Nazi's werent bad for believing in eugenics, Nazi's were bad for believing in negative eugenics. It's the violence that made them bad. Abortion is better than genocide don't you agree? Transhunamism is also better than endless violence and genocidal wars, don't you agree?
It's not like humans should not select their genes, if humans want to be all one appearance, or all be intelligent, I have no problem with this as long as we do it non-violently, and as long as it's democratic. If parents decide to cure their child of downsyndrome so be it, and if parents want blonde children so be it.
It's a completely different story to violently murder self aware beings, this is clearly morally wrong. The genetic engineering, and screening, this in my opinion is not morally wrong, it's debateable as a path to take sure, but if no ones harmed by it, and if in fact it's good for the species, it's morally right at least in my opinion.
So the bill needs to be a lot stronger. That I can agree with, the words are the problem and as I've read it I can see a lot of potential lawsuits.
So if it passes in it's current weak form it's going straight to the supreme court where it will likely be nullified.
It might better to change the hiring practice altogether and let computers and software rate potential employees on a point system.
I think if any human is involved in hiring they will be biased genetically, so genetic discrimination will always take place even if you want to hire the most intelligent employee, intelligence is genetic too and you'll still end up in a situation where you will be discriminating.
So I think it should be restricted to health related information, because I think some genetic information might actually be job related, like intelligence.
How can you determine who to hire without some form of discrmination?
Even if it's based on who is most intelligent, if we find that intelligence is a gene or set of genes, this law would not stop a determined employer from simply asking all potential employees for the genetic test results of SPECIFIC tests for SPECIFIC genes.
In the case of healthcare the situation is much more clear and makes more sense, but in hiring it's going to cause a LOT of lawsuits, confusions, and may end up in the supreme court.
The damage is done, it's not that humans are fucked up animals, it's that some humans are simply wild destructive uncivilized animals. It's our job to figure out why this particular human decided that it was okay, to murder many innocent people.
It's your job, to limit/cap human destructiveness, because if you don't, you, I, we, will be destroyed by our own nature. The best way, in my opinion, is to have better surveillance of human behavior. This may not stop all crime, but we need to stop focusing on the guns, or on these things, and focus directly on the criminal himself, the murderer himself, the serial killer himself. We need to take a mental profile of this individual, we also need to capture a behavioral profile of this individual. When a person decides to go on google, and search for ways to kill massive amounts of people, it should be logged. When a person decides to go buy the equipment, they should be tracked by the authorities at that moment.
It's not thoughts that cause crimes, it's thoughts backed up by verifiable actions, that match a behavioral profile of say, a school shooter. A school shooter has to buy a lot of guns, a school shooter has to get some sorta gun training, meaning they have to practice shooting. A school shooter, usually has to have a certain emotional profile, a certain psychological profile, and of course we should take into account, based on interviews what the situations are in their life.
What I'm saying is, we need to prevent crimes, and in order to do this we need to maximize our computer technology to identify suspicious behavior. When that suspicious behavior reaches a certain point, backed up by actions such as purchases, we can now say they have intent, and their threat level should be increased. The threat level should be adjusted based on how destructive an individual is (past criminal record), and their capability for destruction (If an angry person, who expresses feelings, or fantasies which involve killing lots of innocent people, purchases lots of weapons), it should influence the behavioral profile.
Basically criminal profiling and behavioral profiling does work. I don't think most individuals are going to behave like this. A lot of individuals may think about it, even fantasize about it, but very few actually do it.
Just like a lot of people have rape fantasies, or pedophile fantasies, but very few actually go out and do it. So just as we have sting operations to "catch a predator", it's very much the same with mass murderers. It should be possible to know a person is thinking about it by looking at their internet logs, but just thinking is not a crime, nor should it be. When this person actually goes to meet the underaged child, or makes the purchase of the weapons, thats when they should be watched. Basically you have to have behavioral surveillance, and this would require a lot of technology which does not exist yet, but which would increase security immensely.
