Actually, I think it is brilliant to try to get the video pulled down. The fact that the ruling is absurd only brings more attention to the fact that he was wrongly accused.
The answer will likely have no single objective basis and will depend on our own emotional responses to such a machine. We already live in a world where different people feel that certain standards of treatment are right / wrong for anything from humans, to animals, plants, even objects (for instance, a cultural relic or idol). In the instance of humans alone, consider the vast array of attitudes over human history and across different cultures as to the standards of treatment of humans of differing races, genders, ability, nationalities, etc. I expect that attitudes towards human-like machines will vary by no less a degree.
When WE feel pain because the simulation feels pain then we will seek ways to eliminate or ease that pain, individually and as a society.
I never had a problem with Windows 8 because in Windows 7 I always hit "Windows key" and started typing whatever I was looking for.
Not everyone opens it that way, myself included. I just click the "Control Panel" entry.
The Windows 7 Start Menu has a text field with the explanation "Search programs and files". The Windows 8 Start Screen has no apparent visual cue that you can do the same by just typing.
When Windows 95 came out, I hated the start menu. Shortly thereafter I got used to it and while it isn't something I make time to celebrate it-just-works. When I first saw the Windows 8 Start screen I was resistant but figured I'd just come around after I used it. Instead my initial hate has just mellowed out to a steady dislike.
Don't get me wrong, the idea is greats for tablets, smartphones, and all your other assorted have-to-have portable toys but on the desktop it is an attempt to solve a problem that never existed. If you have too many things on your Start menu, it scrolls... just like the Windows 8 Start screen when you have more than a dozen fist sized 'tiles' on it. If you don't group and organize your Start menu it can get ugly to find things... just like the Windows 8 Start screen if you let tiles just accumulate.
The biggest insult is that the start menu DID exist in Windows 8 during the developer preview. You had to fuss with the registry to get it but it was in there. It would seem that Microsoft had to specifically remove it for the actual release. Apparently it wasn't good enough to let people pick, we need to be shown The Way.
I never made any assumptions as to how effective a plastic gun is or will ever be. A gun that can fire a potentially lethal round one or more times is a weapon, "viable", "serious" or not. All I've stated is that 3D printing is a technique that permits a weapon to be more easily, cheaply, and discreetly obtained that is also difficult to detect by security screeners. The example of a iron pipe and a shotgun shell satisfies easy, cheap, and discreetly obtained. 3D printing adds the element of difficulty to detect.
Hopefully if people do this they will at least have the decency to flag the videos as private. If I find myself directed to a video that is clearly just a dummy video for conveying steganography I'll be among those hitting the "report" button.
No need to be sarcastic. I agree that leaving it on your person would potentially be detectable via pat-down or backscatter, but not necessarily so for carry on articles. Visually it would be easy to conceal on ones person with even moderately loose clothing. The shape of the thing is arbitrary so it wouldn't even look like a gun on x-ray. It would also likely make it past security checkpoints that only use metal detectors, which are typically set at a threshold so that things like belt-buckles don't set them off.
I think the bigger issue about the 3d printed gun is combining the fact that a nearly unskilled person could make it with the fact that security scanners will have a difficult time detecting it.
If I'm wrong I'll be just another idiot ranting that you won't remember.:-)
there is another path to Knowledge.
Ok, let me see if I have this right. Rather than apply the scientific method to test an assertion in an objective and repeatable way, the shortcut to knowledge is to just make a baseless assertion and wait. If it turns out to be wrong then you are no worse off, however if it turns out to be verifiable at some point in the future then the assertion is denoted 'knowledge' and we may then look to the originator as some sort of genius / prophet?
It's important to use cool sounding terms in brogramming so that outsiders can know that, despite the pale complexion, that the development team is a bunch of strapping young bucks dismissing with the conventions of the establishment and putting in their all while drinking indecipherably named beverages wrought from free-trade organic coffee beans.
It's a desperate cry for attention akin to throwing a temper tantrum. If they really cared about animals they might think twice about releasing genetically modified / contaminated / infected / non-native animals into the environment. People do things like this when they can't sway public opinion through constructive means.
There is a real discussion to be had for the role and extent of animal testing and the humane treatment of animals. These individuals have not demonstrated the maturity to be afforded a seat at that table.
If I write source code A release it under BSD then I don't have to do anything special to ensure that people will always be able to freely use my A source code. If you make proprietary package B from using my A source code anybody can STILL freely use my A source code. You as the author of B have benefited from my A code as can anyone else from now till the end of time.
