I thought that depended on server settings. Or at least I think it should. I'm sure that I would like with FF on during serious matches and NOT get kicked for FF.
More importantly, I don't recall a single time I've seen during normal gameplay any serious war crime committed by the player. We do see torture (BLOPS2) in a context I'm actually okay with seeing (no-mans land + outside the law agents). Civilians aren't featured that much on CoDs series (no, No Russian does not count as you are an undercover agent that should, in fact, shoot the civilians to keep your cover. Well, "cover") and of all those times I can only remember them in places they can easily be caught in the crossfire so.. it's kinda pointless to try to shoot them -- need them bullets for the enemies. IIRC CoD also resets you to the checkpoint when you shoot civilians or friendlies (unless obvious he popped into my line of sight and I couldn't do much about it), though I'm not so sure about this.
On the other spectrum, Arma 1/2 ends the game if you shoot blues too much (some blue on blue is okay as long as it's an accident) or civilians (at least in the campaign/official scenarios). And while it is a costume for Dslyecxi and his group to shoot enemy wounded combatants, we must also remember the fact that when they become conscious again they *can* and *will* shoot you on the back. Disarming them is often if ever not a possibility (under fire/need to move fast), so shooting them is... well... logical.
They also mention medical personnel, facilities and transports which I can't recall seeing beyond Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, in which the medic gets killed (presumably by a stray bullet). Oh, and combat medics -- which is to say soldiers that know how to apply first-aid (and magically heal soldiers).
Honestly? I don't know what they want with this. If they had provided some examples I'd be more than happy to look at it... but...
Unless, of course, they are talking about using your enemy's uniform which I kind of understand but disagree with and I think I have seen it done in some games but it isn't a really good dynamic to be using.
Or, you know, the ability to contract your local police force into patrolling your neighborhood. I mean, why not? They get more revenue, you get more protection and if everything goes right, the overall level of your local police improves because they have more money for more people. But just maybe.
There is something that bothers me about your comment. I fail to figure out what. Can you give me a hint?
I think it's this part: last I heard, most people don't care about the earbuds they use and can happily live with 128-256kbps music. If they are happy with that, in theory market forces should not push people to something better. After all, that is good enough (although cheaper ways that bring improvement will come, but hey). By that same logic, if we had somehow decided years ago that the computer technology back then was good enough (and that shiny algorithm to predict weather? Yeah, that's not important enough -- o wait) we would not have what we have today. Humans are driven to want something better (or at least a percentage of the population). And part of that bother enough to learn to know just how much better it can be (and here the better is rather subjective: if you think open = better, then replace better with open, etc) then turns into seeing things that go against that as taking a turn for the worse. And since it doesn't matter to the general public (because for them it is good enough) it somehow isn't important?
I'm sure there are cases for elitism and narrow-minded views. And I'm sure there is a fallacy somewhere. But just because other don't want better, it doesn't mean I shouldn't want better. Nor that I shouldn't work towards it (be it talk about it with others).
That doesn't mean, of course, that this isn't a good opportunity to try to improve a little the situation towards standard (and then try to work towards open). But I suppose the current political climate kinda reinforces the idea that don't give them anything because they will take a mile.
All you have said is very true. Except on the fact it is not an inevitability for it to turn into a flame war. Your very post has showed it. You managed to formulate a level-headed opinion about why the discussion is pointless because most discussion would center around irrelevant information. Of course, it ignored the fact that people have this desire to know those very pieces of irrelevant information -- although, thinking better about it, maybe knowing about it would help us learn about it and avoid the loss of life in the future? Nah, who am I kidding. We only care about it to have something to talk about when there is nothing else to talk about, in order to avoid silence. It'll soon be mostly forgotten by most, who will never think about it again unless somebody else mentions it.
Now, to be honest. Shots fired at US capitol? That's news. Why would it ever reach a political flame war is beyond me (if I assume, of course, that we always behave rationally), since Shots fired at US capitol has little to do with politics beyond what drove the whoever to do whatever (in this case try to ram the door, me thinks). And if we are going to discuss the cause of the behaviour, there is little to discuss in politics: the reasons do not need to be grounded in reason, and debating the merits of the reasons as valid politics is a jump too far from topic, bordering going off-topic which is shoots fired.
