I took the question to be more a layperson's request for explanation. I don't think they meant to get that technical, though I could be wrong.
This isn't particle duplication. States are marked, and then the particle is observed in one state. But then the other states can be observed as well -- there just won't be an electron at any of those places except the one where it is observed.
You're confused because you're mixing up the states of a particle with the particle itself. If your wave function describes a distribution of positions, then each position continues to exist after the wave function is collapsed by observation.
I can explain briefly. Since I don't know your background, I'll break this up into sections. Skip what you know.
Scale
Depending on the lengths of space involved with a topic of study in Physics, one of three schools of thought will be used. At the macro scale, the lengths that we experience day to day, Newtonian mechanics are usually good enough. At very large scales appropriate for studying stars, planets, and so on, General Relativity comes into play. At very small length scales appropriate for studying atoms and their constituent particles, Quantum Mechanics is used. There are far more fields in Physics, but these three provide the broadest toolset in these terms.
Superposition
The world as we experience it has some fairly intuitive rules, like cause and effect. We call that determinism; that if we know the initial state of a system and the rules that it follows then we can predict what state it will end up in. You know what will happen if you life your mouse and let go: it will fall to the surface you lifted it from. In Quantum Mechanics, determinism does not apply.
One of the things required for determinism to work is that one set of initial conditions produces one outcome under the rules that govern how the system proceeds in time. The dropped mouse falls back to the surface beneath it. In Quantum Mechanics, there is no "one outcome", but instead there are many. Let's call these outcomes "states," because this applies to the initial conditions as well. When an observation is made, only one state is found, and the wave function describes the probabilities of finding each related state. Until the observation is made, every state exists or is happening simultaneously. We call that a "superposition" of states.
Wave Summations
One of the mathematical tricks used to solve for a wave function takes into consideration several possible waves and sums them. Now, this gets fairly complicated and it's well beyond the scope of an Internet forum post to explain it fully. Suffice to say that we call each wave summed to get the end wave function a "wave packet". That math is at work around you all the time; it's used to turn the analog radio signals used for broadcasts into square waves for digital broadcasts, for example. The researchers discussed in this article are not breaking down wave functions into wave packets, but I explain this because I want to impress upon readers that wave functions describe multiple states.
Finally, this article...
The researchers have found a way to isolate states in the superposition to observe them individually, which is interesting for many reasons. You may have heard of the double slit experiment, which is a good analogy for this. When particles are observed before passing through the slit, they appear as particles with determinate positions (wave function collapse) but when they're not observed, they appear as interference patterns between waves (superposition). Using that experiment purely as an analogy, these researchers have found a way to observe the particles that form the interference patterns so that each can be studied individually.
You have a point about threats involving your actual, real world address, but not the one you want. So you went too far.
Stopping people from making threats that involve real world info leaves the actual info insecure. This isn't an either, or kind of thing. It can be forbidden by law to threaten somebody, and we can also see better security. But if the measures against threats come first then the only effect it will have on real vandals, stalkers, rapists, and killers is that people will be warned less often. Shouldn't we see security improve first, and then halt the threats?
Next you go on to talk about groupthink and how it affects reality. I agree with you that it does happen that way often, but that went on long before the Internet and would continue if a massive solar flare sent us back to the Nineteenth Century. How do you propose to distinguish groupthink or baloney from wellsprings of truth and clarity of thought? Would you simply deny the right of free expression to anybody you personally disagree with?
Being wrong is not trolling, no matter how many people do it in chorus, and it can not be made illegal. Being wrong is important, even in the rare cases where human discourse really does come down to a demonstrably true or false set of statements. By the way, that includes all of science, history, math, and... nothing else whatsoever. Even for those subjects, being wrong provides opportunities to learn. Unless you had all the knowledge of humanity downloaded into your brain when you were born, and you update regularly, you are guaranteed to be wrong sometimes just like every other human to ever live. If that is "trolling", and "trolling" is to be illegal, then every single person on the planet will be a criminal.
Passion is great, and good intentions are appreciated, but you can't just go making laws based on emotion and good will alone. Considering the real world harm that can be caused by a group of legislators who just assume they know best for everybody, I'd rather deal with trolls.
