>The 4th amendment only mentions people and things. The 4th amendment does not mention conversations or phone calls.
If they'd had phones back then, you can bet your ass they would have included them!
The idea is that the government has to leave you alone unless it can articulate some reason that a judge would find convincing that you have committed a crime. *That* is the essence of the 4th amendment. Anything more than listening to you as you walk down the street should require a warrant. The framers knew the value of keeping the government weak.
"But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches)."
I believe the zphone (from Phil Zimmerman) gets around this by displaying some sort of hash that you can actually say to the other person on the line once the call has been connected. If your hash doesn't match what it should be, there could be a man in the middle.
>Wow, these new bulbs shut down power plants? OHWAIT. No, they don't.
Actually, if enough people used them, that is exactly what would happen. Do you think power plants are going to waste money producing electricity that isn't needed? Who would even pay for it?
Those would have to be some *drastically* reduced prices to compete with a space elevator. Accelerating to escape velocity is always going to take a lot of fuel, where with the space elevator it's not even an issue.
I think you need to go back and re-read Goedel's Theorem. It has nothing to do with a complex system being unable to describe itself. In fact, it depends on that ability to make any sense at all.
In this country, you have the right to say just about anything you like, including "nappy headed hoes." Nobody, however, has any obligation to listen to you or provide you with a venue to do so. Don Imus can stand on any street corner in the US and repeat that phrase over and over and he'll never wind up in jail over it.
>The whole idea of theorizing that similarity in structure implies descent or ancestry sounds fishy. We don't do such things for human made things or devices.
Perhaps because human made devices have no way of reproducing themselves with a chance of modification.
Even better, just ignore the metadata and search on a hash of the actual content. I'm not sure where the ID3 tags are placed (and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) in an mp3, but if you strip them off and ignore the file name, you should have the raw mp3 data left over.
What they are saying is that if you search for 'paradise city' on limewire, you might get 20 different entries in the search results all at the same bitrate and approximate size. If you can figure out which of these are 99% the same, with only the metadata changed, you can download the similar parts from many more sources than if you need an exact match.
>Now how in god's name does the subjective perceptual conscious experience arise out of that? You didn't simulate that whatsoever.
Why do you assume you have to? What makes you believe that conscious experience is anything more than 'information pushing' of a certain nature?
Douglas Hofstadter has a new book out that deals exactly with this subject,
I Am a Strange Loop. It covers a lot of the same ground as 'Godel, Escher, Bach' but is a lot easier to read.
>A fertilized egg also temporarily does not have the ability to experience anything. The duration of this inability is just about five months long. > >Are you ok with being killed if they promise you that the anaesthesia would have lasted five months if they had not killed you ?
I have enough of a brain to support consciousness, and have for over 30 years. Regardless how long you keep me under anesthesia before you kill me, it doesn't change the fact that you are destroying an actual sentient being who has knowledge that he ever existed. Unlike the fertilized egg, which has never felt a thing.
Is an acorn the same thing as an oak tree? Of course not. It just has the potential to become one.
>Ask that question again after you've been anaesthesized and killed.
Anaesthesia is a temporary condition imposed on a brain that does have the ability to have experiences. The cells inside my cheek (and a fertilized egg) have no such ability.
I really like this thought experiment, because it makes it very difficult for the people who say that a computer will never be able to think like a human. After all, if you can replace every single neuron in your brain without "you" noticing, you can also simulate the whole process on a computer.
The beauty is that we don't even have to understand how it all works. We don't have to program the "virtual brain" at all. It works simply because the original configuration works. Hell, at that point, we can start doing virtual brain surgery to figure out what is really necessary for consciousness. Not that I'd want to be the subject...
I don't believe he's talking about the word "you", unless you think he's asking whether the word is the same as itself. He's asking whether the experience you have as an individual would be different after you've had a significant number of your natural neurons replaced with artificial ones.
Postmodernism aside, it is an interesting question.
Well, it's definitely human, and it's definitely alive. However, so are the cells lining the inside of my mouth. If it has no ability to experience anything, who cares if you kill it?
Here's how: google for 'nph-proxy.cgi' and then find one that uses https. Your employer will only see an ssl connection being made to the same server over and over.
Yes. He was lucky enough to be born on the patch of dirt that his parents and grandparents back through history worked to make great - or even simply followed the rules to get into.
Slashdot Mirror
>The 4th amendment only mentions people and things. The 4th amendment does not mention conversations or phone calls.
If they'd had phones back then, you can bet your ass they would have included them!
The idea is that the government has to leave you alone unless it can articulate some reason that a judge would find convincing that you have committed a crime. *That* is the essence of the 4th amendment. Anything more than listening to you as you walk down the street should require a warrant. The framers knew the value of keeping the government weak.