But then again, you can talk about cheese, reach cheese production, regulations on cheese productions, how hard those regulations make it for new small players to enter the market, and suddenly you are talking about politics again. Which teaches us that nothing is apolitical, unless you are talking about the laws of the world. And that's because they just are, no matter how much you argue they are unfair/against your preference.
I think part of the issue is that short of not buying it (and for that to be in any way significant, it would have to affect the average Joe), there is very little that the consumers can do or say to drive content producers to open standards. I mean: you have people that buy a movie to watch it and store (and probably keep the player too, or bother format-shifting if possible), people that don't really care as long as it works once, and then those that simply don't care and just download it (may or may not pay for it) from the Internet in a format that should work in the future (or in their systems). I think right now the market is very stable in terms of how formats bother people when it comes to video. So, I can only wonder how would we push the content producers towards open standards when we just gave them a framework to standardize it (and they just need another codec/encryption when the previous one gets cracked or something) short of creating our own company and proving to them that open standards actually work and can turn a profit, or them doing something really stupid.
And there is always the danger of them requiring signed software on signed os on protected hardware (I was kind of bothered by it when I couldn't launch Gparted in my sister's laptop. Of course I didn't bother deactivating it, but still).
No. The problem with windows 8, in my opinion, isn't the lack of apps. The problem with windows 8 is that it tries to be two things at once and thus you have: people who want the old desktop experience, expecting the old desktop experience and not finding it, and people who kind of like the idea, but turns out they still have to use the old desktop experience. Furthermore, the apps were not designed with the technical user in mind, since you couldn't (I think they kind of fixed in 8.1, but IDGAF anymore) use more than one at a time, or maybe two. Thus, they would need to use the old desktop experience but they have shoved on their faces the new tablet-like interface (because it is, really). I will admit that the improvements they made to file copying and the task manager appeal to me, but they are not enough to bother installing windows 8 and downloading the applications to use only the old user experience, since the new one doesn't appeal to me (Why would I switch to metro-apps when most of the things I use are NOT metro apps and don't have one. Psi (jabber client), Steam, HexChat, Thunderbird*, PasswordSafe, a number of games and other things like Virtual Machines, Foobar2000, Audacity, Utorrent, etc?).
If, metro apps had the same versatillity than current windows (resizing, having ones on top of others, etc), and all of the applications I currently use were ported/could be imported painless, and the whole thing wasn't like a tablet-ui (it looks that way, really), maybe.
You sure? Unemployment rate seems to be around 7% in the USA and from what I've read around those numbers don't actually count the number of people that aren't employed, just the ones that are registered in welfare (or something like it, I forget). Two, he can't really move from where he is, so he can't move to where jobs may be. And considering the numbers, I doubt anybody outside of his city would be willing to pay him to move.
So, tell me where would he be able to find a job where many others have failed? You probably heard of not being accepted by being overqualifies, or because h1b, or culture, or many other reasons discussed here in slashdot.
I could install diablo 2 + expansion fairly easily (on a virtual machine and #!, so I didn't really need to deal with drivers), and baldur's gate and at least they both launched. I also played Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds in it, an although I couldn't alt-tab because the camera would glitch effectively making the game unplayable, it worked fairly well. But, again, anecdote on a very non-representative situation.
I would argue that the Humble BUndle is not a fairly reliable measure of the pathetic state of linux pc gaming (I by no means imply it's "good", but PlayOnLinux does a fairly good job at getting the games installed and running without much work [assuming you have it ready]). Instead, the humble bundle is the representation of fairly niche, not AAA, (I can't say they are crappy because I haven't played them, with a few exceptions). The games that are usually in the humble bundle are not the kind of games most people buy. They are not the next Call of Duty, nor anything like it. They do not have the massive following either.