Yes, anybody who cites peer reviewed research to disagree with you is a troll; especially when you tried to give the impression that the research doesn't exist.
The overall message of your previous post was that the HFCS lore and "wacko hysteria". So, you basically begin by calling anybody who disagrees with you a "wacko" and conclude by calling anybody who provides counter-citations a "troll". Do you have any arguments that don't begin and end with insulting those who disagree with you?
An actual troll (unlike your use of the term) is somebody who appeals to emotion for negative effect, for sadistic enjoyment or for manipulation. You are, by definition, a troll. Though I get that the term is bastardized to the point that it doesn't mean anything these days.
Metastudies are bullshit. Unless they consider ALL peer-reviewed literature on the topic, they're just a fancy way of cherry-picking to make an idea look more credible. Nobody with any academic training in science takes metastudies seriously because they're nothing more than over-glorified book reports.
It has been suggested that increased fructose intake is associated with obesity. We hypothesized that chronic fructose consumption causes leptin resistance, which subsequently may promote the development of obesity in response to a high-fat diet.
What gives you two away as shills is that you use strong, unscientific words. There's no, "should," "could," "may," etc, but talk of what is and isn't. Then you both misrepresent the research by pretending that you're citing the one and only peer-reviewed source. This is all capped off with the classic tactic of misrepresenting the body of evidence that disagrees with you. Both of you could be hired social media climate change denialism shills just as easily. Learn some new tricks.
If you know how to use PubMed, then you can't play up ignorance as an excuse. Go tell your bosses at Coca-Cola or wherever that we're not buying it. But tell them not to worry, because we'll all slowly kill ourselves with their delicious, delicious products anyway.
There's also the fact that nobody is going to join in a good-faith social effort because they're threatened and "forced" to. Bullying is not an answer to bullying. When I see somebody use slurs, I tell them what I think of that. It can be seen on this profile. But I don't think we need a movement to inspire people to war with, harass, and bully each other while disrupting communities just because some people want ad revenue or attention. That's not how you get people to play nice. That's how you start trouble.
To lie is to knowingly make a false statement. To prove that I have lied requires showing that my statement is false and showing that I knew it was false at the time that I made it. You have done neither. The first post I see on your link says, "Nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission."
I don't see any links to stories regarding lawsuits over employment discrimination.
How about the ugly side that you can't question whether this PR stunt is genuine without being marked a troll on Slashdot? The Gamergate crowd ARE gamer trolls, and they're infecting communities outside of their games to lower the quality of conversation. It's not that terrible a thing to deal with, but a nuisance is a nuisance. They're doing nothing more than engineering social viruses to disrupt communities and get attention.
I have one question for them: If they have so much proof of gender discrimination in the gaming industry, why are they trolling the Internet instead of taking to the courts to do something about it? We have the means in place to correct that, and they're not a moderation drop down menu on Slashdot, a comment field on Youtube, nor a comment thread on Reddit.
You're right that people need to grow up and have thicker skin, but I don't think there's actually a problem with that. It's just a media circus for attention. Even those who don't accept ad revenue are building a following and name for themselves. Mark my words: come their next topic, they will be taking that revenue, or they'll be hired by yellow journalism outfits.
If I'm wrong and they're just trolling us for fun, then they're probably mentally unstable.
See, this is another example what I mean. Half the references to "gamergate" say that the scandal is sexism in the industry. The other half say it's a response to combating sexism in the industry. But either way, employment discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal. So, are game developers confessing to having broken the law up until some recent epiphany that they shouldn't do that? Either way, this whole thing becomes more dubious.
Let's keep this simple: Don't be a dick to people and obey the law. That applies to FAR more than just sexism, do I don't see why we're narrowing in on one group. If game developers have really treated women that poorly for so long that this is necessary then we should be reading about lawsuits and fines, not online arguments and drama.
The more of a circus this becomes without any legitimate action or litigation related to it, the more it looks like theater for publicity and clicks.
I feel the same way about it, and I'll say so even though this thread is being modded without integrity.