The BSD license says, "I wrote some code, if you think it will help go ahead and use it."
The GPL says, "I wrote some code, you may use it in exchange for joining my crusade to further my principles."
"I am here to officially report that my findings regarding any potentially imminent seismic activity are inconclusive. On an unrelated note I will be on foreign travel for the next two weeks with all of my possessions that do not function well at the bottom of a gaping chasm."
The reason they don't "fill up" is because that's a waste of money.
If you are saying weight isn't a factor, how is it a waste of money to top off the tank if the fuel where you currently are is cheaper than your next destination? Are you a commercial airline pilot? I could see how you might not choose to always fill up if you only flew occasionally. My uncle flies for American Airlines and I recall him complaining about the airlines not topping off the tanks to conserve fuel by not carrying so much of it. His complaint was related to his preference to have the extra fuel in case of an emergency.
No medical diagnosis can be made with 100% confidence. Additionally, current medical science does not give us the ability to know exactly how a condition will affect a specific individual and to what extent that individual's body can recover by its own means. It is possible they were misdiagnosed, it is possible their bodies naturally overcame their conditions by means the observing doctors couldn't explain, and it is possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster cured them with his noodly appendage, we simply don't know and without objective evidence it would be foolish to speculate.
Both my sister and myself were born and raised Catholic all the way through Confirmation. Neither of us consider ourselves religious any more. For me it wasn't even just the more outlandish stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation. The biggest thing for me was that there was never any reason provided why the religion I grew up with was any more truthful than the religion someone else grew up with. It always boiled down to the circular reasoning of faith; in order to believe you must first believe.
In all honesty, it isn't so much my hope that more people turn atheist just that people who choose to abstain from mystic beliefs and practices are free to do so without penalty or discrimination.
Falsifiability is a property of a particular explaination of a phenomenon not of the phenomenon itself. Many belief systems have attributed lightning to gods or other mystic forces. To say that an invisible and inobservable god produces lightning is non-falsifiable however there is much that has been learned about lightning that can be expressed as falsifiable statements i.e. lightning is a form of electrostatic discharge caused by unbalanced electrical charges in the atmosphere. Non-falsifiable claims cannot be challenged objectively, we can have no common basis in reasoning to work from. For people to confidently assume that there are phenomenon in our world that can not be explained through scientific means is exactly why such beliefs are damaging to scientific inquiry.
Other assertions may in fact be truthful but if they are not falsifiable then I should not expect anyone else to believe me just as I should not expect them to believe in the existence of Russell's teapot or the Flying Sphagetti Monster.
There was a time when even questions like 'why do we get sick?' seemed to only be explainable by the mystical (some cultures would still argue this to be the case) and yet we now know that disease is caused by physical processes that can be modeled. As we learn about the workings of the human mind we may gain a deeper understanding of why so many of us believe that there must be a higher power, why we seek purpose, and what factors influence a persons concepts of fairness and empathy. No doubt going forward many people both religious and not will make great contributions towards these fields of study. To assume that these topics cannot be apporached objectively or are already answered by an unchallengeable authority is destructive to the study of these topics.
Let me be clear; studying different religious practices teaches us much about the diversity of human ethics and morality, however actively subscribing to religious explainations breaks objectivity and damages any hope of finding a common ground. It's fine to have a moral code. It's also fine to teach it to anyone who will listen but without evidence the highest authority you can ascribe it to is your own.
Both options work. Another valid approach is to buy the games you like, but only as used games. You can also buy DRM free games on GOG.com. Even if there were no other gaming options you could still make the choice as to whether your principles were more valuable than your need to game. Your dollar is your vote, you can always choose not to give money to game companies you do not wish to support.
There seems to be a confusion between Religion in terms of religious doctrine and Religion in terms of people who happen to subscrbe to religious beliefs. Any person, claiming to be religious or not, can (and in fact has) participate in the advancement of science through the use of the scientific method. Furthermore, religious doctrine can certainly be adjusted by its adherents to include scientific findings. Religious doctrine however is incompatible with scientific inquiry as it permits taking non-falsifiable assertions as fact and generally defends such assertions against challenge. Any form of subjective non-falsifiable reasoning is a hazard to science. All humans, religious or not, can fall prey to defending beliefs that cannot be backed with objective evidence. Religion is not the source of this human weakness, it simply contains many of the products of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think it is brilliant to try to get the video pulled down. The fact that the ruling is absurd only brings more attention to the fact that he was wrongly accused.