He complains about discoverable buses, and proceeds to say no. Then, he goes a tells the guy asking for change that he believes linux kernel maintainers/coders knows better (because according to him RdRandom is one of the many inputs to random pool) in his usual tone. Nothing new, and certainly not worth a headline IMO.
They could work to improve society, which is something robots can't do, and probably won't for quite a while, with very high chances will never be allowed to do anyway.
The excess labor could help people with needs. We could provide a better health infrastructure, potentially avoiding events like school shootings (if we are to believe that the shooters had mental issues that could have been solved prior to those events), pass knowledge to the new generation (and I mean besides what we see at school), direct themselves to research, explore the meaning of life (yeah, I know the answer is 42), provide support to countries that will undoubtedly not benefit as soon from the robots as some will, exchange and improve culture, explore ethical issues, explore the very limits of music, and you know, have a good time because chatting, having friends and socializing is good for almost every human being and would benefit the subset that is working to improve society/work/etc.
I'm sure you can come up with something else they could be doing. We are just still stuck in the idea that we all need a job to live, but forget that there are many unpaid aspects of life that are very important.
While I think this could be the way it's treated, there is one big difference between a brain in a jar and children: body.
A child can defend itself from abuse or unwanted behavior. A brain would not be able. It does not have the means to do so. This is the one big difference that will probably require special legislation to deal with brains vs children. However, the current parent-child model could work very well as a template.
I know it would be a very [insert your favorite, negative adjective here] thing to do to anyone/anything, regardless it's a brain in a jar or not. I wouldn't wish anybody to be subject to it, unless they explicitly agreed to it. It's just that a brain in a jar is more convenient than a normal person because you don't have a bunch of things like the skull to get in the way, and it's one of the things I'd like one day to see done. It won't happen, I'm sure, since a) there is probably nobody willing to do it, and b) even if there was such person, the rest of humanity would be against it and stop it anyway, regardless of the wishes of those participating. And every time I think of this it makes me sad.
I like your experiment, although I'm not quite a fan of slaves. It would, however, allow us to see just how far we can push the human brain to adapt to something other than the human body, and see how it deals with different sets of inputs. Maybe I'm just shortsighted and I'm missing something more valuable from it, though.
Just to make sure it's clear, I'm working on an entirely hypothetical basis.
I doubt it would be driven mad. For all intents and porposes, since it would not be exposed to the five senses, nor human culture, it'd be as close as to a raw brain and effectively mad to begin with. To better illustrate my point, imagine a realistic and more extremist version of Disney's Tarzan.
Now, you do touch a very interesting point. So far it is believed by a subset of the global population that we are our brains (another subset believes that we are something beyond our brains, but that's another debate). Assuming such brain developed to the size/complexity of that of a child and had the structures and what not, we would have to assume we are in fact dealing with a... bodyless? human. Chances are whatever research was on-going would have to be stopped under current rules (since it would go from cells to full grown human). Any wishes to proceed with research would also require that we ask the brain if they want to participate (and we would have to teach the brain to speak, understand what we are asking and tell the brain that it is only brain grown for the sole porpouse of advancing science and that it does not have a body). Then if it denies the request, somebody would have to take care of the brain because of the ethical implications of letting it die.
On the other hand, humanity (those with bodies and part of our societies[probably need a better criteria]) could choose to treat such brains differently. But then we'll hear that we are de-humanizing humans. On the other hand this could be the catalyst to a lot of breakthroughs in the field of neuroscience (and related fields). Being capable of studying, stripping, adding, modifying a human brain, even if it is the equivalent of a 9-week-old fetus' brain, will allow to reach further than what we can right now with any other method. Of course, we do have mice brains, and they also have proved to be very valuable, but... say, instead of going from theories to animals to people, we could go to theories to animals to human brain to people.
One thing is for certain in all this: whoever has to make the decision will have it hard, either on making the decision, or with the many sides this issue will have. I would not want to be that person.