-gate is added to terms so that we're signaled to be outraged. It's an overused media trick that has gotten trite. Just adding "gate" as a suffix doesn't make something as serious an issue as the POTUS having thugs break into a hotel to steal documents from political opponents...
Labeling your racist slurs as racism and answering your assumptions about my state of mind with assumptions about yours aren't ad hominems. You're wrong because the things you have said fall into the categories of hateful, delusional, and pure bullshit and not because you are you. But just make whatever excuse you need to in order to continue your racist tirades and delusional attempts at online telepathy. If people with your ideas were capable of admitting when they're wrong, then people with your ideas wouldn't exist.
Absolutely not. The reason Gamergate seems forced and staged is that everybody deals with exactly the same bullying and discrimination in gaming. That is, from gamers. It's worthy of applause that game developers are taking a stand against sexism, but they are already required to do that by laws barring discrimination by employers. If people went to the media to brag about how they didn't murder anybody today, would we reward them? Were game developers not doing that, then they would be subject to expensive litigation and potentially, fines.
People are being shown the ugly side of the gaming community as it applies to sting one group and only one group. Now get into some online games and tell them you're black, hispanic, asian, white, rich, poor, or practically any other descriptor you can come up with and you'll find the same thing. Most of the time, nobody will care, and sometimes, you'll be bullied. Women do not have a monopoly on victimhood and we all need to have thick skin when dealing with random strangers who have no reason to care how we feel; especially when we're competing with them. Duh.
Gamegate is happening because it gets views, which generates ad revenue, and it's a good public relations stunt for game developers. That's all there is to it.
In this country, we don't publish the home addresses of politicians. We have too many people of such diversity that some are inevitably cray cray. Your family knowing where you live is beside the point, and your address being public has nothing to do with whether you use a racial slur.
But the fact that you used that slur will be used against you by your competition in the campaign. Duh.
If you're accused of a serious crime, you may be in jail, but unless you live in one of the few countries on the Earth who just execute people or throw them in a pit on an accusation alone, you will have a trial. And your apparent deviant character as demonstrated by your racist bigotry online will be used to help convict you.
I'm sorry, troll, but you're not good enough at trolling to make me feel any rage. But there you go again assuming yourself to have magical telepathy powers that work over the Internet. My rationality wasn't blurred. If you are not trolling then if I were you, I would see a doctor because something is apparently restricting the blood supply to your brain.
Using words that you assume others have in their mind as if you're telepathic when you know those words are offensive does not do people a service. You're not a luminary shining light on the true inner workings of human minds, saving the world one racial slur at a time. You're just a narcissistic racist. And what you describe is trolling, so calling those who call you on it "trolls" is laughable.
I don't care enough to try and dox you, but thanks for giving public permission to anybody who might. If what you say is true and you ever decide to run for public office, you're accused of a serious crime, you go through family court litigation, or you face any other circumstance whereby others have incentive to put your character under scrutiny, then God help you.
There's another problem I didn't mention. Actually, two.
The first issue is one of trust. The big banks have in the past foreclosed on homes they did not own a mortgage for, to include homes that did not have a mortgage at all. That's only one example of misconduct by banks. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust that banks would not abuse this to commit forgery. If they intend it to replace other systems, then that is exactly what they will end up doing. Do we really need to debate whether governments will abuse this? Governments abuse everything.
There is no such thing as perfect security. If software engineers the world over can't even get encryption to work without being broken and can't manage to protect so much as photos in the cloud, what is supposed to make us confident that they'll somehow make this an unbreakable system? There have been close calls with nuclear weapons, and we should expect those to be the most secured technology in the world. So, there WILL be penetrations of the voice imprint system.
If the banks layer this on top of other security, then that's not so bad. Adding more layers to security is never a bad thing. But this is looking like something meant to *replace* other security layers, and that will lead to big trouble.
Signatures require a physical presence at some point, thus attaching human witnesses, a fax number, or an address. All of that is missing with voice imprints.
My voice sounds different on every single device I've ever heard it played back from. That's in addition to it sounding different based on the time of day; bass in the morning, flat at night. On top of that, it sounds different based on my mood and health. So, this has a high potential for false positives and false negatives.