If someone behaves like a terrorist, rapist, serial killer, the more their behavior matches that of the behavior of many previous criminals, the more attention they should get from authorities. The computers should basically list the people who have criminal behaviors, along with some verifable intent, such as purchases, or just an expression of intentions in the form of threats.
They mention there was a bomb threat previously, if there is a bomb threat that should immediately trigger a vast investigation. I really hope that this criminal in the school shooting was not the same guy who created the bomb threat because if thats the case our security is REALLY weaker than I thought. If someone makes a threat of that sort they should be watched. That's basically a terrorist threat.
Beyond technological improvements and increasingly sophisticated behavioral modeling and profiling tools. We need to be better parents, and have better parenting tools. We also need to end school bullying, and start to focus on what causes people to become like this in the first pla
Can anyone give me a valid reason why we MUST eat corn? Why should the corn industry care how we consume it as long as we buy it and keep paying higher prices for it?
I'd think ethanol is better for the corn industry. Why? Because more people would be buying corn. The alternative, is to just put corn syrup in drinking water and force everyone to drink it.
Which do you prefer?
I'd prefer we put it in our cars. I'm not concerned about American eating habits, we have shitty eating habits to begin with. We should focus more on how we can turn our excess foods into cash. If we can turn corn into cash, thats perfect. I don't care what we do with it, I don't care if we turn it into syrup and put it into our cars instead of our bodies, what difference does it make to you and me where the fuel is used or how it's used? If we own corn stock what difference does it make to us how the stock rises or falls?
I honestly could care less as long as the corn becomes the cash. So the first thing we have to get rid of, is this irrational food fetishism, where we think we must eat certain crops and not others. We need to diversify our eating habits.
Also, the fact that corn is genetically engineered, shouldnt we use our genetically engineered crops in our cars? Or would you rather eat it?
The US is the #1 country for corn crops, we should use our excess corn to create fuel. Why do you want to pay more to get it from Brazil? And what exactly are we going to do with the excess corn if we don't use it as fuel?
I think corn is the best choice to fuel our cars. It's the best choice because corn syrup and all those corn products, are designed for cars, not people. These products were made in a lab, why don't we just start drinking gasoline and then complain that all our food has gas in it and we can't disrupt that?
I think it would be better for the markets and for our health to make corn into fuel, and bring sugar back as a sweetener. I don't think the food industry depends on corn. The food industry goes in whichever direction is cheapest, because they just want sales. They'd sell piss if it were cheaper than cornsyrup and sweeter. The point is, if the prices of corn goes up, the food industry will either go back to sugar, or invent something else. The farmers would benefit the most because if the price of corn syrup goes up, it helps the farmers. If the price of sugar goes up, it helps the farmers. If the food industry thinks it's too expensive then they'll stop using sugar and corn syrup and use some of the alternative sweetners. So it would be diet coke instead of coke, so what?
The food arguement makes no sense. Why is corn suddenly the most important food, as if we can only eat corn and drink corn syrup?
That's ridiculous. In fact, we have so much corn that theres corn syrup in everything, and this Fidel is telling us we should put more corn syrup in our food? Fidel can drink his coke, his pepsi, and enjoy his corn syrup. I'd prefer that stuff in my car, or fueling our economy.
3 billion people won't starve, we have no shortage of food, never had a shortage of food, we have shortages of clean water and education but free food is everywhere.So this arguement that we need our corn syrup, for the sake of starving children, I think is utterly ridiculous, it's like telling us we need junk food in the school cafeterias, because our kids would starve if they didnt have their daily supply of junkfood. Corn is the primary ingredient in all junk foods.
The universe exists when it became self aware, before that it did not exist, and if it loses self awareness it dies.
So far, there is no such thing as "random", or "nothing", so these terms make no scientific sense and should never be used in a scientific debate about creation, or anything else really. Either everything in the universe came from something else, or the universe came into existence from observation, There is absolutely no evidence that anything can pop in or out of existence, I've never seen that into a lab, and unless he's talking about some quantum particle doing the time travel or being in two places at once, I'm not exactly sure what experiments he has done to prove it.