As an aside, one thing that would be very interesting to try, although perhaps cruel, would be to have a conscious, intelligent, communication capable and socially integrated brain (that is, think of a person that's lived in our society, studied... lived outside of a lab) and try to plug different things into the brain, try separating some regions, try adding them together, try adding more cells and see the effects it has on the very capabilities of the brain, and what it experiences. Does it/the brain feel something different when you do it, or does it simply loose the capabilities and only notices when compared to previous experiences? What about adding things? I think it would be a very interesting experiment to do. Go beyond what we can learn from people who suffered accidents.
Oh, but we are totally going to trust you consuming this other dangerous substance in moderation or not at all. Forget all the deaths caused by it's consumption.
He said he was released by 2PM. 2PM - 18h gives me 8PM of the previous day. He said he was going to meet his family for dinner. I'd believe that he would relieve himself before departing to the airport. Thus, yeah, he would have to eventually sleep or at least feel sleepy. He said he didn't eat breakfast, and we can deduce he didn't eat dinner. Though, I guess by the end if he was indeed shaking and as perturbed as he seemed to be by his descriptions, it could be possible that he would forget he would need to use a bathroom for a while.
Though this is pure speculation based on what I could read from TFA, and my memory may be failing. Also, it seems strange that he didn't think of calling a lawyer. He should have, imo.
The issue here is that unless somebody is willing to talk to the airline, check phone records, ask family and somehow get lucky in obtaining all that information (good luck trying to verify this story with any of the three letter agencies), there is just no evidence whatsoever anybody could ever present about this. And this is a more important issue than whether or not it indeed happened.
But then what would be the point of it? Half of slashdot is the comment section, the other half being the (sometimes crappy) summary of the story along with any relevant links.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you! That does indeed clarify your comment.
Oic. Figures. Thanks for the info :D
Maybe I'm just too use to Q3/QL (and general Quake Series) TDM settings where FF is a thing that matters and doesn't get you auto-kicked.
I thought that depended on server settings. Or at least I think it should. I'm sure that I would like with FF on during serious matches and NOT get kicked for FF.
More importantly, I don't recall a single time I've seen during normal gameplay any serious war crime committed by the player. We do see torture (BLOPS2) in a context I'm actually okay with seeing (no-mans land + outside the law agents). Civilians aren't featured that much on CoDs series (no, No Russian does not count as you are an undercover agent that should, in fact, shoot the civilians to keep your cover. Well, "cover") and of all those times I can only remember them in places they can easily be caught in the crossfire so.. it's kinda pointless to try to shoot them -- need them bullets for the enemies. IIRC CoD also resets you to the checkpoint when you shoot civilians or friendlies (unless obvious he popped into my line of sight and I couldn't do much about it), though I'm not so sure about this.
On the other spectrum, Arma 1/2 ends the game if you shoot blues too much (some blue on blue is okay as long as it's an accident) or civilians (at least in the campaign/official scenarios). And while it is a costume for Dslyecxi and his group to shoot enemy wounded combatants, we must also remember the fact that when they become conscious again they *can* and *will* shoot you on the back. Disarming them is often if ever not a possibility (under fire/need to move fast), so shooting them is... well... logical.
They also mention medical personnel, facilities and transports which I can't recall seeing beyond Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, in which the medic gets killed (presumably by a stray bullet). Oh, and combat medics -- which is to say soldiers that know how to apply first-aid (and magically heal soldiers).
Honestly? I don't know what they want with this. If they had provided some examples I'd be more than happy to look at it... but...
Unless, of course, they are talking about using your enemy's uniform which I kind of understand but disagree with and I think I have seen it done in some games but it isn't a really good dynamic to be using.
Or, you know, the ability to contract your local police force into patrolling your neighborhood. I mean, why not? They get more revenue, you get more protection and if everything goes right, the overall level of your local police improves because they have more money for more people. But just maybe.
Or... raise taxes?
There is something that bothers me about your comment. I fail to figure out what. Can you give me a hint?
