It actually brings up an interesting point about VR/AR: mixing the real world (where there is a physical floor ahead of you) with the virtual one (where it appears there isn't), and overcoming the self-preservation instinct by stepping forwards anyways could potentially lead to the self-preservation instinct being dangerously suppressed over time.
Aw, that's just stupid!
If it were true, then one could claim it's equally dangerous to, say, text and walk down the sidewalk. Yet here I am, face buried in a device and moving forward, but there's no way I would be so immersed that I might do something as dumb as step out in front of a b!@#$@#%!% CARRIER LOST
Actually, the world would be a different place if people weren't allowed abstention.
The world would be a different place if people weren't allowed a lot of stuff. For one thing, there would be less freedom.
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.
When you come to a T-junction in your car, ou need to choose left or right, you don't just sit there without choosing or turning back... </bad_car_analogy>
Agreed - that is a really, really bad car analogy.
Did you actually read the article you linked? It's about restoring function to existing nerves, not wiring new hardware to the cut-off nubs. Cool in it's own right, but obviously not what I'm talking about.
But please, don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of being a childish dick.
The articles are reposted from both the right and left points of view, and readers can at least get an occasional bit of perspective from "the other side".
The comments help with that, too. Especially when the commenters are willing to engage with people who disagree. That happens here more often than most places I've seen.
Yes, "Engage with," as opposed to "gang up on and attack" like what I'm used to seeing in other news site's comment threads.
Trouble is, it seems we're a niche group - most people would, apparently, rather participate in the attack/defense method of argument, rather than having an intelligent discussion.
How have people not noticed that we live in a society where EVERYTHING is a false dilemma. EVERY debate we have politically is a false choice.
The biggest one is this constant claptrap of socialism vs. capitalism. If you think that we should have a national health system immediately you have a backwards yokel yelling about socialism.
Kinda like how, if you point out the flaws in a proposed national health system, some self-righteous asshat immediately calls you a 'backwards yokel?'
Yea, I think it's really stupid when people act like that, too.
I was using the "have the ability to" as the definition of "can" where you seem to be using "am allowed to by law" as the definition. For example, I "can" steal a car but I am "not allowed to by law".
You could 'try' to steal a car, but with all the anti-theft systems and interlocks baked into the finished product, chances are unless you're a professional, you'd just end up breaking stuff.
Therein lies the rub - sure, a 3D printer you built yourself will only have the restrictions you put into it; but what about the mass market versions that most people (i.e., those not technically savvy enough to build or hack one) will be buying? Do you really think nobody's going to try to shoehorn some form of draconian DRM into the firmware?
They're talking about mixing human and animal tissue to capitalize on specific traits. This is engineered biological components--engineered humans. Not genetically engineered, but physically engineered, like engineered wood.
You can have your arm replaced with a majorly upgraded arm? Legs that can run so fucking fast...
Have they figured out the whole wiring issue?
I have the understanding that the reason we still use prosthetic limbs rather than cybernetic or organic replacements is because hooking up the nerves is a no-go.
"No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated."
It's bullshit anyway. 3D printing doesn't "threaten" copyrights or patents. It may be true that people might be able to make patented gadgets for their own home use... but that's already legal. And has been, as far as I know, for 200+ years.
This.
I can hand-carve Mickey Mouse figurines out of soap all day every day, and so long as I don't try to sell them, Disney can't do shit about it.
If your point is that you don't know what point you're trying to make, then yes, you've succeeded.
Funny how you're the one who brought up 'terrorism watch lists,' then said you weren't talking about terrorism watch lists.
Funny how I mentioned that the feds have performed surveillance on the TP, to which you respond that the feds performing surveillance on OWS was something completely different.
Oh, wait - that's not funny, it's evidence that you're talking out of your ass in a failed attempt to try and paint Group A in a different light than Group B, even though it's obvious to the casual, non-biased observer that both A and B are dealing with similar treatment.
But hey, if being childish and unwilling to admit that you made a mistake is what makes you happy, I'm glad to stop trying to help you not be wrong.
Why not ban it from Americans too because the US seems to think that every American could be a domestic terrorist -- especially those darned Tea Party and Libertarians.
I'll quote the GP that i was responding to before you decided to interject with your snide comment. You can split hairs about "terrorist watch list" or being labled "terrorists" or whether being designated "terrorists" means you are on a watch list all you want, the fact remains that the GP referred to TP and Libertarians being designated terrorist by the US. I think everything i've posted bolsters my arguement that it was the Occupy movement that was and not the TP and Libertarians
Worst. Concession speech. Ever.
Look, all your goalpost relocations and poorly thought out 'source citations' aside, perhaps you'll find this quote from President Obama, said during a summer 2013 speech given in Tanzania, in response to a question about how he defines domestic terrorism, particularly enlightening:
“Typically domestic terrorists in the U.S. are people who cling to obsolete beliefs from the time of the American Revolution. They are conservative Christians, reactionary Republicans and conspiracy theorists many of whom belong to racist hate groups. [...] Tea Partiers commonly own guns and stock up ammunition and food in anticipation of starting another civil war to overthrow the will of the governing body who represent all of the American people.”
