The first time this will probably come into consideration in the real world is consciousness uploading. It's not far fetched that we will eventually have the technology to take a snapshot of all of the atoms in our bodies and simulate that arrangement on a computer of some sort.

It would be exactly like your consciousness if it's simulated with 100% accuracy. And again, who can say that we'll never get to that point? But when your biological self dies, will you really be immortal if the original consciousness is destroyed?

I believe that you are correct, and Carr was not actually fined or otherwise legally penalized for his remarks.

However, it *was* a possibility that he would be, according to the first line in the article I linked to in my first post in this thread:
"Jimmy Carr could face sanctions for making a joke about dwarves during an appearance on BBC1’s The One Show."

I believe that I read other news articles that suggested that was a possibility at the time it happened, but I can't find anything with a real quick search now.

Going outside of the scope of that single incident, I definitely have seen quite a few reports of things that I would consider to be fairly trivial incidents like this being looked at by the UK government as "hate speech" and therefore potentially subject to "fines, imprisonment, or both" (according to that wikipedia article).

Samples from a quick search include a politician being arrested for quoting a passage about Islam from a book by Winston Churchill, a young man who was jailed for 12 weeks because of "some offensive Facebook posts making derogatory comments about a missing child" (it doesn't say what the posts were exactly; I am not saying I would defend his posts but I don't think anyone should go to jail for being an idiot and running their mouth on the internet), and another young man who was fined for saying that "all soldiers should die and go to hell". Plenty more incidents beyond those as well, it seems.

So while Jimmy Carr didn't end up actually facing any legal repercussions for his joke, I think it is not far fetched at all to suggest that he might have (and there seems to be some evidence that legal repercussions enacted by the government were being considered in that particular incident).

That is what seems crazy / wrong to me. That is NOT freedom of speech; it is freedom of benign speech, with an increasingly narrow view of what speech is benign.

I'm 100% OK with their being "consequences" for Jimmy Carr for his joke. But the government shouldn't be involved in that (and again, to be fair they DID end up staying out of it in that case). The consequences that I think are fine include:

* Ofcom or the BBC passing on some/all of any fines that the government levels against them on to Carr (ie., IF they get fined for breaking broadcast decency standards, make Carr foot the some or all of the bill for that).

* Ofcom or the BBC electing not to invite Carr to appear on any more programs if they are concerned about preventing fines / protecting their image / whatever. They are a business, they gotta look out for themselves.

* Individual people who were offended by Carr's joke boycotting programs that he appears on, refusing to pay to attend his live performances, etc. Obviously. If you don't like what he has to say, you are are of course not obliged to continue to listen to him.

Anything beyond those consequences is going too far in a society that claims it is democratic and free, in my opinion.

It kind of is. Incarceration, torture, and execution are not on the table, true (although in the UK it sounds like incarceration for making remarks deemed to be "offensive" due to racism, discrimination, etc. isn't ALL that far-fetched).

You can think that Carr's joke was lazy and unfunny -- that's fine. Personally I like it, and find it at least mildly clever in that he said it was trying to come up with the "shortest" joke possible. But anyway, some/many people in the UK agreed with you and made complaints to the station. The station/broadcaster came back with that statement you linked to, in my opinion mainly just to cover their own asses in the event of Government intervention (which I am led to believe by several news stories was / still is a real possibility).

The idea that there is any possibility of the Government intervention being required to punish Carr or the station -- purely because some people took offense to some nonsense that he said -- is what I find to be ridiculous.

If you gave me 1.8 million you would own me.

Damn right I own you a favor or two. At least fetch a ham sandwich.

*promote
My promote is some what biased due to topic.

I truly desire to see Hillary wearing an orange suit doing the perp walk.

@vil

The idea that quote unquote Europeans will ever be a minority in Europe is far-fetched. Certainly not from migration while higher birth rates for migrants tend to subside as they assimilate. People get this impression when migrants are overwhelmingly settled in small towns. By it's nature they form a larger portion of the population. In big cities, naturally they want to at least at first settle within their own ethnic communities. It gives people the impression there are more migrants than there actually are.