The answer will likely have no single objective basis and will depend on our own emotional responses to such a machine. We already live in a world where different people feel that certain standards of treatment are right / wrong for anything from humans, to animals, plants, even objects (for instance, a cultural relic or idol). In the instance of humans alone, consider the vast array of attitudes over human history and across different cultures as to the standards of treatment of humans of differing races, genders, ability, nationalities, etc. I expect that attitudes towards human-like machines will vary by no less a degree.
When WE feel pain because the simulation feels pain then we will seek ways to eliminate or ease that pain, individually and as a society.
I never had a problem with Windows 8 because in Windows 7 I always hit "Windows key" and started typing whatever I was looking for.
Not everyone opens it that way, myself included. I just click the "Control Panel" entry.
The Windows 7 Start Menu has a text field with the explanation "Search programs and files". The Windows 8 Start Screen has no apparent visual cue that you can do the same by just typing.
When Windows 95 came out, I hated the start menu. Shortly thereafter I got used to it and while it isn't something I make time to celebrate it-just-works. When I first saw the Windows 8 Start screen I was resistant but figured I'd just come around after I used it. Instead my initial hate has just mellowed out to a steady dislike.
Don't get me wrong, the idea is greats for tablets, smartphones, and all your other assorted have-to-have portable toys but on the desktop it is an attempt to solve a problem that never existed. If you have too many things on your Start menu, it scrolls... just like the Windows 8 Start screen when you have more than a dozen fist sized 'tiles' on it. If you don't group and organize your Start menu it can get ugly to find things... just like the Windows 8 Start screen if you let tiles just accumulate.
The biggest insult is that the start menu DID exist in Windows 8 during the developer preview. You had to fuss with the registry to get it but it was in there. It would seem that Microsoft had to specifically remove it for the actual release. Apparently it wasn't good enough to let people pick, we need to be shown The Way.
I'd wager that greater than 50% of my body mass was once Craft Mac & Cheese. Not sure if you'd count that as cooking though.
I never made any assumptions as to how effective a plastic gun is or will ever be. A gun that can fire a potentially lethal round one or more times is a weapon, "viable", "serious" or not. All I've stated is that 3D printing is a technique that permits a weapon to be more easily, cheaply, and discreetly obtained that is also difficult to detect by security screeners. The example of a iron pipe and a shotgun shell satisfies easy, cheap, and discreetly obtained. 3D printing adds the element of difficulty to detect.
Hopefully if people do this they will at least have the decency to flag the videos as private. If I find myself directed to a video that is clearly just a dummy video for conveying steganography I'll be among those hitting the "report" button.
No need to be sarcastic. I agree that leaving it on your person would potentially be detectable via pat-down or backscatter, but not necessarily so for carry on articles. Visually it would be easy to conceal on ones person with even moderately loose clothing. The shape of the thing is arbitrary so it wouldn't even look like a gun on x-ray. It would also likely make it past security checkpoints that only use metal detectors, which are typically set at a threshold so that things like belt-buckles don't set them off.
Metal is not itself a prohibited item on planes. Small metal objects are a lot easier to conceal from the scanners than large ones.
Let us all know when you finish coding it. You could call it: "Doorways: The Toaster Strudel is a Fallacy".
I think the bigger issue about the 3d printed gun is combining the fact that a nearly unskilled person could make it with the fact that security scanners will have a difficult time detecting it.
If I'm wrong I'll be just another idiot ranting that you won't remember. :-)
there is another path to Knowledge.
Ok, let me see if I have this right. Rather than apply the scientific method to test an assertion in an objective and repeatable way, the shortcut to knowledge is to just make a baseless assertion and wait. If it turns out to be wrong then you are no worse off, however if it turns out to be verifiable at some point in the future then the assertion is denoted 'knowledge' and we may then look to the originator as some sort of genius / prophet?
It's important to use cool sounding terms in brogramming so that outsiders can know that, despite the pale complexion, that the development team is a bunch of strapping young bucks dismissing with the conventions of the establishment and putting in their all while drinking indecipherably named beverages wrought from free-trade organic coffee beans.
It's a desperate cry for attention akin to throwing a temper tantrum. If they really cared about animals they might think twice about releasing genetically modified / contaminated / infected / non-native animals into the environment. People do things like this when they can't sway public opinion through constructive means.
There is a real discussion to be had for the role and extent of animal testing and the humane treatment of animals. These individuals have not demonstrated the maturity to be afforded a seat at that table.