Then there's the matter of reproducing voiceprints. People have done that for decades for practical jokes, comedy routines, and more. It's not only possible; it has been done already and can readily be done by anybody who puts a little effort into learning how.
Finally, there's the matter of fraud. Combine the two above observations, and your bank can forge your "voice signature" and then play back audio if you can even afford to take them to court. Viola, the banks literally own absolutely everything and nobody has property rights.
Brilliant.
Using tech like this to improve voice recognition and speech synthesis is useful. Using it to verify identities is problematic and should be banned before it causes any serious problems, destroys lives and livelihoods, and wastes resources and time. This is quite possibly the worst, most easily abused application of technology I've ever heard of any government or institution being idiotic or corrupt enough to try.
To "victim-blame", there has to be a victim. Notice how these celebrities are so embarrassed about the "leaks" that they make sure we keep talking about them. Notice how their attorneys are looking for the biggest, most wealthy entities to sue (such as Google) and not doing anything to find the alleged culprits. Notice how we haven't heard a word out of the so-called "hacker" since a few news stories said that person went into hiding.
What happened here is that somebody got the idea that celebrity photos could be "leaked" to rake in lawsuit bucks. I don't believe that there is a hacker. The people with the most to gain from this are the so-called "victims". They didn't expect us to actually be appalled at their privacy being violated. They didn't expect comments to be posted all over the Internet by people who have seen the leaked content that it's underwhelming and not worth looking up. They expected the Internet to go wild over this like tabloid gossipers, as if we all have a paparatu mentality.
Celebs, we actually like you for your talents and not your bodies. And we respect you as people. Sorry about that.
Take a deep breath. You are wrong. If you're like me then you really appreciate the times when that's a good thing.
Ebola is spread via bodily fluids, and it needs an opening to the body to be contracted. There's a nurse who caught it because she touched her face after working with a patient. The face has openings to the body. Getting an infected someone's blood, urine, or saliva on a cut is a surefire way to catch it. So, it's not as communicable as Captain Trips from The Stand, but don't let that inspire complacency either.
Medical workers responding to the outbreak in Liberia have been photographed burning the belongings of ebola victims, and sanitizing with pure chlorine anything that can't be burned. Think about your sheets and mattress. You sleep on those, so it's inevitable that bodily fluids will come into contract with them. Now think of the number of people who don't wash their hands after using a public bathroom. How many people use a public bathroom and some time later rub their eyes?
So, there's good news and bad news. The good news is that with careful hygiene and quarantine with appropriate protective equipment used and all procedures properly followed, an outbreak can be prevented. The bad news is that if there is an outbreak, it's almost guaranteed to be an epidemic because people won't do what they have to in order to prevent further infections. They simply won't listen, guaranteed.
I really wish that hospitals would consult with the US Army regarding proper procedures when dealing with NBC contaminants because from what I've read, the current procedures are lacking in proper rigidity or are otherwise not followed properly. They need to start with replacing their ridiculous protective equipment. That flimsy crap is made on the cheap, sold at a stupid markup, and is simply not good enough.
Would you choose different words were this an on-the-air interview instead of an anonymous Internet post?
If not, then rock on. You speak as you choose, damn the consequences. But if so, then you shouldn't have used those words here either. Whichever way, what's the point in defending it if you really think there's nothing wrong with it?
If you just reply making this about me, I'll just figure you were trolling.
Last I saw, that debate wasn't split on party lines. Some of each party said both. Oh, but no, let's just treat every single event that ever happens like one US political party is always right and the other wrong. Because when you get elected in one party you become a god. They're not at all just people with their own opinions and ideas who make mistakes. And when you get elected to the other party, you sit around wringing your hands trying to think about how to screw up. Because they too aren't just people trying to stumble through awesome responsibilities.
Behold the brilliance of American politics. Nothing in the world is more important than choosing which group you'll worship.
Slashdot Mirror
I took the question to be more a layperson's request for explanation. I don't think they meant to get that technical, though I could be wrong.
This isn't particle duplication. States are marked, and then the particle is observed in one state. But then the other states can be observed as well -- there just won't be an electron at any of those places except the one where it is observed.
