Why not remove infant girls breast buds? Seriously. You'd save thousands of dollars in breast cancer costs among other things. By this same logic you could well support removing a great many body parts. Imagine the savings if I could be rendered completely hairless?
Clearly they would offer that no matter how much humans through their own personal intelligent design and modify dogs appearances they never stop being dogs as evolution says they should.
Evolution never says that, and the analogy to natural selection is to think about how much greater the modifications of nature could be if working on the principles of success rather than the trivial human inkling of noticed traits in breeding animals. Darwin noted to great lengths the changes by dog breeders and pigeon fanciers go to illicit in their relevant stocks and points out that given geometric growth potential and linear growth actuality that a great many animals that could exist, do not exist because they lose the struggle for existence and any edge in that will pay huge dividends to those descendants with that same benefit and so the natural propensity for life is to improve over time. Which in no way implies dogs becoming non-dogs but rather dogs becoming a rather large group with many very different species without that group given natural selection and millions of years.
With the exception of COBOL those might be fine things to teach kids. They get the basics down without corrupting their ideas. It's pretty easy to go from basic to something like Java because you just relearn everything and the better structures mean you like it more and don't have to unlearn all the crap you learned. You just learn an entirely different form. You're not going to corrupt somebody's ideas by having them write out a factorial program in assembly.
Actually the health care law has some sticks for that stuff too. You need to actually pay a specific percentage of that money towards healthcare costs or cut the people on your health care a check.
Interestingly, the best current source of spider silk today are genetically engineered goats which produce the protein in breast milk. Fiddle with nature indeed.
I'm not supposing this stuff idly as a great what if. People are buying and selling these goods for real money (which is valued at what people value it at too), and when they are actually robbed in a way unassociated with game dynamics they seek restitution if the police won't help them they will help themselves. People have died over the theft of virtual goods. That people spend cash, sweat, and blood in the market necessarily says it's a real market. Shrugging your shoulders because it's hard and forcing it into realms of black markets because people are valuing bits in a computer, is not going to help things.
Your objects value are determined by what they are valued at. They are worth what people are willing to pay for them. With the shut down of a game service the objects would become devoid of value because their value is only as part of the game which no longer existed, effectively the game shutdown would cause an economic collapse of the value items of the game.
If the MMO simply stole your stuff because they wanted to, you should be allowed to sue them for the value of the items. Somebody might well give you real money for those actual items. But, if they shut down, all the items are without value at all because nobody would pay you anything for them even if transferring the items from one deactivated account to another were actually possible.
Add to that the fact that you can sell many of those items for real cash money. And that when property rights are denied there are real and serious problems.
There have been cases where Person A borrows a sword from Person B. Person A sells said sword on Ebay for $500. Person B contacts the police. Police say person B has no recourse. Person B kills Person A.
It's really a problem that such things are not rightly classed as property under current law just because of the digital nature of the good.
If the key is written down and they find it, that's evidence. If it's not then you apparently according to the Supreme Court you still don't have a 5th amendment right there. You have to have forgot it, or never knew it to begin with. Or perhaps claim a 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself by knowing the actual password itself (which could be successful but I've never heard of anybody having argued that). Frankly, if you have the password to somebody elses system and it has illegal data, then the fact that you know the password, in and of itself, is an admission to some compliance or trust between you and certain parties. As such, one should necessarily have a 5th amendment right to the password itself if not to the data concealed by the password.
No. It's speed traveling through vacuum would be a hair below the maximum speed. Depending on the index of refraction of what it's traveling through. Since empty space only has a bunch of virtual particles in it, it would go nearly at C, but not exactly C. It would slow down a bit because there's no such thing as a real vacuum. There's not fewer virtual particles in various regions and as such vacuum space would simply have a very small index of refraction. Generally light does slow down with regard to the medium but not due to the distance. Traveling through a mile of water it would go the same speed as traveling through a foot of water, but both of these would be slower than if it were traveling though air or vacuum.
And how much of a vacuum can you really get in this universe? With all the virtual particles popping in and out all the time. It seems you'd need to be as weakly interactive as a neutrino to avoid being slowed down just by spacetime and all it's particles kicking up all the time. Considering vacuum space is going to have something in it, I wouldn't be that amazed if neutrinos just travel at closer to actual C than light does.
Children tend to be better at picking up language stuff than adults. And we're typically not talking about ununderstandable accents which everybody agrees is an issue, but just run of the mill funny sounding ones.