If I write source code A release it under BSD then I don't have to do anything special to ensure that people will always be able to freely use my A source code. If you make proprietary package B from using my A source code anybody can STILL freely use my A source code. You as the author of B have benefited from my A code as can anyone else from now till the end of time.
The BSD license says, "I wrote some code, if you think it will help go ahead and use it."
The GPL says, "I wrote some code, you may use it in exchange for joining my crusade to further my principles."
"I am here to officially report that my findings regarding any potentially imminent seismic activity are inconclusive. On an unrelated note I will be on foreign travel for the next two weeks with all of my possessions that do not function well at the bottom of a gaping chasm."
The reason they don't "fill up" is because that's a waste of money.
If you are saying weight isn't a factor, how is it a waste of money to top off the tank if the fuel where you currently are is cheaper than your next destination? Are you a commercial airline pilot? I could see how you might not choose to always fill up if you only flew occasionally. My uncle flies for American Airlines and I recall him complaining about the airlines not topping off the tanks to conserve fuel by not carrying so much of it. His complaint was related to his preference to have the extra fuel in case of an emergency.
No medical diagnosis can be made with 100% confidence. Additionally, current medical science does not give us the ability to know exactly how a condition will affect a specific individual and to what extent that individual's body can recover by its own means. It is possible they were misdiagnosed, it is possible their bodies naturally overcame their conditions by means the observing doctors couldn't explain, and it is possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster cured them with his noodly appendage, we simply don't know and without objective evidence it would be foolish to speculate.
Both my sister and myself were born and raised Catholic all the way through Confirmation. Neither of us consider ourselves religious any more. For me it wasn't even just the more outlandish stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation. The biggest thing for me was that there was never any reason provided why the religion I grew up with was any more truthful than the religion someone else grew up with. It always boiled down to the circular reasoning of faith; in order to believe you must first believe.
In all honesty, it isn't so much my hope that more people turn atheist just that people who choose to abstain from mystic beliefs and practices are free to do so without penalty or discrimination.
Falsifiability is a property of a particular explaination of a phenomenon not of the phenomenon itself. Many belief systems have attributed lightning to gods or other mystic forces. To say that an invisible and inobservable god produces lightning is non-falsifiable however there is much that has been learned about lightning that can be expressed as falsifiable statements i.e. lightning is a form of electrostatic discharge caused by unbalanced electrical charges in the atmosphere. Non-falsifiable claims cannot be challenged objectively, we can have no common basis in reasoning to work from. For people to confidently assume that there are phenomenon in our world that can not be explained through scientific means is exactly why such beliefs are damaging to scientific inquiry.
Other assertions may in fact be truthful but if they are not falsifiable then I should not expect anyone else to believe me just as I should not expect them to believe in the existence of Russell's teapot or the Flying Sphagetti Monster.
There was a time when even questions like 'why do we get sick?' seemed to only be explainable by the mystical (some cultures would still argue this to be the case) and yet we now know that disease is caused by physical processes that can be modeled. As we learn about the workings of the human mind we may gain a deeper understanding of why so many of us believe that there must be a higher power, why we seek purpose, and what factors influence a persons concepts of fairness and empathy. No doubt going forward many people both religious and not will make great contributions towards these fields of study. To assume that these topics cannot be apporached objectively or are already answered by an unchallengeable authority is destructive to the study of these topics.
Let me be clear; studying different religious practices teaches us much about the diversity of human ethics and morality, however actively subscribing to religious explainations breaks objectivity and damages any hope of finding a common ground. It's fine to have a moral code. It's also fine to teach it to anyone who will listen but without evidence the highest authority you can ascribe it to is your own.
Both options work. Another valid approach is to buy the games you like, but only as used games. You can also buy DRM free games on GOG.com. Even if there were no other gaming options you could still make the choice as to whether your principles were more valuable than your need to game. Your dollar is your vote, you can always choose not to give money to game companies you do not wish to support.
There seems to be a confusion between Religion in terms of religious doctrine and Religion in terms of people who happen to subscrbe to religious beliefs. Any person, claiming to be religious or not, can (and in fact has) participate in the advancement of science through the use of the scientific method. Furthermore, religious doctrine can certainly be adjusted by its adherents to include scientific findings. Religious doctrine however is incompatible with scientific inquiry as it permits taking non-falsifiable assertions as fact and generally defends such assertions against challenge. Any form of subjective non-falsifiable reasoning is a hazard to science. All humans, religious or not, can fall prey to defending beliefs that cannot be backed with objective evidence. Religion is not the source of this human weakness, it simply contains many of the products of it.