If this was or will be possible, you would think physicists would have got a message by now?
Sending satellite tv signals back in time to the 1940's would not produce headlines in the 1940's.
We would have to know what to look for and how to interpret the particle's presence to get the message. This type of communication seems limited to after we discover the particle and develop methods for controlling the information sent across time.
I do not know of their success in previous cases, but it seems (at least, I hope) arguments could be made painting these actions as speech that passes the bounds of established protections, i.e. fighting words etc.... Though thinking about the outcome of Texas v. Johnson, protecting the memory of a dead person and protecting mourners from being offended may not pass the standards that justify curtailing speech.
Would parent's scenario be ruled as fighting words?
That means, that 68% are due to non-drunk driving! People, if you want to lower the number of people killed in traffic accidents, start drinking, because the sober people are more dangerous.
Presumable and hopefully, there are many more sober drivers on the road. A more relevant stat would be accidents/accident-related deaths per drunk/sober driver.
Just like how the single decision of a 17 year old that has sex with a consenting 16 year old partner should make him forever after inform employers and neighbors that he is a sex offender? Oh, that and some jail time?
Why are we thinking in terms of how fine-tuned the universe is to us? We, and any other form of life, are "fine-tuned" (or getting there) to the universe. Slightly different constants would simply present different needs for life to sustain itself, given the differences were within a margin where life is possible at all.
A form of life that can deal with the conditions present is what presents itself. Just because we happen to be in that category doesn't make us any more special; that's the only life that would exist.
Known attempts at permutations of physical constants: 1
Success at creating intelligent life: 1
The problem is with "known". If there were some other iteration of the universe with a different permutation of the physical constants that did not succeed at creating life we would not be able to consider that iteration, given the lack of life. There is no more evidence saying that did not happen than there is saying it did, (zero for both sides), so preferring one would be logically irresponsible.
Wait, is he claiming robots will suddenly make software have more real world consequences? If so, I'd like to introduce him to Therac-25... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
Is a distinction being made for how much human interaction is necessary for operation? In both cases the result of the software doing its job is a physical effect, not just a virtual one. (Sure, any kind of output that allows us to know what's going on in a computer is going to be physical, i.e. lighted button or picture on a screen, but let's discount that.) I would place Therac-25 and a dishwasher or other cleaning robot in the same class with that respect.
Slashdot Mirror
If this was or will be possible, you would think physicists would have got a message by now?
Sending satellite tv signals back in time to the 1940's would not produce headlines in the 1940's.
We would have to know what to look for and how to interpret the particle's presence to get the message. This type of communication seems limited to after we discover the particle and develop methods for controlling the information sent across time.
The "kidneys" produced could not be printed into the patient, they're not functional.
Wake Forest has since clarified media inaccuracies in a press release, stating Dr. Atla printed "a kidney-shaped mold", not a functioning kidney.
Where's the link for Dr. Atala contradicting Wake Forest?
I do not know of their success in previous cases, but it seems (at least, I hope) arguments could be made painting these actions as speech that passes the bounds of established protections, i.e. fighting words etc.... Though thinking about the outcome of Texas v. Johnson, protecting the memory of a dead person and protecting mourners from being offended may not pass the standards that justify curtailing speech. Would parent's scenario be ruled as fighting words?
That means, that 68% are due to non-drunk driving! People, if you want to lower the number of people killed in traffic accidents, start drinking, because the sober people are more dangerous.
Presumable and hopefully, there are many more sober drivers on the road. A more relevant stat would be accidents/accident-related deaths per drunk/sober driver.
Just like how the single decision of a 17 year old that has sex with a consenting 16 year old partner should make him forever after inform employers and neighbors that he is a sex offender? Oh, that and some jail time?
People should be able to put anything they want into their bodies, upto and including cyanide. Else they are not truly free.
Deal with the abuse of the drugs (DUI) not the banning of them, or alcohol.
Keeping people from abusing drugs violates the above definition of freedom. DUI is an example of the abuse of freedom.
Why are we thinking in terms of how fine-tuned the universe is to us? We, and any other form of life, are "fine-tuned" (or getting there) to the universe. Slightly different constants would simply present different needs for life to sustain itself, given the differences were within a margin where life is possible at all.
A form of life that can deal with the conditions present is what presents itself. Just because we happen to be in that category doesn't make us any more special; that's the only life that would exist.
...you can't argue with success.
Known attempts at permutations of physical constants: 1 Success at creating intelligent life: 1
The problem is with "known". If there were some other iteration of the universe with a different permutation of the physical constants that did not succeed at creating life we would not be able to consider that iteration, given the lack of life. There is no more evidence saying that did not happen than there is saying it did, (zero for both sides), so preferring one would be logically irresponsible.
Wait, is he claiming robots will suddenly make software have more real world consequences? If so, I'd like to introduce him to Therac-25... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
Is a distinction being made for how much human interaction is necessary for operation? In both cases the result of the software doing its job is a physical effect, not just a virtual one. (Sure, any kind of output that allows us to know what's going on in a computer is going to be physical, i.e. lighted button or picture on a screen, but let's discount that.) I would place Therac-25 and a dishwasher or other cleaning robot in the same class with that respect.