be different than the ones that control your body (or you'd be knocking things over all the time while playing and you'd get very tired) so you could easily distinguish reality from virtual reality simlpy by waving your arm in front of yourself.
Even if we get the neural interface thing that is indistinguishable form reality at some point in the future, then is when we'll deal with this, not now.
> On the other hand, for every cow you have you would need a microchip which would add a ton of costs.
Yes, because obviously a few cents for an RFID tag equals 'a ton of costs'. We're not talking about borg implants here.
You're free to walk so you don't have the countdown. The thing is, if you're going to do PvE instead of PvP, the countdown doesn't hinder you, but it does speed up the boring walking a lot. If you want to do PvP on arrival, go walk. If you want to duel another person, teleport to him and let him initiate the battle (being attacked would remove the timer).
But without of war campaigns travel time is just a bore. How about an MMO where players can instantly travel from point A to B, but can't initiate PvP with other players for some time based on the distance traveled?
If the game doesn't require meaningful input for 30 minutes, the game would have been more fun without those 30 minutes. Traveltime sucks.
I think his point is that 'the human species' is not worth protecting. I want all humans to be happy and healthy like GP, but if some meteor were to kill us all, then who cares that 'the human race' is extinct. The human race is merely a concept. People are real. If (or 'when') a global extinction event comes, but we have bases on the moon and mars and titan and whatever, I for one will not think 'well at least the human race lives on' moments before I die, because I could not care less.
If aliens read about the extinction of the human race on their /., they'd tag the article 'andnothingofvaluewaslost' :p
> To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction. You may not care about the long term survival of the human species (or any other species), but some of us do, and the best way to increase our chances of survival is to spread out.
Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel. If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter. If you really care so much about the survival of the species, you'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours, rather than trying to get a colony on titan.
It's funny how you're using "Won't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE?!?!?!?!" like politicians would use "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!", using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.
No we shouldn't. Firstly, because there is simply no way we can mine fast enough to significantly change the mass of the moon within the forseeable future. Secondly the moon is becomming heavier all the time because rocks from space crash there (same applies to the earth). And last but not least since gravity scales with mass, making the the moon lighter should not (significantly) affect its orbit.
In his defense, OP did speak of 'europe' as a single entity, turning the whole thing in a 'my continent versus your continent' pissing contest.
You owe me a new keyboard! :D
How does that make sense? First you thought the US was ass-backwards and overly-conservative, then you hear about another country doing something really stupid, and this suddenly makes your country no longer ass-backwards and overly-conservative (do we really need that hyphen? It looks wrong to me, but english is not my native language)?
I see this kind of thing more often (usually from americans, but since I expect you guys to be overrepresented on /. it's probably not fair to draw conclusions from those observations), and it never ceases to amaze me when people think their country is a beacon of hope, freedom and enlightenment just because it's not in the top 3 worst (for very strange values of 'worst') countries. Example: you appear to think your country is better than Germany because it scores better on a *single* issue. And even if your country were to be superior to Germany in every single way, that still doesn't mean it can't also be ass-backwards and overly conservative.
> The core scientific evidence for a deity's existence is the persistent worldwide belief in one. While this is far from sufficient, it is non-zero, greater than Russell's teapot, and sufficient to render a deity's existence "scientifically plausible but untestable."
There are many, many worldwide beliefs that are incorrect. Many people believe that the number 13 is an unlucky one. That black cats bring bad luck to those who cross their paths. That flying is more dangerous than driving. That a stranger is going to molest your children rather than someone you know. That four-leaved clovers, rabbits feet, and other such objects bring 'luck' (as if the laws of the universe will somehow change to reflect the presence or absence of a dead herbivores appendages on your person). That people can change into ('real') monsters and eat other people. That the position of large glowing balls of hydrogen and helium dozens if not hundreds of lightyears away (the star whose light we are observing may not even exist any more!) will affect your life.