So his theory so far, even if he tries to back it up with math, would never really be able to prove that randomness can exist. What it can prove is the universe started out as perhaps less ordered, but order comes from observation, the more observers, the greater the order, and this is even shown on the quantum level.So yeah, I welcome Mr. Hawkings diversity of thought on this issue, because many people who don't want to believe a God created the universe, and who want to maintain an essential strict materialist view, may appreciate his ideas.
However, if you believe in God, or you don't believe anything is ever random, then there must always be an observer and a controller to bring order.
I read his article, it's heavy on theory and speculation, it's mostly philosophy and theory. If you want an alternative you can look for what the beep do we know on Google Video and you'll get more opinions on what the universe is. Some believe the universe exists only due to observers observing matter into existence, and some think the universe exists because of strings, and some thing the universe exist only because of matter.
I think there was a time where there was no matter, but this does not prove there were no observers, because the observers could have come from another dimension, or another universe, or even from the quantum, which is not exactly solid, but which does exist.
Nothing is actually something, because in order to think about nothing, it has to be something, and the thought of nothing contains the energy of it.
So I don't think it makes sense, for a scientist as smart as Hawking, to come up with a foolish theory that you can get something from nothing, if thats the case he should also be able to give us unlimited energy from nothing. The everything from nothing also means anything from nothing, everything is energy, so energy from nothing is what he'd have to prove to make his case.
I don't think he can prove that energy can pop in, so his theory to me in bullshit until he can pop in unlimited energy proving it.
Not everyone is a violent criminal. I've never commited a violent crime. So yeah everyone is a criminal, but we are not all the same kind of criminal. Most people don't want to pay their taxes or, they commit non-violent types of crime.
The violent criminals, like the rapists and murderers, these are the criminals we think about when we think about convicts. I'm not concerned with the drug dealers, or the tax cheats.
Just because mostly minorities get caught for criminal activitity it does not mean that most crimes are commited by minorities, it simply means that when white males commit the same crimes they don't get caught, perhaps because they are above the law somehow.
All groups are filled with criminals, I've never met a gruop of angels in my life. I don't trust sny race, or any group, they are are equally dangerous and equally evil, it's about the individuals not the groups.
There are individuals I like. I don't care for groups.
Yeah there are some games with black characters. I don't think however that race as a social concept should be forced into the gaming industry.
If a character is black then the character is black, most fighting games, sports games, and others, have a variety of characters to choose from. Anything from Mortal Kombat to Virtua Fighter to Tekken to Madden.
I don't see how this is an issue worth discussing.
It's not science that will fix global warming, people will solve it. That's the whole point, if each and every person does not come up with their own unique solutions, applying their talents and abilities, then even if there is more science, it will not be solved.
This is a multi-disciplinary challenge. It will not be solved simply by terraforming, although terraforming does help, we have a long long way to go to create a more efficient planet. The lack of efficiency exists everywhere, from the lack of economic efficiency which causes the massive amounts of joblessness and poverty in the third world, to the poor designs of our houses, to the unsustainable use of our land and natural resources. So just telling people to consume less solves nothing, the solution is to consume efficiently, and produce efficiency.
Convicts are already proven guilty. Why should convicted murderers be given a license to buy a gun?
The whole problem is, if they did it once, if they crossed that boundery once, what stops them from doing it twice? If they lacked self control the first time, why do you believe they'd suddenly have self control?
All of their activities around children should forever be monitored.
Did they store the image on ONE photon, or did they store it on MULTIPLE photons. Also, they didn't define what they meant by 'image'. Did they mean 'image' in a sense like storing a photograph of yourself, or did they mean 'image' in the sense that it is an energy level that only codes for ONE PIXEL in an image? From the "UR" sample images, it appears that they were able to only code each individual photo so that it functions as a pixel, rather than an image. Remember, there is a difference between pixels and images.