There's no doubt that many Muslims are culturally very different to Europeans. They come from poorer countries, with different cultural and historical backgorunds, different value systems etc. I don't have a good answer to how this can be improved but I think it's wrong to think they uniqely do not want to integrate. The incentive is always there to assimilate into working culture and earn what is surely much more than the basic social welfare net the governments provide. But it's unrealistic to expect ethnic neighbourhoods & communities not to develop. Here in Sydney we have separate suburbs known for Indian, Korean, Chinese immigrants respectively. I live in a suburb dominated by Lebanese immigrants (FYI I am a Russian immigrant).

Schengen or not, I still don't see a workable way to actually control the vastness of Europe/M-E borders. Kicking out a country like Greece for letting immigrants through would also have immediate costs. A realistic plan similar to that proposed by Merkel is to more equitably share immigrants so no individual country is overburdened. Kicking members out is hardly going to help that.

Again though, the main point is - you can't feasibly prevent migration or control borders without turning Europe into a police state. While I sympathize with the issues raised, as I said it's about finding the best solution of a difficult and unavoidable situation.

Right wing European politician who tell you otherwise are simply lying and misleading people into believing what they want to hear.

@VoodooV! Great to see you back, man!

For everyone else, I backed this game and then I dropped ~$100 on extra ships.

I hope it's all its promised. I hope it's basically Star Wars/Trek/lightning in a bottle. I hope Chris Roberts makes enough to buy Facebook from it.

Do I think that will happen? Not bloodily likely. Am I expecting the greatest game ever? Not a chance.

But fuck me, I don't regret backing it for a second. If all I get is some shiny videos and the promise of something great, then that's worth more than any number of Ubisoft open world fetch quest-a-thons.

This is someone truly trying to push the envelope. To make a game that we dreamed of as kids, and who doesn't give a fuck about commercial realities.

It was so, so, SO fucking worth it to actually see a dec reach for the stars and push everything, especially PC technology.

If it fails ( and it probably will), then fuck it, they failed GLORIOUSLY.

I'd give them another $100 just for that.

I still don't think the scenario they present is that far fetched, people today regularly get operations that they personally could not possibly afford, but insurance covers it. Vets returning from wherever we're fighting then getting hooked up, most vets are probably not rich by any definition. Then get a few rich backers like David Sarif and scientific advocates like Hugh Darrow and you can frame it as a quality of life issue, or even a productivity issue.
You're right about the super limbs not being too practical or likely, I would also add illegal to that list, no beat cop wants to face off against Robocop. But I wonder if even slightly stronger limbs might pose problems of their own? Say you have one of your legs replaced with a cybernetic limb, if that one is stronger than your other meat leg, I wonder if you might not end up favoring that one and that screws up you normal gait, generating a whole bunch of new problems.
The kid in the video we see getting abused seems to only have a cyber leg, I'm not sure how much good a single leg is going to be in a fight, or flight for that matter especially if you are hugely outnumbered. Adam is a different story of course, he was clearly built for combat and infiltration.
The cynic in me would readily agree with the scenario where the wealthy wind up with everything but that sounds almost too perfect and cliche. So I think there's room for other possible futures.

@bobknight33

Talking at you is like playing fetch with a really dumb dog.

I throw out a ball. You come back with a pile of shit in your mouth.

Discussions don't work if you can't be logically consistent.

So for the purposes of this game of "comeback with anything that contradicts a liberal"..

Please stick to the rules:

We're on the Bobknight Logic-Train to Conservatopia.


Now.. your logic states that Minorities rights shouldn't take precedent over the thoughts, opinions & beliefs of the Majority.

If you're being honest - which you never are cause then you'd have to admit you're wrong on most things - wouldn't the logical conclusion to your argument mean..

You shouldn't have any rights on Liberalsift?

I know it hurts your tiny angry racist 53 yr old brain to admit glaring truths.

But try, okay hun?

@Lawdeedaw

There's so much factually wrong here, I don't know where to begin. Let's start with this:

"That rape and mutilation has been going on for centuries but was significant in the Second Sino-Japanese War, a distinct war in and of itself."