I think it's this part: last I heard, most people don't care about the earbuds they use and can happily live with 128-256kbps music. If they are happy with that, in theory market forces should not push people to something better. After all, that is good enough (although cheaper ways that bring improvement will come, but hey). By that same logic, if we had somehow decided years ago that the computer technology back then was good enough (and that shiny algorithm to predict weather? Yeah, that's not important enough -- o wait) we would not have what we have today. Humans are driven to want something better (or at least a percentage of the population). And part of that bother enough to learn to know just how much better it can be (and here the better is rather subjective: if you think open = better, then replace better with open, etc) then turns into seeing things that go against that as taking a turn for the worse. And since it doesn't matter to the general public (because for them it is good enough) it somehow isn't important?
I'm sure there are cases for elitism and narrow-minded views. And I'm sure there is a fallacy somewhere. But just because other don't want better, it doesn't mean I shouldn't want better. Nor that I shouldn't work towards it (be it talk about it with others).
That doesn't mean, of course, that this isn't a good opportunity to try to improve a little the situation towards standard (and then try to work towards open). But I suppose the current political climate kinda reinforces the idea that don't give them anything because they will take a mile.
All you have said is very true. Except on the fact it is not an inevitability for it to turn into a flame war. Your very post has showed it. You managed to formulate a level-headed opinion about why the discussion is pointless because most discussion would center around irrelevant information. Of course, it ignored the fact that people have this desire to know those very pieces of irrelevant information -- although, thinking better about it, maybe knowing about it would help us learn about it and avoid the loss of life in the future? Nah, who am I kidding. We only care about it to have something to talk about when there is nothing else to talk about, in order to avoid silence. It'll soon be mostly forgotten by most, who will never think about it again unless somebody else mentions it.
Now, to be honest. Shots fired at US capitol? That's news. Why would it ever reach a political flame war is beyond me (if I assume, of course, that we always behave rationally), since Shots fired at US capitol has little to do with politics beyond what drove the whoever to do whatever (in this case try to ram the door, me thinks). And if we are going to discuss the cause of the behaviour, there is little to discuss in politics: the reasons do not need to be grounded in reason, and debating the merits of the reasons as valid politics is a jump too far from topic, bordering going off-topic which is shoots fired.
But then again, you can talk about cheese, reach cheese production, regulations on cheese productions, how hard those regulations make it for new small players to enter the market, and suddenly you are talking about politics again. Which teaches us that nothing is apolitical, unless you are talking about the laws of the world. And that's because they just are, no matter how much you argue they are unfair/against your preference.
I think part of the issue is that short of not buying it (and for that to be in any way significant, it would have to affect the average Joe), there is very little that the consumers can do or say to drive content producers to open standards. I mean: you have people that buy a movie to watch it and store (and probably keep the player too, or bother format-shifting if possible), people that don't really care as long as it works once, and then those that simply don't care and just download it (may or may not pay for it) from the Internet in a format that should work in the future (or in their systems). I think right now the market is very stable in terms of how formats bother people when it comes to video. So, I can only wonder how would we push the content producers towards open standards when we just gave them a framework to standardize it (and they just need another codec/encryption when the previous one gets cracked or something) short of creating our own company and proving to them that open standards actually work and can turn a profit, or them doing something really stupid.
And there is always the danger of them requiring signed software on signed os on protected hardware (I was kind of bothered by it when I couldn't launch Gparted in my sister's laptop. Of course I didn't bother deactivating it, but still).
I'd like to be proved wrong, of course.
No. The problem with windows 8, in my opinion, isn't the lack of apps. The problem with windows 8 is that it tries to be two things at once and thus you have: people who want the old desktop experience, expecting the old desktop experience and not finding it, and people who kind of like the idea, but turns out they still have to use the old desktop experience. Furthermore, the apps were not designed with the technical user in mind, since you couldn't (I think they kind of fixed in 8.1, but IDGAF anymore) use more than one at a time, or maybe two. Thus, they would need to use the old desktop experience but they have shoved on their faces the new tablet-like interface (because it is, really). I will admit that the improvements they made to file copying and the task manager appeal to me, but they are not enough to bother installing windows 8 and downloading the applications to use only the old user experience, since the new one doesn't appeal to me (Why would I switch to metro-apps when most of the things I use are NOT metro apps and don't have one. Psi (jabber client), Steam, HexChat, Thunderbird*, PasswordSafe, a number of games and other things like Virtual Machines, Foobar2000, Audacity, Utorrent, etc?).
