Right, because computers are something you can make in your back yard. Don't be dense.
The vast majority of people lack the expertise to build or program computers which would be the actual parallel in this bizarre metaphor you've drawn up.
Please. Don't be dense. The manufacture of munitions(unlike guns, which at their simplest are literally just metal tubes) isn't something that can be done at home by 3d printing. Modern chemical charges can't be made through home processes, and trying to make black powder or other simpler chemical propellents isn't within the grasp of most of the people declaring "revolution" against gun laws, and would be extremely dangerous.
If they sell standardized.22 munitions to go with your 3d printed.22 handgun, there's a good chance you can also acquire the firearm itself(in a designer cheaper and more reliable than the 3d printed version).
This is about as much as an argument as saying "anyone can do backyard rocketry, thus anyone can launch nuclear ICBMs"
"Oh look what a cogent statement about the viability of firearms as a mechanism of social equality" --Me, in an alternate universe where gun-nuts actually back up their stupid beliefs.
"Have been successfully fired" does not contradict the conclusion: 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'
And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about the fundamental limits of a cohesive beam of light to carry data directionally. You're only ever going to get so many photons from here to there, and unless you have a magic particle that imparts more information than light, you're talking quadrillions of years divided at most by a few tens of thousand.
A. You couldn't actually produce identical biomechanical states in any meaningful capacity. The bandwidth requirement alone would be stupidly large. B. If you did have such an ability, biological mechanisms would continue to flow while you built "me", which result in some very very nasty artifacts. You can't bathe in the same river twice.
I think there's a case to be made that genetically being human is far less important to being "human" than the shared culture we've developed. Organically laying out a clone of yourself is far less like yourself than raising an adopted child. This kind of program, while inspired, and theoretically plausible, doesn't actually achieve what we want to achieve.
Christ, so many idiots like you responding to the damn summary and not the article. He's talking about cultural normalization and how it leads people to lock onto stereotypes and you're like "STOP STEREOTYPE ME!"
That's part of the point. Christ. I just want to go full flaimbait for once: you are a goddamn idiot. This argument is stupid. It's irrelevant. It's not helping.
No, it doesn't. That is in no way an idea that can be attributed to Christianity. Neither is an original idea of Christian philosophers(we definitely see it discussed by Plato), nor is it directly in the bible to show a fundamental connection.
What you're doing is a pretty dumb thing: "Intuitively true thing must come from my religion, and since it's intuitively true, it must validate that religion"
Not in deference to experts, but in deference to the trust mechanisms built into the scientific method and scientific academia that are exercised by experts. Evolution happens to be one of the theories that I personally repeated a famous experiment from in high school biology. The consistency with what you, yourself, have verified is an important part of a basic trust in the scientific corpus.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because computers are something you can make in your back yard. Don't be dense.
The vast majority of people lack the expertise to build or program computers which would be the actual parallel in this bizarre metaphor you've drawn up.
Please. Don't be dense. The manufacture of munitions(unlike guns, which at their simplest are literally just metal tubes) isn't something that can be done at home by 3d printing. Modern chemical charges can't be made through home processes, and trying to make black powder or other simpler chemical propellents isn't within the grasp of most of the people declaring "revolution" against gun laws, and would be extremely dangerous.
If they sell standardized .22 munitions to go with your 3d printed .22 handgun, there's a good chance you can also acquire the firearm itself(in a designer cheaper and more reliable than the 3d printed version).
This is about as much as an argument as saying "anyone can do backyard rocketry, thus anyone can launch nuclear ICBMs"
"Oh look what a cogent statement about the viability of firearms as a mechanism of social equality"
--Me, in an alternate universe where gun-nuts actually back up their stupid beliefs.
"Have been successfully fired" does not contradict the conclusion: 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'
And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.
Actually, the greeks invented the symbol being held as IP.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about the fundamental limits of a cohesive beam of light to carry data directionally. You're only ever going to get so many photons from here to there, and unless you have a magic particle that imparts more information than light, you're talking quadrillions of years divided at most by a few tens of thousand.
Which is silly because:
A. You couldn't actually produce identical biomechanical states in any meaningful capacity. The bandwidth requirement alone would be stupidly large.
B. If you did have such an ability, biological mechanisms would continue to flow while you built "me", which result in some very very nasty artifacts. You can't bathe in the same river twice.
In one where biotechnology continues to advance at the rate we've seen in the past 3 decades.
I think there's a case to be made that genetically being human is far less important to being "human" than the shared culture we've developed. Organically laying out a clone of yourself is far less like yourself than raising an adopted child. This kind of program, while inspired, and theoretically plausible, doesn't actually achieve what we want to achieve.
Yeah, because it's so easy to design a new orbital vessel.
Sometimes having an opinion to share is the point.
Right, this is the decade where we start worrying about the economies of space travel instead of just the plausibility.
Not implying anything.
You also post without the intent of communicating? Me too. Let's be friends.
*I'm not actually implying we should be friends.
Christ, so many idiots like you responding to the damn summary and not the article. He's talking about cultural normalization and how it leads people to lock onto stereotypes and you're like "STOP STEREOTYPE ME!"
That's part of the point. Christ. I just want to go full flaimbait for once: you are a goddamn idiot. This argument is stupid. It's irrelevant. It's not helping.
Yeah, that's not what the GP actually wrote. That's a different prediction, and notably one that's totally untrue.
No, it doesn't. That is in no way an idea that can be attributed to Christianity. Neither is an original idea of Christian philosophers(we definitely see it discussed by Plato), nor is it directly in the bible to show a fundamental connection.
What you're doing is a pretty dumb thing: "Intuitively true thing must come from my religion, and since it's intuitively true, it must validate that religion"
Not in deference to experts, but in deference to the trust mechanisms built into the scientific method and scientific academia that are exercised by experts. Evolution happens to be one of the theories that I personally repeated a famous experiment from in high school biology. The consistency with what you, yourself, have verified is an important part of a basic trust in the scientific corpus.
Fine for the pedant who insists on having incorrect opinions respected: it is the scientifically verified explanation for the phenomenon.
Excuses that do work:
I can't get into my account. .mp3 I renamed .doc isn't opening in word?
The internet is down.
What do you mean the
My point is that the objection to the law is okay, but objection to machines that obey laws is stupid.
Your objection is that obeying the law is dangerous.
They perform only a little worse than professional drivers in races as far as time goes.
Is the US approach to the internet fixable within the confines of the political system we have?
You've convinced me. Clearly the only solution is genocide on a greater scale than even Hitler managed.