The most apparent flaw is that the theory of Evolution as I understand it proposes that living, conscious creatures were generated from inanimate matter.
There is no distinction between "animate" and "inanimate" matter. All matter is just that and nothing more; a swirling mileu of particles in motion. The only difference between a cat and a rock is the complexity and frequency of those motions.
"Life" and "non-life" are useful, but ultimately meaningless ontological distinctions that really have no purpose at the sub-microscopic level. Any sensible person can see that ultimately there is no difference between what we deem living and what we call non-living, as the quick and the dead are still naught but particles in relationship to one another. The notion of self-identical objects larger than the fundamental particles is useful, but when dealing on such a tiny scale it's best to forget about such pointless ontological nonsense.
I'm not trolling, but could someone please tell me what the "privacy concerns" surrounding this are? I checked out all three of the links included in the post about why ID's are so "bad," but the closest thing I got to an explanation was having catch-phrases like "internal passport" thrown at me. I really do want to know what's got everyone's panties in a bunch. Please reply.
We may be whores, but at least we're not mindless zealots like you, who jump to angry conclusions without understanding JACK FRIGGIN' SQUAT. I'd imagine the only information you even HAVE about bNetd is that which you've gleaned from this and similar sites. So unless you're a lawyer, or have some grand information source that none of us know about proving that Blizzard is in fact Satan's kingdom on earth, do us a favor and shut up.
I think the timeline on the whole is awfully optimistic about the progress of artificial intelligence/life, among other things, and especially with the rate at which artificial life will gain widespread acceptance as "equal." Even ignoring the lack of technological momentum required to reach the points predicted in the timeline, I don't think our society's going to be ready to consider an AI really "Intelligent" in 2016, much less give it a PhD.
I wonder how many of you insipid zealots were hanging out in your local electronics stores just WAITING to see a crash so you could run back to your computers and post "M$ SUXX0RZ! M$ SUXX0RZ! I saw the XBox crash and Bill Gates is dumb, yay for Linux!" I don't even bother reading any stories about Microsoft here anymore, because I know from the start that it's going to be nothing but largely baseless jabs at a legitimate corporation trying to make money. I got duped into reading this one because it was categorized with "Games."
The slashdot community is so full of you mindless, unthinking morons it makes me sick. I hate you all.
Alright, I can understand all the arguments that going to one universal ID won't necessarily make us more secure than we are now. But do you think it would make us LESS secure? At the very least, you'd only have ONE card in your wallet to worry about losing. You're just allowing your stupid paranoia to reject any ideas that sound even remotely like they might make it easier for SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE to find out about you. Why? Who cares? Privacy is a myth, and a stupid one at that. This desire to keep all information about yourself private... why? What's wrong with you all? What are you afraid of? That your nextdoor neighbor will find out your credit history? He can do that and more already! And so what? It doesn't matter. YOU don't matter, and neither do your imagined "rights." Idiots.
Besides, you could look at this as one step closer to a simple, biometric system; when we've advanced the technology to a level sufficient for consistent identification, we'll already have a unified database to link it to, reducing the time required to implement it. (But then, you're probably all afraid of THAT too...)
The more I read the comment threads, the more I'm convinced that most other/.ers are paranoid leftist morons. I think I'm going to stick to the stories for a while.
As for this system being used to target select groups of people: like who? Is there any group that the POLICE would be likely to harrass besides criminals (even those who don't believe they're criminals, like j-walkers, speeders, and napster users)?
And as for most people not being 100% law-abiding: Of course this is true. DOES IT MEAN THAT NO-ONE SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR BREAKING A LAW IF IT'S "JUST A MINOR ONE"? NO. If you break a law, no matter how insignificant, then YES you deserve to be punished.
I'm afraid I fail to understand what's supposed to be so compelling about your (and everyone else's) objections to this. "...what if someone was...falsely identified as someone else with an outstanding warrant?" Well, then presumably the police would write up a ticket and go to your house and ask for ID, and then they'd apologize profusely for bothering you because oh, we're sorry, that's not you. Is this such a major inconvenience? "I still don't think this is a good idea because it means that someone is collecting information on you without your knowledge or permission." Screw that paranoid bullcrap. What is it that you're doing that is so very very important to keep secret? This isn't some evil corporation or government conspiracy spying on people, it's the POLICE using a relatively unobtrusive technology to help them track down CRIMINALS. Not find out what kind of coffee you like and tell Starbucks. The police are not your ENEMIES that you need to hide from them!