If there is anything we can conclude from peoples beliefs, in particular those concerning existence of supernatural phenomena, it must be that they are usually (if not always) based on misinterpretation of evidence, indoctrination, misinformation, groupthink, confusion of cause and effect, and so forth and so forth. 'Millions of people can't be wrong' when used to defend religion is silly: the most 'popular' religions are mutually exclusive and have millions/billions of supporters each -> even if one of those religions is correct billions of people were still wrong.
I say that a large number of random people believing a certain thing doesn't make it true, and does not even make it plausible.
> its most likely something once useful that is on the way out. Evolution doesn't happen overnight.
Unless NOT having fingerprints is more useful than having them (and the difference in 'usefulness' is a significant one), they is no pressure to get rid of them, meaning we may just keep them indefinitely.
Perhaps the cells that detect touch and temperature were also damaged? Do people who temporary remove their fingerprints (would this be doable with a file without damaging the living cells underneath?) notice the same loss of sensitivity?
Maybe it's less obvious than you think. Even when it is, your uncle alone would not be sufficient proof.
Also, some of the trolls are really funny.
> The Cop never possessed the drugs, it was temporarily loaned to the Cop by the Government under strict guidelines. He could not smoke it, for example (unless the Government stated that he could). Same as a Soldier who signs for a HMMWV, it's his, but still the Governments.
So if a friend of mine loans me some drugs to carry around (he'll want them back next week), and made me promise I won't use or sell the drugs, then I will not get convicted for possession (my friend will) when a cop arrests me?
I agree with your first point, but 5 years may be a little short. Maybe 10 to 15 years? The whole life + X thing is crazy.
> Stop persecuting people who share files and persecute those that download them. Since when is leaving your garage door open a crime? You prosecute the person who steals from your open garage, not the home owner who leaves the garage door open. They should be prosecuting those that download the files, not those that share them. Seems to me that folks who share files out are similar to those using entrapment to lure someone into a crime. IANAL, but isn't a case thrown out if someone uses entrapment to lure someone into a crime?
That makes no sense, when people download the files that YOU chose to make available to them by sharing them, they are not 'stealing from your open garage'. File sharing is more like leaving your garage open and having a sign in your garden saying 'feel free to copy anything you find in my garage and take it home! :)'. Even if you did lose your files when others download them, it would be like leaving your garage open with a sign saying 'take whatever you want from my garage!'. People wouldn't be stealing if they took your stuff because by sharing you gave them permission.
Where did you get those numbers? Are you seriously suggesting 50% of all women are stronger than 45% of all men? Based on personal experience that doesn't sound right, but I have been wrong before. Can has sources?
When I order something in a restaurant that I've never had before, and I don't like it, should I get a refund? If the quality of the food is good, then most certainly not. I gambled, I lost.
When you buy something you've never tried before there is always a chance you might not like it. That is a risk YOU choose to take.
If the game in tfa was not complete crap and the guy who made it did not lie about its contents, then no way should the buyer get a refund. He tried something new, and he lost. Tragic, but if he's not willing to risk 99 cents when trying something new, then maybe he should limit himself to products that he can try before buying.
> The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.
It's part of a plan to collect a huge amount of resentment bread, then use that bread to feed the poor and bring about world peace. How can you be against that?
> Maybe your thought processes are not as reliant on chemical messaging as you think.
But they probably are. Since neurons have no (known) mechanism for aiming and firing beams of light (and given the amount of research done on neurons, it is rather unlikely we would have overlooked such a mechanism if it did exist), all light-based communication would be omnidirectional, which is rather useless if you want to build a cool neural network.
Also, if such communication was used by neurons, it would be easy to measure, but so far it such communication has never been detected, so it probably doesn't exist (but I suppose if nobody has ever done such an experiment someone should do it just to make sure).
Why would nature invent a brain that uses light to send messages when it has a perfectly good chemical messaging system already in place?
What is the point of your post? GP says 'the police need oversight because they screw people' and then you come in and say 'the police doesn't need oversight because they screw people and get away with it'.
How does that even make sense?