You're confused because you're mixing up the states of a particle with the particle itself. If your wave function describes a distribution of positions, then each position continues to exist after the wave function is collapsed by observation.
I can explain briefly. Since I don't know your background, I'll break this up into sections. Skip what you know.
Scale
Depending on the lengths of space involved with a topic of study in Physics, one of three schools of thought will be used. At the macro scale, the lengths that we experience day to day, Newtonian mechanics are usually good enough. At very large scales appropriate for studying stars, planets, and so on, General Relativity comes into play. At very small length scales appropriate for studying atoms and their constituent particles, Quantum Mechanics is used. There are far more fields in Physics, but these three provide the broadest toolset in these terms.
Superposition
The world as we experience it has some fairly intuitive rules, like cause and effect. We call that determinism; that if we know the initial state of a system and the rules that it follows then we can predict what state it will end up in. You know what will happen if you life your mouse and let go: it will fall to the surface you lifted it from. In Quantum Mechanics, determinism does not apply.
One of the things required for determinism to work is that one set of initial conditions produces one outcome under the rules that govern how the system proceeds in time. The dropped mouse falls back to the surface beneath it. In Quantum Mechanics, there is no "one outcome", but instead there are many. Let's call these outcomes "states," because this applies to the initial conditions as well. When an observation is made, only one state is found, and the wave function describes the probabilities of finding each related state. Until the observation is made, every state exists or is happening simultaneously. We call that a "superposition" of states.
Wave Summations
One of the mathematical tricks used to solve for a wave function takes into consideration several possible waves and sums them. Now, this gets fairly complicated and it's well beyond the scope of an Internet forum post to explain it fully. Suffice to say that we call each wave summed to get the end wave function a "wave packet". That math is at work around you all the time; it's used to turn the analog radio signals used for broadcasts into square waves for digital broadcasts, for example. The researchers discussed in this article are not breaking down wave functions into wave packets, but I explain this because I want to impress upon readers that wave functions describe multiple states.
Finally, this article...
The researchers have found a way to isolate states in the superposition to observe them individually, which is interesting for many reasons. You may have heard of the double slit experiment, which is a good analogy for this. When particles are observed before passing through the slit, they appear as particles with determinate positions (wave function collapse) but when they're not observed, they appear as interference patterns between waves (superposition). Using that experiment purely as an analogy, these researchers have found a way to observe the particles that form the interference patterns so that each can be studied individually.
You have a point about threats involving your actual, real world address, but not the one you want. So you went too far.
Stopping people from making threats that involve real world info leaves the actual info insecure. This isn't an either, or kind of thing. It can be forbidden by law to threaten somebody, and we can also see better security. But if the measures against threats come first then the only effect it will have on real vandals, stalkers, rapists, and killers is that people will be warned less often. Shouldn't we see security improve first, and then halt the threats?
Next you go on to talk about groupthink and how it affects reality. I agree with you that it does happen that way often, but that went on long before the Internet and would continue if a massive solar flare sent us back to the Nineteenth Century. How do you propose to distinguish groupthink or baloney from wellsprings of truth and clarity of thought? Would you simply deny the right of free expression to anybody you personally disagree with?
Being wrong is not trolling, no matter how many people do it in chorus, and it can not be made illegal. Being wrong is important, even in the rare cases where human discourse really does come down to a demonstrably true or false set of statements. By the way, that includes all of science, history, math, and... nothing else whatsoever. Even for those subjects, being wrong provides opportunities to learn. Unless you had all the knowledge of humanity downloaded into your brain when you were born, and you update regularly, you are guaranteed to be wrong sometimes just like every other human to ever live. If that is "trolling", and "trolling" is to be illegal, then every single person on the planet will be a criminal.
Passion is great, and good intentions are appreciated, but you can't just go making laws based on emotion and good will alone. Considering the real world harm that can be caused by a group of legislators who just assume they know best for everybody, I'd rather deal with trolls.
Are you unaware that HFCS means, "High fructose corn syrup"?
Are you *really* suggesting that fructose is to high fructose corn syrup as sulfuric acid is to water? That's not as smart as you think.
