What if the point of the simulation is to determine if a simulation can evolve an entity which is capable of discovering it's in a simulation? What if the point is to evolve an entity which itself creates a simulation capable of such? What if it's simulations all the way down?
If the simulation can be detected and hacked, then the simulation has design or implementation bugs. What would you do if you discovered entities within your simulation has discovered their nature and how how to manipulate it?
Sometimes people do shit just to see if it can be done. Like cramming a full-blown system into a tiny device.
Cramming a "full-blown" system into an Apple Watch would be pretty cool. However, Windows 95 was never a "full-blown" system. It was a system that "fully blowed"; the difference is important. If someone could find a way to delete that piece of shit from the Universe, that would be time well spent.
What do you mean there's no way around it? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day. It's simple to prevent even if you write all your queries with string concatenation. It's called an escape sequence.
You don't think it has anything to do with an utter pain in the ass it is to keep track of user/password and private/public key pairs, vs how simple a bio-scan is?
Bio-scans are easy to understand in practice. You walk up to a thing and touch it/look at it, and you're in. That's the appeal.
There's no reason to kill them. There is plenty of reason to stop them. Stopping someone from committing a crime, and punishing someone for committing a crime, are *completely* separate concepts.
Don't want to get stopped from doing the wrong thing in a potentially deadly fashion, don't do the wrong thing. Seems simple enough.
Truckers do a lot of shit at truck stops that are not relevant to autonomous trucks. They buy greasy food, take a piss, get a blowjob from a hooker who just ate greasy food, carve the bugs off the windshield, replace the air freshener, take a nap, call the wife and tell her he misses her while avoiding talking about hooker blowjobs...
The shit that is relevant, such as checking tire pressure, oil level, carving the bugs off the camera lenses, whatever, can easily be done by the attendant. Not rocket science!
Slashdot Mirror
No, wireless. 802.11tea.
What if the point of the simulation is to determine if a simulation can evolve an entity which is capable of discovering it's in a simulation? What if the point is to evolve an entity which itself creates a simulation capable of such? What if it's simulations all the way down?
If the simulation can be detected and hacked, then the simulation has design or implementation bugs. What would you do if you discovered entities within your simulation has discovered their nature and how how to manipulate it?
GoToo? GoTwo?
That sounds like a horrible trip. There aren't any gas stations out there.
Witnesses say he was going too fast. "He was just flying", noted one person.
Your joke is very transparent.
Peter Gabriel just called from Scotland. He says it's the Fifth of Force.
Can I see you in my office please? :p
I'd put that in its own function, and write it:
case 1: return 4; ...
case 2: return 5;
1) Only one statement per line,
2) The function can be named to make the code more readable in lieu of a comment explaining the switch..
It was a bit loopy.
I do that fairly often, but like:
case 1: return blah;
case 2: return blah * 2;
default: throw up;
Putting two statements on one line really is a bad idea.
Yeah, I think that's the point. We've managed to take something meant for web pages and figured out how to embed fucking operating systems into it.
Sometimes people do shit just to see if it can be done. Like cramming a full-blown system into a tiny device.
Cramming a "full-blown" system into an Apple Watch would be pretty cool. However, Windows 95 was never a "full-blown" system. It was a system that "fully blowed"; the difference is important. If someone could find a way to delete that piece of shit from the Universe, that would be time well spent.
What kind of simulation would give up empirical evidence of its simulationness?
There is no way around it.
What do you mean there's no way around it? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day. It's simple to prevent even if you write all your queries with string concatenation. It's called an escape sequence.
You don't think it has anything to do with an utter pain in the ass it is to keep track of user/password and private/public key pairs, vs how simple a bio-scan is?
Bio-scans are easy to understand in practice. You walk up to a thing and touch it/look at it, and you're in. That's the appeal.
There's no reason to kill them. There is plenty of reason to stop them. Stopping someone from committing a crime, and punishing someone for committing a crime, are *completely* separate concepts.
Don't want to get stopped from doing the wrong thing in a potentially deadly fashion, don't do the wrong thing. Seems simple enough.
1.5 volts does not make for much of a kick...
Mod parent up. I would if I had the points.
Citing any encyclopedia is an automatic F in most universities.
Who cares? Is this a university? No. Quit parroting that stupidity.
They clearly meant "circumcise".
They'll make up for their losses with high volume? Because -4000 (loss) * 1000 (high volume) is, like, a positive number?
Did Nazi that coming.
Truckers do a lot of shit at truck stops that are not relevant to autonomous trucks. They buy greasy food, take a piss, get a blowjob from a hooker who just ate greasy food, carve the bugs off the windshield, replace the air freshener, take a nap, call the wife and tell her he misses her while avoiding talking about hooker blowjobs...
The shit that is relevant, such as checking tire pressure, oil level, carving the bugs off the camera lenses, whatever, can easily be done by the attendant. Not rocket science!