Note that I found said quote on a site that's dedicated to mocking the Tea Party, and even they found it to be over the line.
As for the alleged 'snide-ness' of my comment, keep in mind that your original post (which has been proven wrong, repeatedly, at this point) accuses the GP of trolling right out of the gate. Pot, meet kettle.
Face it, dude - you're wrong. You were wrong in your initial reply to GP, you've been wrong in every response to me, and you're wrong now. Stop doubling down on being wrong - act like an adult and either admit your error, or just shut up. Continuing to argue an already decided point is not helping you.
So, obscuring your real password among an endless number of fake passwords is the kind of obscurity that can work -- even if the attacker knows that your password is somewhere among the billions of fake ones, unless he has some clue to tell him what your real password looks like, just knowing that fakes are there doesn't help him.
Like hiding a needle in a needlestack.
I, for one, like the concept, and am anxious to see what impact it could have on modern cryptography.
NASA should comply, thus saving the legal fees, right after he pays the share of the cost to obtain the information he is requesting. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't mean the government foots the bill for the requested info.
That really does seem the most reasonable course of action.
The ball's in the government's court now, let's see what they do with it.
Actually no. take a look here They went even further the designated them terrorists.
Where does that article confirm your claim that the OWS protestors were put on an official terrorist watch list? The term, "watch list," only appears twice on the page, and both times it's in an uncited comment someone left.
The article confirms what I already said. Next time you post a link in an attempt to bolster your argument, you might want to read more than the headline.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we not counting Tex, or Griff's sister?
Don't forget Carolina! That bitch is intense.
It actually brings up an interesting point about VR/AR: mixing the real world (where there is a physical floor ahead of you) with the virtual one (where it appears there isn't), and overcoming the self-preservation instinct by stepping forwards anyways could potentially lead to the self-preservation instinct being dangerously suppressed over time.
Aw, that's just stupid!
If it were true, then one could claim it's equally dangerous to, say, text and walk down the sidewalk. Yet here I am, face buried in a device and moving forward, but there's no way I would be so immersed that I might do something as dumb as step out in front of a b!@#$@#%!% CARRIER LOST
Actually, the world would be a different place if people weren't allowed abstention.
The world would be a different place if people weren't allowed a lot of stuff. For one thing, there would be less freedom.
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.
When you come to a T-junction in your car, ou need to choose left or right, you don't just sit there without choosing or turning back...
</bad_car_analogy>
Agreed - that is a really, really bad car analogy.
Really.
Yeah, I hate these binary people, the truth is that the world is ternary.
Yes.
No.
Maybe.
(cross out as appropriate)
You forgot at least one other option: Abstain.
so the truth is that the world is quaternary?
At least.
CanHasDIY? Was CanHasJurisDoctorFromDeVry already taken?
Well, I thought about RoyallyObnoxiousDoucheBagTroll, but you've obviously got a lock on that one.
no-go? no. Really hard at the moment? yes.
Wow, how helpful and informative. Oh, no, wait - the opposite of that.
Given that they're already running trials of nerve-electronics interfaces I'd say your understanding is wrong.
Again.
Did you actually read the article you linked? It's about restoring function to existing nerves, not wiring new hardware to the cut-off nubs. Cool in it's own right, but obviously not what I'm talking about.
But please, don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of being a childish dick.
The comments help with that, too. Especially when the commenters are willing to engage with people who disagree. That happens here more often than most places I've seen.
Yes, "Engage with," as opposed to "gang up on and attack" like what I'm used to seeing in other news site's comment threads.
Trouble is, it seems we're a niche group - most people would, apparently, rather participate in the attack/defense method of argument, rather than having an intelligent discussion.
You can identify liberals by what they want to do - they want to legalize things for individuals; they want to increase liberty.
So... Libertarians?
Your problem is, you're going by the actual definition of the word "liberal," as opposed to the weaponized version cooked up by talking heads.
How have people not noticed that we live in a society where EVERYTHING is a false dilemma. EVERY debate we have politically is a false choice.
The biggest one is this constant claptrap of socialism vs. capitalism. If you think that we should have a national health system immediately you have a backwards yokel yelling about socialism.
Kinda like how, if you point out the flaws in a proposed national health system, some self-righteous asshat immediately calls you a 'backwards yokel?'
Yea, I think it's really stupid when people act like that, too.
Yeah, I hate these binary people, the truth is that the world is ternary.
Yes.
No.
Maybe.
(cross out as appropriate)
You forgot at least one other option: Abstain.
Go ahead and try to think of a way to compare a person's design with all the patents out there and decide if it infringes or not.
I was about to, then thought, "if the people in the Patent Office can't be bothered to check for prior art..."