If a corporation hires you to stand on the street swinging a sign in a tutu, they are allowed. Nothing about asking people to speak in a way that maximizes profits is a violation of civil rights. However government action requiring people speak in a specific way because they want people to talk that way is a potential problem.
First off, it doesn't require an assumption. Darwin was right, and the underlying algorithm works perfectly fine.
The problem is that random tweaking tends to require that there be a genotype, some underlying data that you change slightly. Unless the shape itself is the genome and then tweaking it, is tweaking it. You could, in theory, just pick a random shape and modify that shape specifically in predefined ways and get to any shape possible. The thing about genomes is that they can only code for some specific albeit limited things. You could in fact, look through every genome possible and not find some specific shape. It may well be impossible, to express that phenotype with any available genotype.
Expressing a genome in the same general growth expressive patterns of development will often hamper the range of possible shapes. But, a lot of those shapes you're limited to will be largely more natural looking. Take the notion of symmetry. Humans and most all animals are very symmetric and pretty much everything from Bilatera on has this quality and it's expressed rather clearly in the growth patterns of most animals. How many shapes are there though that are largely non-symmetric. And it turns out (given some limited space) there are hugely more asymmetric shapes than symmetric ones. But, how many of these shapes find themselves in the EndlessForms program? Very few. So while you can likely find twenty ways to get to a Tie Fighter or Butterfly, there's going to be about 0 ways to evolve a corkscrew.
But, yes, you'd have human selectors end up making a truly extensible forms look like a bunch of stuff humans know, but it wouldn't be hugely restricted to the natural looking stuff. Because frankly you'll have more things possible that look like a face in carbonite than a comb.
Slashdot Mirror
Being waited on gripper and wheel doesn't make a person independent. It makes a person dependent on a robot.
Why not remove infant girls breast buds? Seriously. You'd save thousands of dollars in breast cancer costs among other things. By this same logic you could well support removing a great many body parts. Imagine the savings if I could be rendered completely hairless?
Clearly they would offer that no matter how much humans through their own personal intelligent design and modify dogs appearances they never stop being dogs as evolution says they should.
Evolution never says that, and the analogy to natural selection is to think about how much greater the modifications of nature could be if working on the principles of success rather than the trivial human inkling of noticed traits in breeding animals. Darwin noted to great lengths the changes by dog breeders and pigeon fanciers go to illicit in their relevant stocks and points out that given geometric growth potential and linear growth actuality that a great many animals that could exist, do not exist because they lose the struggle for existence and any edge in that will pay huge dividends to those descendants with that same benefit and so the natural propensity for life is to improve over time. Which in no way implies dogs becoming non-dogs but rather dogs becoming a rather large group with many very different species without that group given natural selection and millions of years.
With the exception of COBOL those might be fine things to teach kids. They get the basics down without corrupting their ideas. It's pretty easy to go from basic to something like Java because you just relearn everything and the better structures mean you like it more and don't have to unlearn all the crap you learned. You just learn an entirely different form. You're not going to corrupt somebody's ideas by having them write out a factorial program in assembly.
Screw the 3rd world. If you can do this fast enough and cheap enough, I could filter all my pool water and forgo chlorine entirely!
Actually the health care law has some sticks for that stuff too. You need to actually pay a specific percentage of that money towards healthcare costs or cut the people on your health care a check.
But are you mud on your mother's side or your father's side?
It's not self-sustainable. It's sustained by the sun.
Interestingly, the best current source of spider silk today are genetically engineered goats which produce the protein in breast milk. Fiddle with nature indeed.
I'm not supposing this stuff idly as a great what if. People are buying and selling these goods for real money (which is valued at what people value it at too), and when they are actually robbed in a way unassociated with game dynamics they seek restitution if the police won't help them they will help themselves. People have died over the theft of virtual goods. That people spend cash, sweat, and blood in the market necessarily says it's a real market. Shrugging your shoulders because it's hard and forcing it into realms of black markets because people are valuing bits in a computer, is not going to help things.
Your objects value are determined by what they are valued at. They are worth what people are willing to pay for them. With the shut down of a game service the objects would become devoid of value because their value is only as part of the game which no longer existed, effectively the game shutdown would cause an economic collapse of the value items of the game.