If, metro apps had the same versatillity than current windows (resizing, having ones on top of others, etc), and all of the applications I currently use were ported/could be imported painless, and the whole thing wasn't like a tablet-ui (it looks that way, really), maybe.
You sure? Unemployment rate seems to be around 7% in the USA and from what I've read around those numbers don't actually count the number of people that aren't employed, just the ones that are registered in welfare (or something like it, I forget). Two, he can't really move from where he is, so he can't move to where jobs may be. And considering the numbers, I doubt anybody outside of his city would be willing to pay him to move.
So, tell me where would he be able to find a job where many others have failed? You probably heard of not being accepted by being overqualifies, or because h1b, or culture, or many other reasons discussed here in slashdot.
Could you enlighten the rest of us with what was it that turned you away from enabling javascript?
I could install diablo 2 + expansion fairly easily (on a virtual machine and #!, so I didn't really need to deal with drivers), and baldur's gate and at least they both launched. I also played Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds in it, an although I couldn't alt-tab because the camera would glitch effectively making the game unplayable, it worked fairly well. But, again, anecdote on a very non-representative situation.
I would argue that the Humble BUndle is not a fairly reliable measure of the pathetic state of linux pc gaming (I by no means imply it's "good", but PlayOnLinux does a fairly good job at getting the games installed and running without much work [assuming you have it ready]). Instead, the humble bundle is the representation of fairly niche, not AAA, (I can't say they are crappy because I haven't played them, with a few exceptions). The games that are usually in the humble bundle are not the kind of games most people buy. They are not the next Call of Duty, nor anything like it. They do not have the massive following either.
The only issue is that you can't play while your friend plays. Proof!
And no, I don't think I'm misunderstanding as it doessay library instead of game.
He complains about discoverable buses, and proceeds to say no. Then, he goes a tells the guy asking for change that he believes linux kernel maintainers/coders knows better (because according to him RdRandom is one of the many inputs to random pool) in his usual tone. Nothing new, and certainly not worth a headline IMO.
Hell, sometimes it is even fun to just walk around. Have a change of scenery. Stretch the legs. Smell something different, too.
They could work to improve society, which is something robots can't do, and probably won't for quite a while, with very high chances will never be allowed to do anyway.
The excess labor could help people with needs. We could provide a better health infrastructure, potentially avoiding events like school shootings (if we are to believe that the shooters had mental issues that could have been solved prior to those events), pass knowledge to the new generation (and I mean besides what we see at school), direct themselves to research, explore the meaning of life (yeah, I know the answer is 42), provide support to countries that will undoubtedly not benefit as soon from the robots as some will, exchange and improve culture, explore ethical issues, explore the very limits of music, and you know, have a good time because chatting, having friends and socializing is good for almost every human being and would benefit the subset that is working to improve society/work/etc.
I'm sure you can come up with something else they could be doing. We are just still stuck in the idea that we all need a job to live, but forget that there are many unpaid aspects of life that are very important.
While I think this could be the way it's treated, there is one big difference between a brain in a jar and children: body.
A child can defend itself from abuse or unwanted behavior. A brain would not be able. It does not have the means to do so. This is the one big difference that will probably require special legislation to deal with brains vs children. However, the current parent-child model could work very well as a template.
Indeed, your analogy is better than mine.
I know it would be a very [insert your favorite, negative adjective here] thing to do to anyone/anything, regardless it's a brain in a jar or not. I wouldn't wish anybody to be subject to it, unless they explicitly agreed to it. It's just that a brain in a jar is more convenient than a normal person because you don't have a bunch of things like the skull to get in the way, and it's one of the things I'd like one day to see done. It won't happen, I'm sure, since a) there is probably nobody willing to do it, and b) even if there was such person, the rest of humanity would be against it and stop it anyway, regardless of the wishes of those participating. And every time I think of this it makes me sad.