Sometimes, I think that researchers and engineers get so excited about things that they forget what they are talking about and are so eager to proclaim their new 'discovery' to the world that they tend to over-exaggerate and/or forget what exactly they really did.
As blown out of proportion as their claim is, it is really cool that they were actually able to code photons as pixels.
If photons can encode as pixels, and we can also teleport protons, this means that not only can you store information as protons, but there is no such thing as distance anymore. It boggles the mind.
This sort of technology really would change EVERYTHING.
I hope it changes everything for the better, because I'm not sure humanity is ready for this. Imagine if we discovered that we could manipulate all the matter in the universe through quantum mechanisms. I mean imagine if we actually prove that the whole matter of this universe is just a hologram. It seems like nonsense, but if we can teleport atoms, and photons, and actually encode information into it, maybe we are in the Matrix.
Los Alamos has actually done experiments and proven this is possible.
Look at this
"According to quantum information physicist Daniel F. James, the Los Alamos investigator on the project, "the significance of these results is that they represent an important step forward toward making quantum information processing a reality. Such a technology would exploit the fundamental properties of quantum mechanical systems -- the very properties that make them different from the classical physics phenomena encountered in everyday life -- in order to compute or communicate far more efficiently than is currently possible even with the most advanced super-computers."
In the experiment described in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature, the group achieved teleportation using singly-ionized calcium atoms that were confined and cooled to ultra-low temperatures (around 15 millionths of a degree above absolute zero). Using lasers, the internal configurations of the atoms -- their quantum states -- were controlled very precisely, allowing entanglement between two of the atoms to be created. One of these entangled atoms was then further entangled with a third atom -- the input of the teleporter. By performing a simple measurement on this pair, and another series of interactions dependent on the outcome of the measurement, the original input state was then re-created on the remaining (output) atom. The quantum state teleportation experiments were carried out at the University of Innsbruck's Institute for Experimental Physics."
That is a very good point. However, take into account that fact that light can be teleported too, through quantum entanglement. Combine this with quantum computers, and then you have something really scary.
Slashdot Mirror
Nazi's werent bad for believing in eugenics, Nazi's were bad for believing in negative eugenics.
It's the violence that made them bad. Abortion is better than genocide don't you agree? Transhunamism is also better than endless violence and genocidal wars, don't you agree?
It's not like humans should not select their genes, if humans want to be all one appearance, or all be intelligent, I have no problem with this as long as we do it non-violently, and as long as it's democratic. If parents decide to cure their child of downsyndrome so be it, and if parents want blonde children so be it.
It's a completely different story to violently murder self aware beings, this is clearly morally wrong. The genetic engineering, and screening, this in my opinion is not morally wrong, it's debateable as a path to take sure, but if no ones harmed by it, and if in fact it's good for the species, it's morally right at least in my opinion.
So the bill needs to be a lot stronger. That I can agree with, the words are the problem and as I've read it I can see a lot of potential lawsuits.
So if it passes in it's current weak form it's going straight to the supreme court where it will likely be nullified.
It might better to change the hiring practice altogether and let computers and software rate potential employees on a point system.
I think if any human is involved in hiring they will be biased genetically, so genetic discrimination will always take place even if you want to hire the most intelligent employee, intelligence is genetic too and you'll still end up in a situation where you will be discriminating.
So I think it should be restricted to health related information, because I think some genetic information might actually be job related, like intelligence.
Maybe it's no way to run a society, but thats how society already is.
I don't think this bill will change that, because people were never genetically equal, but the question is how does this bill make society better?
How can you determine who to hire without some form of discrmination?
Even if it's based on who is most intelligent, if we find that intelligence is a gene or set of genes, this law would not stop a determined employer from simply asking all potential employees for the genetic test results of SPECIFIC tests for SPECIFIC genes.
In the case of healthcare the situation is much more clear and makes more sense, but in hiring it's going to cause a LOT of lawsuits, confusions, and may end up in the supreme court.