Yes, anybody who cites peer reviewed research to disagree with you is a troll; especially when you tried to give the impression that the research doesn't exist.
The overall message of your previous post was that the HFCS lore and "wacko hysteria". So, you basically begin by calling anybody who disagrees with you a "wacko" and conclude by calling anybody who provides counter-citations a "troll". Do you have any arguments that don't begin and end with insulting those who disagree with you?
An actual troll (unlike your use of the term) is somebody who appeals to emotion for negative effect, for sadistic enjoyment or for manipulation. You are, by definition, a troll. Though I get that the term is bastardized to the point that it doesn't mean anything these days.
Metastudies are bullshit. Unless they consider ALL peer-reviewed literature on the topic, they're just a fancy way of cherry-picking to make an idea look more credible. Nobody with any academic training in science takes metastudies seriously because they're nothing more than over-glorified book reports.
And here's another study that's not from Yale and doesn't use a red herring to confuse people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
It has been suggested that increased fructose intake is associated with obesity. We hypothesized that chronic fructose consumption causes leptin resistance, which subsequently may promote the development of obesity in response to a high-fat diet.
What gives you two away as shills is that you use strong, unscientific words. There's no, "should," "could," "may," etc, but talk of what is and isn't. Then you both misrepresent the research by pretending that you're citing the one and only peer-reviewed source. This is all capped off with the classic tactic of misrepresenting the body of evidence that disagrees with you. Both of you could be hired social media climate change denialism shills just as easily. Learn some new tricks.
If you know how to use PubMed, then you can't play up ignorance as an excuse. Go tell your bosses at Coca-Cola or wherever that we're not buying it. But tell them not to worry, because we'll all slowly kill ourselves with their delicious, delicious products anyway.
There's also the fact that nobody is going to join in a good-faith social effort because they're threatened and "forced" to. Bullying is not an answer to bullying. When I see somebody use slurs, I tell them what I think of that. It can be seen on this profile. But I don't think we need a movement to inspire people to war with, harass, and bully each other while disrupting communities just because some people want ad revenue or attention. That's not how you get people to play nice. That's how you start trouble.
To lie is to knowingly make a false statement. To prove that I have lied requires showing that my statement is false and showing that I knew it was false at the time that I made it. You have done neither. The first post I see on your link says, "Nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission."
I don't see any links to stories regarding lawsuits over employment discrimination.
How about the ugly side that you can't question whether this PR stunt is genuine without being marked a troll on Slashdot? The Gamergate crowd ARE gamer trolls, and they're infecting communities outside of their games to lower the quality of conversation. It's not that terrible a thing to deal with, but a nuisance is a nuisance. They're doing nothing more than engineering social viruses to disrupt communities and get attention.
I have one question for them: If they have so much proof of gender discrimination in the gaming industry, why are they trolling the Internet instead of taking to the courts to do something about it? We have the means in place to correct that, and they're not a moderation drop down menu on Slashdot, a comment field on Youtube, nor a comment thread on Reddit.
You're right that people need to grow up and have thicker skin, but I don't think there's actually a problem with that. It's just a media circus for attention. Even those who don't accept ad revenue are building a following and name for themselves. Mark my words: come their next topic, they will be taking that revenue, or they'll be hired by yellow journalism outfits.
If I'm wrong and they're just trolling us for fun, then they're probably mentally unstable.
I should also mention that if there is no legal action taken, then this is crying wolf and doing that will only worsen sexism.
See, this is another example what I mean. Half the references to "gamergate" say that the scandal is sexism in the industry. The other half say it's a response to combating sexism in the industry. But either way, employment discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal. So, are game developers confessing to having broken the law up until some recent epiphany that they shouldn't do that? Either way, this whole thing becomes more dubious.
Let's keep this simple: Don't be a dick to people and obey the law. That applies to FAR more than just sexism, do I don't see why we're narrowing in on one group. If game developers have really treated women that poorly for so long that this is necessary then we should be reading about lawsuits and fines, not online arguments and drama.
The more of a circus this becomes without any legitimate action or litigation related to it, the more it looks like theater for publicity and clicks.