Nice way to not read TFA:
"But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches)."
F9
I believe the zphone (from Phil Zimmerman) gets around this by displaying some sort of hash that you can actually say to the other person on the line once the call has been connected. If your hash doesn't match what it should be, there could be a man in the middle.
Agree 100%. I switched 6 of my most used bulbs about 5 months ago and have noticed about an average of $15/month difference in my electric bills.
>Wow, these new bulbs shut down power plants? OHWAIT. No, they don't.
Actually, if enough people used them, that is exactly what would happen. Do you think power plants are going to waste money producing electricity that isn't needed? Who would even pay for it?
Those would have to be some *drastically* reduced prices to compete with a space elevator. Accelerating to escape velocity is always going to take a lot of fuel, where with the space elevator it's not even an issue.
I think you need to go back and re-read Goedel's Theorem. It has nothing to do with a complex system being unable to describe itself. In fact, it depends on that ability to make any sense at all.
>The question is, in the end, which model is the more restrictive one ?
No contest. The one where you can actually end up in jail for something you've said.
In this country, you have the right to say just about anything you like, including "nappy headed hoes." Nobody, however, has any obligation to listen to you or provide you with a venue to do so. Don Imus can stand on any street corner in the US and repeat that phrase over and over and he'll never wind up in jail over it.
Societal disapproval is not the same as illegal.
>The whole idea of theorizing that similarity in structure implies descent or ancestry sounds fishy. We don't do such things for human made things or devices.
Perhaps because human made devices have no way of reproducing themselves with a chance of modification.
Even better, just ignore the metadata and search on a hash of the actual content. I'm not sure where the ID3 tags are placed (and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) in an mp3, but if you strip them off and ignore the file name, you should have the raw mp3 data left over.
What they are saying is that if you search for 'paradise city' on limewire, you might get 20 different entries in the search results all at the same bitrate and approximate size. If you can figure out which of these are 99% the same, with only the metadata changed, you can download the similar parts from many more sources than if you need an exact match.
Sorry...I think I missed the parent post somehow.
>Now how in god's name does the subjective perceptual conscious experience arise out of that? You didn't simulate that whatsoever.
Why do you assume you have to? What makes you believe that conscious experience is anything more than 'information pushing' of a certain nature?
Douglas Hofstadter has a new book out that deals exactly with this subject, I Am a Strange Loop. It covers a lot of the same ground as 'Godel, Escher, Bach' but is a lot easier to read.
>A fertilized egg also temporarily does not have the ability to experience anything. The duration of this inability is just about five months long.
>
>Are you ok with being killed if they promise you that the anaesthesia would have lasted five months if they had not killed you ?
I have enough of a brain to support consciousness, and have for over 30 years. Regardless how long you keep me under anesthesia before you kill me, it doesn't change the fact that you are destroying an actual sentient being who has knowledge that he ever existed. Unlike the fertilized egg, which has never felt a thing.
Is an acorn the same thing as an oak tree? Of course not. It just has the potential to become one.
>Ask that question again after you've been anaesthesized and killed.
Anaesthesia is a temporary condition imposed on a brain that does have the ability to have experiences. The cells inside my cheek (and a fertilized egg) have no such ability.
I really like this thought experiment, because it makes it very difficult for the people who say that a computer will never be able to think like a human. After all, if you can replace every single neuron in your brain without "you" noticing, you can also simulate the whole process on a computer.
The beauty is that we don't even have to understand how it all works. We don't have to program the "virtual brain" at all. It works simply because the original configuration works. Hell, at that point, we can start doing virtual brain surgery to figure out what is really necessary for consciousness. Not that I'd want to be the subject...
We aren't talking about coding a mind, only replacing neurons with their functional equivalents.
I don't believe he's talking about the word "you", unless you think he's asking whether the word is the same as itself. He's asking whether the experience you have as an individual would be different after you've had a significant number of your natural neurons replaced with artificial ones.
Postmodernism aside, it is an interesting question.
>To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Yes, and we are members of the WTO. We have signed treaties to abide by their decisions, so I'm not sure how pointing this out contradicts my point.
Well, it's definitely human, and it's definitely alive. However, so are the cells lining the inside of my mouth. If it has no ability to experience anything, who cares if you kill it?
Where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate gambling?
Oh, that's right, *nowhere*!
The government's job is not to protect us from ourselves. Period.
Here's how: google for 'nph-proxy.cgi' and then find one that uses https. Your employer will only see an ssl connection being made to the same server over and over.
Yes. He was lucky enough to be born on the patch of dirt that his parents and grandparents back through history worked to make great - or even simply followed the rules to get into.