The damage is done, it's not that humans are fucked up animals, it's that some humans are simply wild destructive uncivilized animals. It's our job to figure out why this particular human decided that it was okay, to murder many innocent people.
It's your job, to limit/cap human destructiveness, because if you don't, you, I, we, will be destroyed by our own nature. The best way, in my opinion, is to have better surveillance of human behavior. This may not stop all crime, but we need to stop focusing on the guns, or on these things, and focus directly on the criminal himself, the murderer himself, the serial killer himself. We need to take a mental profile of this individual, we also need to capture a behavioral profile of this individual. When a person decides to go on google, and search for ways to kill massive amounts of people, it should be logged. When a person decides to go buy the equipment, they should be tracked by the authorities at that moment.
It's not thoughts that cause crimes, it's thoughts backed up by verifiable actions, that match a behavioral profile of say, a school shooter. A school shooter has to buy a lot of guns, a school shooter has to get some sorta gun training, meaning they have to practice shooting. A school shooter, usually has to have a certain emotional profile, a certain psychological profile, and of course we should take into account, based on interviews what the situations are in their life.
What I'm saying is, we need to prevent crimes, and in order to do this we need to maximize our computer technology to identify suspicious behavior. When that suspicious behavior reaches a certain point, backed up by actions such as purchases, we can now say they have intent, and their threat level should be increased. The threat level should be adjusted based on how destructive an individual is (past criminal record), and their capability for destruction (If an angry person, who expresses feelings, or fantasies which involve killing lots of innocent people, purchases lots of weapons), it should influence the behavioral profile.
Basically criminal profiling and behavioral profiling does work. I don't think most individuals are going to behave like this. A lot of individuals may think about it, even fantasize about it, but very few actually do it.
Just like a lot of people have rape fantasies, or pedophile fantasies, but very few actually go out and do it. So just as we have sting operations to "catch a predator", it's very much the same with mass murderers. It should be possible to know a person is thinking about it by looking at their internet logs, but just thinking is not a crime, nor should it be. When this person actually goes to meet the underaged child, or makes the purchase of the weapons, thats when they should be watched. Basically you have to have behavioral surveillance, and this would require a lot of technology which does not exist yet, but which would increase security immensely.
If someone behaves like a terrorist, rapist, serial killer, the more their behavior matches that of the behavior of many previous criminals, the more attention they should get from authorities. The computers should basically list the people who have criminal behaviors, along with some verifable intent, such as purchases, or just an expression of intentions in the form of threats.
They mention there was a bomb threat previously, if there is a bomb threat that should immediately trigger a vast investigation. I really hope that this criminal in the school shooting was not the same guy who created the bomb threat because if thats the case our security is REALLY weaker than I thought. If someone makes a threat of that sort they should be watched. That's basically a terrorist threat.
Beyond technological improvements and increasingly sophisticated behavioral modeling and profiling tools. We need to be better parents, and have better parenting tools. We also need to end school bullying, and start to focus on what causes people to become like this in the first pla
There is always food. People could eat ants, or other insects, worms, or raise chickens and eat other grains like wheat which grow better than corn.
Why is corn so important that you want to force everyone to eat it?
The water in Africa is not clean and the food is not cheap.
There is food, but if people are starving, we are the cause of that. Who do you think was greedy? Which country is the richest?
Africa is practically a tropic environment, it has more food than anywhere. Food is not the problem. Water and disease is more of a problem.
And when we speak of dictators, there was no such thing s a dictator, that was invented in the west, and so was genocide.
Exactly. It goes good with cheddar.
Can anyone give me a valid reason why we MUST eat corn?
Why should the corn industry care how we consume it as long as we buy it and keep paying higher prices for it?
I'd think ethanol is better for the corn industry. Why? Because more people would be buying corn. The alternative, is to just put corn syrup in drinking water and force everyone to drink it.
Which do you prefer?