"...it means your freedom is now in the hands of computer software..." Please. "your freedom?" The police are not going to start arresting people solely based on their RESEMBLANCE to a criminal. Do you have a driver's liscense? Show it to them and you're all set. Don't have one? Use your freakin' thumbprint! There is simply no way this is as big a deal as you and all the other morons on/. are making it out to be. THE POLICE ARE NOT TO BE HATED AND FEARED, AND NOR IS ANYTHING WHICH HELPS THEM DO THEIR JOB, WHICH IS YOUR PROTECTION, YOU PARANOID INGRATES.
"The tone of the article suggests that it is self-evident that these behaviors are wrong."
The tone of your post suggests that it is self-evident that NO behaviors are wrong.
To all you "open-minded" people out there: For once, stop and consider the possiblity that, for all your open-mindedness, you remain closed-minded to one possibility: the possibility that there IS a moral standard. I'm not saying you must all agree that there is: but stop assuming there isn't. To do so would negate whatever "open-mindedness" you can otherwise claim.
After reading all these threads, I can see that none of you are ready to come out of your immature, self-justifying little mindsets, so I suppose I'll have to try and be the voice of reason.
Okay: Have any of you ever stopped to consider, even for a moment, that maybe the universal "sex sells" excuse ISN'T A GOOD EXCUSE? So what if it sells! Is the only reason anyone makes a game today to make money? If so, then I want no part in it. If someone makes a game for the sole purpose of making profit, then that game cannot be anything BUT crap. As history has repeatedly shown, the best games are the labors of love that are made by people who care more about creating a quality product than about selling more copies than the developer next door. I agree completely with the French developer quoted in the article: "Games should be treated like art, but they're being treated like hamburger."
So, I suppose you could sum up my statements by saying: The fact that sex sells doesn't make it a proper advertising tool. You people defending the idiotic use of sex as a tool to promote weak product are obviously still porn-crazed adolescents, inside and/or out, and you all need to grow up and get over your hormonal problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I concur! We need a real third party in this country. And if it splits the Republicans, all the better!
Soooo, what's a guy gotta do to score that job?
Any particular reason? A molecule is a molecule. I don't give a shit where my protein comes from as long as it keeps binding to my cell receptors.
There is no distinction between "animate" and "inanimate" matter. All matter is just that and nothing more; a swirling mileu of particles in motion. The only difference between a cat and a rock is the complexity and frequency of those motions.
"Life" and "non-life" are useful, but ultimately meaningless ontological distinctions that really have no purpose at the sub-microscopic level. Any sensible person can see that ultimately there is no difference between what we deem living and what we call non-living, as the quick and the dead are still naught but particles in relationship to one another. The notion of self-identical objects larger than the fundamental particles is useful, but when dealing on such a tiny scale it's best to forget about such pointless ontological nonsense.
I'm not trolling, but could someone please tell me what the "privacy concerns" surrounding this are? I checked out all three of the links included in the post about why ID's are so "bad," but the closest thing I got to an explanation was having catch-phrases like "internal passport" thrown at me. I really do want to know what's got everyone's panties in a bunch. Please reply.
We may be whores, but at least we're not mindless zealots like you, who jump to angry conclusions without understanding JACK FRIGGIN' SQUAT. I'd imagine the only information you even HAVE about bNetd is that which you've gleaned from this and similar sites.
So unless you're a lawyer, or have some grand information source that none of us know about proving that Blizzard is in fact Satan's kingdom on earth, do us a favor and shut up.
I think the timeline on the whole is awfully optimistic about the progress of artificial intelligence/life, among other things, and especially with the rate at which artificial life will gain widespread acceptance as "equal." Even ignoring the lack of technological momentum required to reach the points predicted in the timeline, I don't think our society's going to be ready to consider an AI really "Intelligent" in 2016, much less give it a PhD.
Does anybody know of a WINDOWS program that does this? (Not all of us use that "linux" thing you're all so excited about)
---------
I wonder how many of you insipid zealots were hanging out in your local electronics stores just WAITING to see a crash so you could run back to your computers and post "M$ SUXX0RZ! M$ SUXX0RZ! I saw the XBox crash and Bill Gates is dumb, yay for Linux!"