Japan was in a state of almost complete isolation from the rest of the world between the years of 1633 and 1853. Even after the period of isolation ended, Japan was too busy for decades industrializing to be rampaging through China, as you suggest.

Japan DID eventually get involved in Chinese politics and in fact went to war with them in the First Sino-Japanese War... in 1894. There are no reports of atrocities committed by the Japanese military during this conflict. In fact, quite the opposite, Japan would release Chinese prisoners of war once they promised not to take up arms against Japan again.

The subjugation of Taiwan (which was ceded to Japan at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War but resisted Japanese rule) is a different story. However, accounts of what exactly happened are sketchy and most of the information we have is anecdotal. What can be gleaned from these anecdotes is that the Formasians put up a fierce guerrilla resistance campaign and that the Japanese tortured and killed anyone suspected of aiding the resistance. Still, it doesn't appear to have been on the same scale as the massacres which occurred during the Rape of Nanking.

As you mentioned, some of the most awful abuses were done during the Second Sino-Japanese War between 1937 and 1945 (the Rape of nanking occurred during this war). The abuse ended Japan's defeat in WWII.

What you can see here by doing the math, is that Japan's military abuses in China lasted a grand total of 50 years--from the subjugation of Formosa (Taiwan) to the end of World War 2--not "centuries."

Next, let's talk about misrepresentation. You seem to be implying that Japanese textbooks don't say that Japan is the aggressor in WW2 (or previous conflicts). As I pointed out in my last post, that is flat-out wrong. There is ONE textbook that was approved for use that whitewashes the history but that book has been ignored an not used by the vast majority of schools in Japan.

If you want to criticize Japanese textbooks, you could criticize them on the grounds that though they mention the terrible things that Japanese forces did, they don't go into a whole lot of detail. See this article for more information.

As far as Abe goes, what exactly has he said that is so terrible? Yes, he hangs out with revisionists. Yes, he has expressed his opinion that Japan should stop apologizing for WWII and start looking to the future instead of the past. Yes, he has said that the issue of "comfort women" should be re-examined in light of claims that some of evidence of their existence was fabricated. But these are not really radical statements by any means. And many people and newspapers do strongly and openly disagree with his statements, so this idea that Japanese people don't challenge him is completely wrong as well.

Yasukuni is a total clusterfuck of a situation. It is a shrine to ALL of Japan's war dead. This includes war criminals, but it also includes regular soldiers just doing their duty. In terms of Shinto beliefs, all of their souls now reside there. Basically, if you want to pay your respects to someone who died in military service in Japan, you have to go there to "see them."

Abe is a total dumbass (and the press let him know it) for going there because he knows already how China and Korea will perceive it, but on the other hand his going there does not mean in any way that he reveres the war criminals who are interred there. I have no idea what his personal views are but publically he has stated that he and his wife go there to remind themselves about the terrible toll war had on Japan the last time Japan engaged in it.

Finally, as for the link you provided, it was to a year-old opinion piece that lacks context. Abe made that statement at a time when it was revealed that some of the evidence of the existence of comfort women in Japan had been faked. It was later decided that the apology would not be changed. In fact, The Japan Times is reporting that it is likely that Abe will mention that "comfort women" had their human rights violated by Japan in his upcoming address on the end of WWII, so the comparison of him to Ahmadinejad is a bit far-fetched.

Absolutely. It's a mistake to make assumptions about what AI will be like. The doomsayers too often attribute human qualities to it. It's like speculating about alien intelligence. It will come in bits an pieces as we understand it more. My own guess is that, not weighed down by long obsolete genetic imperatives and human psychological pathologies, it will most likely be (in its higher form) an extraordinarily capable problem solver and prognosticator. It will lack the human flaws that typically motivate the killer AIs of science fiction. Of course, it will probably have it's own unique flaws. I do think it's wise to be wary of software that has developed beyond our capability to understand it (much as we don't understand the workings of our own consciousness).