I like your experiment, although I'm not quite a fan of slaves. It would, however, allow us to see just how far we can push the human brain to adapt to something other than the human body, and see how it deals with different sets of inputs. Maybe I'm just shortsighted and I'm missing something more valuable from it, though.
Just to make sure it's clear, I'm working on an entirely hypothetical basis.
I doubt it would be driven mad. For all intents and porposes, since it would not be exposed to the five senses, nor human culture, it'd be as close as to a raw brain and effectively mad to begin with. To better illustrate my point, imagine a realistic and more extremist version of Disney's Tarzan.
Now, you do touch a very interesting point. So far it is believed by a subset of the global population that we are our brains (another subset believes that we are something beyond our brains, but that's another debate). Assuming such brain developed to the size/complexity of that of a child and had the structures and what not, we would have to assume we are in fact dealing with a... bodyless? human. Chances are whatever research was on-going would have to be stopped under current rules (since it would go from cells to full grown human). Any wishes to proceed with research would also require that we ask the brain if they want to participate (and we would have to teach the brain to speak, understand what we are asking and tell the brain that it is only brain grown for the sole porpouse of advancing science and that it does not have a body). Then if it denies the request, somebody would have to take care of the brain because of the ethical implications of letting it die.
On the other hand, humanity (those with bodies and part of our societies[probably need a better criteria]) could choose to treat such brains differently. But then we'll hear that we are de-humanizing humans. On the other hand this could be the catalyst to a lot of breakthroughs in the field of neuroscience (and related fields). Being capable of studying, stripping, adding, modifying a human brain, even if it is the equivalent of a 9-week-old fetus' brain, will allow to reach further than what we can right now with any other method. Of course, we do have mice brains, and they also have proved to be very valuable, but... say, instead of going from theories to animals to people, we could go to theories to animals to human brain to people.
One thing is for certain in all this: whoever has to make the decision will have it hard, either on making the decision, or with the many sides this issue will have. I would not want to be that person.
As an aside, one thing that would be very interesting to try, although perhaps cruel, would be to have a conscious, intelligent, communication capable and socially integrated brain (that is, think of a person that's lived in our society, studied... lived outside of a lab) and try to plug different things into the brain, try separating some regions, try adding them together, try adding more cells and see the effects it has on the very capabilities of the brain, and what it experiences. Does it/the brain feel something different when you do it, or does it simply loose the capabilities and only notices when compared to previous experiences? What about adding things? I think it would be a very interesting experiment to do. Go beyond what we can learn from people who suffered accidents.
It would certainly be an improvement. At the very least you can take one for the team and ensure they are, at least, facing trial due to High Treason.
Oh, but we are totally going to trust you consuming this other dangerous substance in moderation or not at all. Forget all the deaths caused by it's consumption.
I take it logic isn't their strong point, is it?
He said he was released by 2PM. 2PM - 18h gives me 8PM of the previous day. He said he was going to meet his family for dinner. I'd believe that he would relieve himself before departing to the airport. Thus, yeah, he would have to eventually sleep or at least feel sleepy. He said he didn't eat breakfast, and we can deduce he didn't eat dinner. Though, I guess by the end if he was indeed shaking and as perturbed as he seemed to be by his descriptions, it could be possible that he would forget he would need to use a bathroom for a while.
Though this is pure speculation based on what I could read from TFA, and my memory may be failing. Also, it seems strange that he didn't think of calling a lawyer. He should have, imo.
The issue here is that unless somebody is willing to talk to the airline, check phone records, ask family and somehow get lucky in obtaining all that information (good luck trying to verify this story with any of the three letter agencies), there is just no evidence whatsoever anybody could ever present about this. And this is a more important issue than whether or not it indeed happened.
But then what would be the point of it? Half of slashdot is the comment section, the other half being the (sometimes crappy) summary of the story along with any relevant links.