If the MMO simply stole your stuff because they wanted to, you should be allowed to sue them for the value of the items. Somebody might well give you real money for those actual items. But, if they shut down, all the items are without value at all because nobody would pay you anything for them even if transferring the items from one deactivated account to another were actually possible.
Add to that the fact that you can sell many of those items for real cash money. And that when property rights are denied there are real and serious problems.
There have been cases where Person A borrows a sword from Person B. Person A sells said sword on Ebay for $500. Person B contacts the police. Police say person B has no recourse. Person B kills Person A.
It's really a problem that such things are not rightly classed as property under current law just because of the digital nature of the good.
Dead people do not take offense or breath.
Yeah, there's a number of granfalloon accounts too where people have hundreds of thousands of friends. These will strongly lower the averages.
If the key is written down and they find it, that's evidence. If it's not then you apparently according to the Supreme Court you still don't have a 5th amendment right there. You have to have forgot it, or never knew it to begin with. Or perhaps claim a 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself by knowing the actual password itself (which could be successful but I've never heard of anybody having argued that). Frankly, if you have the password to somebody elses system and it has illegal data, then the fact that you know the password, in and of itself, is an admission to some compliance or trust between you and certain parties. As such, one should necessarily have a 5th amendment right to the password itself if not to the data concealed by the password.
No. It's speed traveling through vacuum would be a hair below the maximum speed. Depending on the index of refraction of what it's traveling through. Since empty space only has a bunch of virtual particles in it, it would go nearly at C, but not exactly C. It would slow down a bit because there's no such thing as a real vacuum. There's not fewer virtual particles in various regions and as such vacuum space would simply have a very small index of refraction. Generally light does slow down with regard to the medium but not due to the distance. Traveling through a mile of water it would go the same speed as traveling through a foot of water, but both of these would be slower than if it were traveling though air or vacuum.
You're obviously going to have tared the measuring against air. Making it .9mg above the weight of the air. But, if there is no air, it would weight .9.
And how much of a vacuum can you really get in this universe? With all the virtual particles popping in and out all the time. It seems you'd need to be as weakly interactive as a neutrino to avoid being slowed down just by spacetime and all it's particles kicking up all the time. Considering vacuum space is going to have something in it, I wouldn't be that amazed if neutrinos just travel at closer to actual C than light does.
Not just 68, but our IDs are like 1500 apart. We likely registered within a few days of each other. *shrug*
Nice to have em back.
Awesome!
Reading your post I suddenly noticed that I too have mod points. It's been like 5 years here too. Hm.
Children tend to be better at picking up language stuff than adults. And we're typically not talking about ununderstandable accents which everybody agrees is an issue, but just run of the mill funny sounding ones.
Accent neutralization isn't about being understood it's about sounding normal. Most people with accents are very quickly understandable.
If a corporation hires you to stand on the street swinging a sign in a tutu, they are allowed. Nothing about asking people to speak in a way that maximizes profits is a violation of civil rights. However government action requiring people speak in a specific way because they want people to talk that way is a potential problem.
First off, it doesn't require an assumption. Darwin was right, and the underlying algorithm works perfectly fine.
The problem is that random tweaking tends to require that there be a genotype, some underlying data that you change slightly. Unless the shape itself is the genome and then tweaking it, is tweaking it. You could, in theory, just pick a random shape and modify that shape specifically in predefined ways and get to any shape possible. The thing about genomes is that they can only code for some specific albeit limited things. You could in fact, look through every genome possible and not find some specific shape. It may well be impossible, to express that phenotype with any available genotype.
Expressing a genome in the same general growth expressive patterns of development will often hamper the range of possible shapes. But, a lot of those shapes you're limited to will be largely more natural looking. Take the notion of symmetry. Humans and most all animals are very symmetric and pretty much everything from Bilatera on has this quality and it's expressed rather clearly in the growth patterns of most animals. How many shapes are there though that are largely non-symmetric. And it turns out (given some limited space) there are hugely more asymmetric shapes than symmetric ones. But, how many of these shapes find themselves in the EndlessForms program? Very few. So while you can likely find twenty ways to get to a Tie Fighter or Butterfly, there's going to be about 0 ways to evolve a corkscrew.
But, yes, you'd have human selectors end up making a truly extensible forms look like a bunch of stuff humans know, but it wouldn't be hugely restricted to the natural looking stuff. Because frankly you'll have more things possible that look like a face in carbonite than a comb.