I feel the same way about it, and I'll say so even though this thread is being modded without integrity. -gate is added to terms so that we're signaled to be outraged. It's an overused media trick that has gotten trite. Just adding "gate" as a suffix doesn't make something as serious an issue as the POTUS having thugs break into a hotel to steal documents from political opponents...
Labeling your racist slurs as racism and answering your assumptions about my state of mind with assumptions about yours aren't ad hominems. You're wrong because the things you have said fall into the categories of hateful, delusional, and pure bullshit and not because you are you. But just make whatever excuse you need to in order to continue your racist tirades and delusional attempts at online telepathy. If people with your ideas were capable of admitting when they're wrong, then people with your ideas wouldn't exist.
Absolutely not. The reason Gamergate seems forced and staged is that everybody deals with exactly the same bullying and discrimination in gaming. That is, from gamers. It's worthy of applause that game developers are taking a stand against sexism, but they are already required to do that by laws barring discrimination by employers. If people went to the media to brag about how they didn't murder anybody today, would we reward them? Were game developers not doing that, then they would be subject to expensive litigation and potentially, fines.
People are being shown the ugly side of the gaming community as it applies to sting one group and only one group. Now get into some online games and tell them you're black, hispanic, asian, white, rich, poor, or practically any other descriptor you can come up with and you'll find the same thing. Most of the time, nobody will care, and sometimes, you'll be bullied. Women do not have a monopoly on victimhood and we all need to have thick skin when dealing with random strangers who have no reason to care how we feel; especially when we're competing with them. Duh.
Gamegate is happening because it gets views, which generates ad revenue, and it's a good public relations stunt for game developers. That's all there is to it.
I can't take "gamergate" seriously because it seems so staged and fake. The articles even seem forced.
In this country, we don't publish the home addresses of politicians. We have too many people of such diversity that some are inevitably cray cray. Your family knowing where you live is beside the point, and your address being public has nothing to do with whether you use a racial slur.
But the fact that you used that slur will be used against you by your competition in the campaign. Duh.
If you're accused of a serious crime, you may be in jail, but unless you live in one of the few countries on the Earth who just execute people or throw them in a pit on an accusation alone, you will have a trial. And your apparent deviant character as demonstrated by your racist bigotry online will be used to help convict you.
I'm sorry, troll, but you're not good enough at trolling to make me feel any rage. But there you go again assuming yourself to have magical telepathy powers that work over the Internet. My rationality wasn't blurred. If you are not trolling then if I were you, I would see a doctor because something is apparently restricting the blood supply to your brain.
Using words that you assume others have in their mind as if you're telepathic when you know those words are offensive does not do people a service. You're not a luminary shining light on the true inner workings of human minds, saving the world one racial slur at a time. You're just a narcissistic racist. And what you describe is trolling, so calling those who call you on it "trolls" is laughable.
I don't care enough to try and dox you, but thanks for giving public permission to anybody who might. If what you say is true and you ever decide to run for public office, you're accused of a serious crime, you go through family court litigation, or you face any other circumstance whereby others have incentive to put your character under scrutiny, then God help you.
There's another problem I didn't mention. Actually, two.
The first issue is one of trust. The big banks have in the past foreclosed on homes they did not own a mortgage for, to include homes that did not have a mortgage at all. That's only one example of misconduct by banks. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust that banks would not abuse this to commit forgery. If they intend it to replace other systems, then that is exactly what they will end up doing. Do we really need to debate whether governments will abuse this? Governments abuse everything.
There is no such thing as perfect security. If software engineers the world over can't even get encryption to work without being broken and can't manage to protect so much as photos in the cloud, what is supposed to make us confident that they'll somehow make this an unbreakable system? There have been close calls with nuclear weapons, and we should expect those to be the most secured technology in the world. So, there WILL be penetrations of the voice imprint system.
If the banks layer this on top of other security, then that's not so bad. Adding more layers to security is never a bad thing. But this is looking like something meant to *replace* other security layers, and that will lead to big trouble.
Signatures require a physical presence at some point, thus attaching human witnesses, a fax number, or an address. All of that is missing with voice imprints.