Probably my primary concern about robotic weapons comes from a DARPA proposal I read about some time in the past. What they wanted was an autonomous, bird sized UAV. It would contain surveillance equipment and sensors, and be able to share the data it collects through a mesh network established with it's fellows and the commanders as well as receive orders. It would be intelligent enough to find a suitable strategic vantage point and hide itself. From there it would simply observe. With a large enough swarm of these, perhaps many thousands, you could send them into a city at night. They would each also potentially carry a small warhead allowing them to launch themselves at and destroy threats. Once these robots were entrenched, which might only take an hour or two, whoever controls them would effectively rule the city. Even if they were cut off from their command structure, they might still retain enough intelligence to recognize a particular individual, someone in a forbidden area, someone holding a weapon, or someone not brodcasting the right IFF signal, or any number of things. There might be no defense against such a thing (though there probably will be).

To me, that concept is terrifying. It's not huge hulking terminator-like war machines that could be the greatest threat, just flying, self-guiding, intelligent hand grenades. All someone would need is the capability to manufacture them. No raising an army, no speeches or threats, just a factory and a design. It's also not too far fetched to believe this capability might be available in just a matter of a few decades. They'll be easier to build than nuclear weapons, and oh so convenient and easy to deploy.

Um.... anyways, I dunno where I was going with that. Just lots of random pontificating, but because it's technology, it's silly to try to stop it with legislation. It will happen, as ChaosEngine rightly points out, the best course of action is to be on top of it and to understand it.

Obviously, we are devoid of some context, but the very opening words from 'doctor' is a reference to his not believing that glyphosate is contributing to cancer rates in Argentina, you can drink a quart of it and it won't hurt you.

In this context, it would sound like the claim had been made that round-up usage was causing cancer in Argentina? Unless Argentina is selling round-up as an energy drink, the discussion is in the frame of consumers of food containing products from plants grown in fields that were at some point sprayed with diluted round-up. The good doctor is declaring it far fetched to claim eating something grown in a field that was at some point sprayed with round up is causing cancer. He then exaggerates in his own right observing you can safely drink a quart of it...

As to the typical usage concentration, you are pretty wrong to say most guys will use the max concentration to get the most effect. Spraying a field at 10% costs 10 times as much money as spraying it at 1%, and 100 times as much money as spraying it at 0.1%, which is the span of recommended rates. Guys are going to use the lowest concentration they can while still being confident it will have the effect they want.

I stand by the notion that round-up and glyphosate and vinegar and acetic acid are equally pertinent comparisons in language for expected concentrations of a substance. Nobody uses 100% glyphosate on their field anymore than they use 100% acetic acid on their food.

Congratulations! Your video, Chihuahua Fetches Cat In Quite The Uniqe Way, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 284 Badge!

Well, taking into consideration that these appear to be stable and contained laser bullets, rather than beams, I think it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that they could travel magic light years through space until they collided with magic, at which point they would likely lose some marginal magical momentum and also generate secondary or even tertiary magic. Also I guess magic.

Your video, Cat playing fetch with a bean, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

/off-topic & longish

I'm not trying to belittle you or anything, so please don't misinterpret the things I'm about to talk about. Regarding your supernatural experiences (which to be perfectly honest IF they do exist, and that is a big if) there are a few problems with them or rather that type of "belief". If it really did happen to you, then it wouldn't be very hard to see why you would believe in religion or be spiritual in a very strong sense of the word (though it depends I suppose on just what you experienced, or what "they" experience).

But, if your faith can be helped along by these type of events, then it would be the type of thing that science should be exploring. I know people will clearly state that you just "can't catch these events", but to be honest, if your body is able to see, hear, smell, or sense it...any number of scientific tests could as well. But, the problem is: when do they happen, how do they happen (by what mechanism, i.e. sound, smell, sight, etc...), and to whom will it occur (and even where will it occur might be a justified question too).

Eventually this should become something, even if on the "fringe" of science or rational belief, should become a real talking point...recognized by all. Simply because, eventually scientists must experience them too, or those with no faith or belief at all...

But, this is why I ask what kind of "event" did you experience?