I'd prefer we put it in our cars. I'm not concerned about American eating habits, we have shitty eating habits to begin with. We should focus more on how we can turn our excess foods into cash. If we can turn corn into cash, thats perfect. I don't care what we do with it, I don't care if we turn it into syrup and put it into our cars instead of our bodies, what difference does it make to you and me where the fuel is used or how it's used? If we own corn stock what difference does it make to us how the stock rises or falls?
I honestly could care less as long as the corn becomes the cash. So the first thing we have to get rid of, is this irrational food fetishism, where we think we must eat certain crops and not others. We need to diversify our eating habits.
Also, the fact that corn is genetically engineered, shouldnt we use our genetically engineered crops in our cars? Or would you rather eat it?
The US is the #1 country for corn crops, we should use our excess corn to create fuel. Why do you want to pay more to get it from Brazil? And what exactly are we going to do with the excess corn if we don't use it as fuel?
I think corn is the best choice to fuel our cars. It's the best choice because corn syrup and all those corn products, are designed for cars, not people. These products were made in a lab, why don't we just start drinking gasoline and then complain that all our food has gas in it and we can't disrupt that?
I think it would be better for the markets and for our health to make corn into fuel, and bring sugar back as a sweetener. I don't think the food industry depends on corn. The food industry goes in whichever direction is cheapest, because they just want sales. They'd sell piss if it were cheaper than cornsyrup and sweeter. The point is, if the prices of corn goes up, the food industry will either go back to sugar, or invent something else. The farmers would benefit the most because if the price of corn syrup goes up, it helps the farmers. If the price of sugar goes up, it helps the farmers. If the food industry thinks it's too expensive then they'll stop using sugar and corn syrup and use some of the alternative sweetners. So it would be diet coke instead of coke, so what?
The food arguement makes no sense. Why is corn suddenly the most important food, as if we can only eat corn and drink corn syrup?
That's ridiculous. In fact, we have so much corn that theres corn syrup in everything, and this Fidel is telling us we should put more corn syrup in our food? Fidel can drink his coke, his pepsi, and enjoy his corn syrup. I'd prefer that stuff in my car, or fueling our economy.
3 billion people won't starve, we have no shortage of food, never had a shortage of food, we have shortages of clean water and education but free food is everywhere.So this arguement that we need our corn syrup, for the sake of starving children, I think is utterly ridiculous, it's like telling us we need junk food in the school cafeterias, because our kids would starve if they didnt have their daily supply of junkfood. Corn is the primary ingredient in all junk foods.
The universe exists when it became self aware, before that it did not exist, and if it loses self awareness it dies.
So far, there is no such thing as "random", or "nothing", so these terms make no scientific sense and should never be used in a scientific debate about creation, or anything else really. Either everything in the universe came from something else, or the universe came into existence from observation, There is absolutely no evidence that anything can pop in or out of existence, I've never seen that into a lab, and unless he's talking about some quantum particle doing the time travel or being in two places at once, I'm not exactly sure what experiments he has done to prove it.
So his theory so far, even if he tries to back it up with math, would never really be able to prove that randomness can exist. What it can prove is the universe started out as perhaps less ordered, but order comes from observation, the more observers, the greater the order, and this is even shown on the quantum level.So yeah, I welcome Mr. Hawkings diversity of thought on this issue, because many people who don't want to believe a God created the universe, and who want to maintain an essential strict materialist view, may appreciate his ideas.
However, if you believe in God, or you don't believe anything is ever random, then there must always be an observer and a controller to bring order.
I read his article, it's heavy on theory and speculation, it's mostly philosophy and theory. If you want an alternative you can look for what the beep do we know on Google Video and you'll get more opinions on what the universe is. Some believe the universe exists only due to observers observing matter into existence, and some think the universe exists because of strings, and some thing the universe exist only because of matter.
I think there was a time where there was no matter, but this does not prove there were no observers, because the observers could have come from another dimension, or another universe, or even from the quantum, which is not exactly solid, but which does exist.
Nothing is actually something, because in order to think about nothing, it has to be something, and the thought of nothing contains the energy of it.