I was using the "have the ability to" as the definition of "can" where you seem to be using "am allowed to by law" as the definition. For example, I "can" steal a car but I am "not allowed to by law".
You could 'try' to steal a car, but with all the anti-theft systems and interlocks baked into the finished product, chances are unless you're a professional, you'd just end up breaking stuff.
Therein lies the rub - sure, a 3D printer you built yourself will only have the restrictions you put into it; but what about the mass market versions that most people (i.e., those not technically savvy enough to build or hack one) will be buying? Do you really think nobody's going to try to shoehorn some form of draconian DRM into the firmware?
(probably) true, but that's because they're trademarked and/or copyrighted, not patented.
OK, so replace "Mickey Mouse" with something that's patented, and could be carved from soap.
It's a purely pedantic difference in this case.
They're talking about mixing human and animal tissue to capitalize on specific traits. This is engineered biological components--engineered humans. Not genetically engineered, but physically engineered, like engineered wood.
You can have your arm replaced with a majorly upgraded arm? Legs that can run so fucking fast...
Have they figured out the whole wiring issue?
I have the understanding that the reason we still use prosthetic limbs rather than cybernetic or organic replacements is because hooking up the nerves is a no-go.
"No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated."
It's bullshit anyway. 3D printing doesn't "threaten" copyrights or patents. It may be true that people might be able to make patented gadgets for their own home use... but that's already legal. And has been, as far as I know, for 200+ years.
This.
I can hand-carve Mickey Mouse figurines out of soap all day every day, and so long as I don't try to sell them, Disney can't do shit about it.
It will be a very long time before we "can make anything".
If IP attorneys like John Hornick have it their way, that 'very long time' will equal 'forever.'
Won't someone think of the lawyers???!!
Way ahead of ya - that's why I built a ramp for the thresher.
But I deserve to have more wealth than any ten thousand other people on this planet combined!
10,000?
Try 3,500,000,000.
If your point is that you don't know what point you're trying to make, then yes, you've succeeded.
Funny how you're the one who brought up 'terrorism watch lists,' then said you weren't talking about terrorism watch lists.
Funny how I mentioned that the feds have performed surveillance on the TP, to which you respond that the feds performing surveillance on OWS was something completely different.
Oh, wait - that's not funny, it's evidence that you're talking out of your ass in a failed attempt to try and paint Group A in a different light than Group B, even though it's obvious to the casual, non-biased observer that both A and B are dealing with similar treatment.
But hey, if being childish and unwilling to admit that you made a mistake is what makes you happy, I'm glad to stop trying to help you not be wrong.
Some may feel those constructs are of concern
Sigh... idiots ruin everything...
Why not ban it from Americans too because the US seems to think that every American could be a domestic terrorist -- especially those darned Tea Party and Libertarians.
I'll quote the GP that i was responding to before you decided to interject with your snide comment. You can split hairs about "terrorist watch list" or being labled "terrorists" or whether being designated "terrorists" means you are on a watch list all you want, the fact remains that the GP referred to TP and Libertarians being designated terrorist by the US.
I think everything i've posted bolsters my arguement that it was the Occupy movement that was and not the TP and Libertarians
Worst.
Concession speech.
Ever.
Look, all your goalpost relocations and poorly thought out 'source citations' aside, perhaps you'll find this quote from President Obama, said during a summer 2013 speech given in Tanzania, in response to a question about how he defines domestic terrorism, particularly enlightening:
Note that I found said quote on a site that's dedicated to mocking the Tea Party, and even they found it to be over the line.
As for the alleged 'snide-ness' of my comment, keep in mind that your original post (which has been proven wrong, repeatedly, at this point) accuses the GP of trolling right out of the gate. Pot, meet kettle.
Face it, dude - you're wrong. You were wrong in your initial reply to GP, you've been wrong in every response to me, and you're wrong now. Stop doubling down on being wrong - act like an adult and either admit your error, or just shut up. Continuing to argue an already decided point is not helping you.
So, obscuring your real password among an endless number of fake passwords is the kind of obscurity that can work -- even if the attacker knows that your password is somewhere among the billions of fake ones, unless he has some clue to tell him what your real password looks like, just knowing that fakes are there doesn't help him.
Like hiding a needle in a needlestack.
I, for one, like the concept, and am anxious to see what impact it could have on modern cryptography.
NASA should comply, thus saving the legal fees, right after he pays the share of the cost to obtain the information he is requesting. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't mean the government foots the bill for the requested info.
That really does seem the most reasonable course of action.
The ball's in the government's court now, let's see what they do with it.
Actually no. take a look here They went even further the designated them terrorists.
Where does that article confirm your claim that the OWS protestors were put on an official terrorist watch list? The term, "watch list," only appears twice on the page, and both times it's in an uncited comment someone left.
The article confirms what I already said. Next time you post a link in an attempt to bolster your argument, you might want to read more than the headline.