I suffer from Narcolepsy. With this, I suffer nightly from huge attacks (around 3-15) sleep paralysis events. These events come in ALL sorts of flavors, and since it is from Narcolepsy it doesn't necessarily have to happen at night--like ghosts, or alien abductions (I mean, is it not a good question to wonder why these things almost always happen at night--oh, and the animals don't seem to be involved too much in this stuff for some reason as well). I also (and this is the real winner right here) suffer from, more or less, permanent bouts of hypnagogic hallucinations (typically they happen just as you are about to fall asleep or as you are waking up--with me, they can occur as soon as I'm getting tired). I also have severe Sleep Apnea, just to make all of this more "grandiose"...

Sleep Paralysis is something that was reported constantly even in the Middle Ages; a great painting named "The Nightmare" depicts someone that is actually going through one of these events. This is the actual foundation for succubi, demons, and even angels that visit people in their sleep--these people will feel unbelievable things, things you simply do NOT feel in normal day life...thus many believe a supernatural event has just occurred. The first one I had was when I was just waking up, for some reason I was petrified, couldn't move (and barely breath). Then I looked around my room. It was early morning so I could see in my room, in the corner of my room sat a dark humanoid "solid" shadow. From it emanated a feeling of pure, utter evil (which is were you get a supernatural feeling to this; because for one you do not see "humanoid shadows", nor is it possible to "feel" evil). Eventually I snapped myself out of it and later woke up. It left a stark impression upon me. Later my mind figured out somehow that if I relaxed in these moments, it ended immediately--meaning that I started o become somewhat lucid during the majority of these. I remember my friends and family always saying I was weird or that I scared them sometimes, because I would sleep with my eyes opened--well, this is part of that problem (like I said, I could see my room...everything seemed for the most part, real; it's like being awake and partially asleep--in a dream--at the same time).

Onto my real problem: Hypnagogic Hallucinations. I have no doubt whatsoever that EVERYONE that believes or rather has experienced ghosts/haunting(s), alien abductions, angels, demons, people yelling outside, dogs barking, your phone ringing when it hasn't, and "you name it, because EVERYTHING can happen in this category"... I suffer from this so much that the things I experience now are just a joke to me. Things grabbing me, my body changing shape (and YES you do "feel" the change), all manner of sounds (which is the most annoying; sometimes it sounds like someone has called my name...so I have to go check, it's very frustrating). Then combine this WITH a Sleep Paralysis event (and trust me, it does happen, but it it rare), you get an epic "light show".

So, this is why I asked you what type of supernatural event did you experience. Because, you may want to remember (this is JUST some things Narcolepsy can cause; other medical issues, medications, etc... can cause the same issues if not worse, more pronounced in certain ways and even causing certain changes in behavior, sensations, and feelings) that just with Narcolepsy I run into these issues--sleeping disorders are possibly responsible for a LARGE assortment of the "supernatural" issues you see out there. Then add in the countless number of other things that also affect our bodies and it isn't far fetched to soon realize that you just may have to hold onto what science has proven--only--or you may get lost.

I cannot say that this is you. I will not either. I don't pretend to know your experiences. But, I can share mine... The first Sleep Paralysis and or Hypnagogic Hallucination (as I have been able to move in a few Sleep Paralysis events...but very rarely; if I can though I move slowly) event I had, believe it or not, was when I was around 8 or 9. I imagined that I woke up in the night, turned and looked under my bed (it was a sleepover, so I was on the floor that night) and I saw a pair of red glowing lights, shaped vaguely like eyes looking at me. I kept looking at it, trying to figure out what it was, but very quickly it "blinked" and I knew it was alive. I was scared enough that I simply turned my back from it and tried to go back to sleep. The fact that I simply just turned my back to it and went back to sleep...is proof that it simply wasn't even real.

Had that BEEN real, I would've jumped up, flipped the light on; told everyone in the room and gotten my parents in the next room... But, it felt extremely real. Even to this day, the only thing that makes me realize it was fake was HOW I handled the situation...that is it. In fact that is usually the best way to tell reality apart from a dream (or hallucinations caused by enhanced REM cycles--REM cycles that start even while you are awake). You simply do not act like yourself in a dream, period.

I'll agree with you otherwise. I was definitely smothered by religion and it "stunted" me. It didn't cause me to hate it as much as many might think, but I became extremely wary of anything to do with it.