So I don't think it makes sense, for a scientist as smart as Hawking, to come up with a foolish theory that you can get something from nothing, if thats the case he should also be able to give us unlimited energy from nothing. The everything from nothing also means anything from nothing, everything is energy, so energy from nothing is what he'd have to prove to make his case.
I don't think he can prove that energy can pop in, so his theory to me in bullshit until he can pop in unlimited energy proving it.
Not everyone is a violent criminal. I've never commited a violent crime.
So yeah everyone is a criminal, but we are not all the same kind of criminal. Most people don't want to pay their taxes or, they commit non-violent types of crime.
The violent criminals, like the rapists and murderers, these are the criminals we think about when we think about convicts. I'm not concerned with the drug dealers, or the tax cheats.
Just because mostly minorities get caught for criminal activitity it does not mean that most crimes are commited by minorities, it simply means that when white males commit the same crimes they don't get caught, perhaps because they are above the law somehow.
All groups are filled with criminals, I've never met a gruop of angels in my life. I don't trust sny race, or any group, they are are equally dangerous and equally evil, it's about the individuals not the groups.
There are individuals I like. I don't care for groups.
So the new word for thiests is new agers?
Can I call athiests satanists just to be fair?
What if the 5th dimension is self aware matter (life)?
The 4th is obviously space.
Yeah there are some games with black characters.
I don't think however that race as a social concept should be forced into the gaming industry.
If a character is black then the character is black, most fighting games, sports games, and others, have a variety of characters to choose from. Anything from Mortal Kombat to Virtua Fighter to Tekken to Madden.
I don't see how this is an issue worth discussing.
It's not science that will fix global warming, people will solve it.
That's the whole point, if each and every person does not come up with their own unique solutions, applying their talents and abilities, then even if there is more science, it will not be solved.
This is a multi-disciplinary challenge. It will not be solved simply by terraforming, although terraforming does help, we have a long long way to go to create a more efficient planet. The lack of efficiency exists everywhere, from the lack of economic efficiency which causes the massive amounts of joblessness and poverty in the third world, to the poor designs of our houses, to the unsustainable use of our land and natural resources. So just telling people to consume less solves nothing, the solution is to consume efficiently, and produce efficiency.
thats something different. If they never did it then they should not be treated as criminals.
Convicts are already proven guilty. Why should convicted murderers be given a license to buy a gun?
The whole problem is, if they did it once, if they crossed that boundery once, what stops them from doing it twice? If they lacked self control the first time, why do you believe they'd suddenly have self control?
All of their activities around children should forever be monitored.
I think everyone already knows that humans are always the weakest link in security.
Sometimes, I think that researchers and engineers get so excited about things that they forget what they are talking about and are so eager to proclaim their new 'discovery' to the world that they tend to over-exaggerate and/or forget what exactly they really did.
As blown out of proportion as their claim is, it is really cool that they were actually able to code photons as pixels.
If photons can encode as pixels, and we can also teleport protons, this means that not only can you store information as protons, but there is no such thing as distance anymore. It boggles the mind. This sort of technology really would change EVERYTHING. I hope it changes everything for the better, because I'm not sure humanity is ready for this. Imagine if we discovered that we could manipulate all the matter in the universe through quantum mechanisms. I mean imagine if we actually prove that the whole matter of this universe is just a hologram. It seems like nonsense, but if we can teleport atoms, and photons, and actually encode information into it, maybe we are in the Matrix. Los Alamos has actually done experiments and proven this is possible. Look at this "According to quantum information physicist Daniel F. James, the Los Alamos investigator on the project, "the significance of these results is that they represent an important step forward toward making quantum information processing a reality. Such a technology would exploit the fundamental properties of quantum mechanical systems -- the very properties that make them different from the classical physics phenomena encountered in everyday life -- in order to compute or communicate far more efficiently than is currently possible even with the most advanced super-computers."
That is a very good point.
However, take into account that fact that light can be teleported too, through quantum entanglement. Combine this with quantum computers, and then you have something really scary.