I don't even bother reading any stories about Microsoft here anymore, because I know from the start that it's going to be nothing but largely baseless jabs at a legitimate corporation trying to make money. I got duped into reading this one because it was categorized with "Games."
The slashdot community is so full of you mindless, unthinking morons it makes me sick. I hate you all.
Alright, I can understand all the arguments that going to one universal ID won't necessarily make us more secure than we are now. But do you think it would make us LESS secure? At the very least, you'd only have ONE card in your wallet to worry about losing. You're just allowing your stupid paranoia to reject any ideas that sound even remotely like they might make it easier for SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE to find out about you. Why? Who cares? Privacy is a myth, and a stupid one at that. This desire to keep all information about yourself private... why? What's wrong with you all? What are you afraid of? That your nextdoor neighbor will find out your credit history? He can do that and more already! And so what? It doesn't matter. YOU don't matter, and neither do your imagined "rights." Idiots. /.ers are paranoid leftist morons. I think I'm going to stick to the stories for a while.
Besides, you could look at this as one step closer to a simple, biometric system; when we've advanced the technology to a level sufficient for consistent identification, we'll already have a unified database to link it to, reducing the time required to implement it. (But then, you're probably all afraid of THAT too...)
The more I read the comment threads, the more I'm convinced that most other
As for this system being used to target select groups of people: like who? Is there any group that the POLICE would be likely to harrass besides criminals (even those who don't believe they're criminals, like j-walkers, speeders, and napster users)?
And as for most people not being 100% law-abiding: Of course this is true. DOES IT MEAN THAT NO-ONE SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR BREAKING A LAW IF IT'S "JUST A MINOR ONE"? NO. If you break a law, no matter how insignificant, then YES you deserve to be punished.
I'm afraid I fail to understand what's supposed to be so compelling about your (and everyone else's) objections to this. /. are making it out to be. THE POLICE ARE NOT TO BE HATED AND FEARED, AND NOR IS ANYTHING WHICH HELPS THEM DO THEIR JOB, WHICH IS YOUR PROTECTION, YOU PARANOID INGRATES.
"...what if someone was...falsely identified as someone else with an outstanding warrant?"
Well, then presumably the police would write up a ticket and go to your house and ask for ID, and then they'd apologize profusely for bothering you because oh, we're sorry, that's not you. Is this such a major inconvenience?
"I still don't think this is a good idea because it means that someone is collecting information on you without your knowledge or permission."
Screw that paranoid bullcrap. What is it that you're doing that is so very very important to keep secret? This isn't some evil corporation or government conspiracy spying on people, it's the POLICE using a relatively unobtrusive technology to help them track down CRIMINALS. Not find out what kind of coffee you like and tell Starbucks. The police are not your ENEMIES that you need to hide from them!
"...it means your freedom is now in the hands of computer software..."
Please. "your freedom?" The police are not going to start arresting people solely based on their RESEMBLANCE to a criminal. Do you have a driver's liscense? Show it to them and you're all set. Don't have one? Use your freakin' thumbprint! There is simply no way this is as big a deal as you and all the other morons on
"The tone of the article suggests that it is self-evident that these behaviors are wrong." The tone of your post suggests that it is self-evident that NO behaviors are wrong. To all you "open-minded" people out there: For once, stop and consider the possiblity that, for all your open-mindedness, you remain closed-minded to one possibility: the possibility that there IS a moral standard. I'm not saying you must all agree that there is: but stop assuming there isn't. To do so would negate whatever "open-mindedness" you can otherwise claim.
After reading all these threads, I can see that none of you are ready to come out of your immature, self-justifying little mindsets, so I suppose I'll have to try and be the voice of reason. Okay: Have any of you ever stopped to consider, even for a moment, that maybe the universal "sex sells" excuse ISN'T A GOOD EXCUSE? So what if it sells! Is the only reason anyone makes a game today to make money? If so, then I want no part in it. If someone makes a game for the sole purpose of making profit, then that game cannot be anything BUT crap. As history has repeatedly shown, the best games are the labors of love that are made by people who care more about creating a quality product than about selling more copies than the developer next door. I agree completely with the French developer quoted in the article: "Games should be treated like art, but they're being treated like hamburger." So, I suppose you could sum up my statements by saying: The fact that sex sells doesn't make it a proper advertising tool. You people defending the idiotic use of sex as a tool to promote weak product are obviously still porn-crazed adolescents, inside and/or out, and you all need to grow up and get over your hormonal problems.