My voice sounds different on every single device I've ever heard it played back from. That's in addition to it sounding different based on the time of day; bass in the morning, flat at night. On top of that, it sounds different based on my mood and health. So, this has a high potential for false positives and false negatives.
Then there's the matter of reproducing voiceprints. People have done that for decades for practical jokes, comedy routines, and more. It's not only possible; it has been done already and can readily be done by anybody who puts a little effort into learning how.
Finally, there's the matter of fraud. Combine the two above observations, and your bank can forge your "voice signature" and then play back audio if you can even afford to take them to court. Viola, the banks literally own absolutely everything and nobody has property rights.
Brilliant.
Using tech like this to improve voice recognition and speech synthesis is useful. Using it to verify identities is problematic and should be banned before it causes any serious problems, destroys lives and livelihoods, and wastes resources and time. This is quite possibly the worst, most easily abused application of technology I've ever heard of any government or institution being idiotic or corrupt enough to try.
To "victim-blame", there has to be a victim. Notice how these celebrities are so embarrassed about the "leaks" that they make sure we keep talking about them. Notice how their attorneys are looking for the biggest, most wealthy entities to sue (such as Google) and not doing anything to find the alleged culprits. Notice how we haven't heard a word out of the so-called "hacker" since a few news stories said that person went into hiding.
What happened here is that somebody got the idea that celebrity photos could be "leaked" to rake in lawsuit bucks. I don't believe that there is a hacker. The people with the most to gain from this are the so-called "victims". They didn't expect us to actually be appalled at their privacy being violated. They didn't expect comments to be posted all over the Internet by people who have seen the leaked content that it's underwhelming and not worth looking up. They expected the Internet to go wild over this like tabloid gossipers, as if we all have a paparatu mentality.
Celebs, we actually like you for your talents and not your bodies. And we respect you as people. Sorry about that.
And how exactly do you propose we fund these so-called "oceans"?
Take a deep breath. You are wrong. If you're like me then you really appreciate the times when that's a good thing.
Ebola is spread via bodily fluids, and it needs an opening to the body to be contracted. There's a nurse who caught it because she touched her face after working with a patient. The face has openings to the body. Getting an infected someone's blood, urine, or saliva on a cut is a surefire way to catch it. So, it's not as communicable as Captain Trips from The Stand, but don't let that inspire complacency either.
Medical workers responding to the outbreak in Liberia have been photographed burning the belongings of ebola victims, and sanitizing with pure chlorine anything that can't be burned. Think about your sheets and mattress. You sleep on those, so it's inevitable that bodily fluids will come into contract with them. Now think of the number of people who don't wash their hands after using a public bathroom. How many people use a public bathroom and some time later rub their eyes?
So, there's good news and bad news. The good news is that with careful hygiene and quarantine with appropriate protective equipment used and all procedures properly followed, an outbreak can be prevented. The bad news is that if there is an outbreak, it's almost guaranteed to be an epidemic because people won't do what they have to in order to prevent further infections. They simply won't listen, guaranteed.
I really wish that hospitals would consult with the US Army regarding proper procedures when dealing with NBC contaminants because from what I've read, the current procedures are lacking in proper rigidity or are otherwise not followed properly. They need to start with replacing their ridiculous protective equipment. That flimsy crap is made on the cheap, sold at a stupid markup, and is simply not good enough.
Would you choose different words were this an on-the-air interview instead of an anonymous Internet post?
If not, then rock on. You speak as you choose, damn the consequences. But if so, then you shouldn't have used those words here either. Whichever way, what's the point in defending it if you really think there's nothing wrong with it?
If you just reply making this about me, I'll just figure you were trolling.
Last I saw, that debate wasn't split on party lines. Some of each party said both. Oh, but no, let's just treat every single event that ever happens like one US political party is always right and the other wrong. Because when you get elected in one party you become a god. They're not at all just people with their own opinions and ideas who make mistakes. And when you get elected to the other party, you sit around wringing your hands trying to think about how to screw up. Because they too aren't just people trying to stumble through awesome responsibilities.
Behold the brilliance of American politics. Nothing in the world is more important than choosing which group you'll worship.