Vapymid

Surely, belief is an antithesis to objectivity, by definition. It is subjective, hence relative. Regards

I would advise caution here as most things in the word are relative, but the speed of light in vacuum. Regards

I don't see any particular beauty in either ceremony. To me, a true loving relationship is not dependent on any third party's confirmation or verification. Equally, I do not accept that any third party should have the ability to keep two unwilling partners tied to each other if they are not suitable for each other. Having said that, there are many practical reasons why legal recognition of the union is useful in our world and I prefer the civil bureaucratic way (which stresses the point that it is just a legal procedure) to any religious ceremony. Regards

I thought the Red Sea parted because of a big rock (aka meteorite) having fallen nearby, which, of course, could well have been sent by God as part of his proactive will... Alternatively, He may have merely preferred that the asteroid fell rather than missed. Oh, wait - it could also be preordained too! Anyway, it is unlikely that any breaking of physics was needed to achieve safe passage for Moses and co. and it would have been inelegant and kludgy for God to do so, so I'm pretty sure He didn't do it that way... As for prayer as a means of calling for divine intervention - I like how Jim Morrison said it: "You cannot petition the Lord with prayer". Sounds convincing to me... Regards

To me, the scope of God means absolute power over the Universe and one has to be beyond it to have such power, because anything within the Universe would be subject to its existing laws and conditions. So, even if you are very powerful and can go in and out of a black hole at leisure that would not qualify you as God in my eyes (maybe as an angel or archangel, at most). But if you create a Universe, you set the rules for it and initiate the process of its creation and that may make you God and Creator for that particular Universe. If you are God (and Creator, which is synonymous to me) then it is probably impossible for you not to exist before your create your Creation. So, if God exists then, by definition, it existed prior to the Big Bang. If nothing existed prior to the Big Bang - there is no God. The truth is, we don't as yet know if there was anything before the Big Bang and anything is possible. Just because our current model for the Universe breaks at the initial point may only mean that the model is imperfect. There maybe a multiverse and our Big Bang may have been just an event there. There may be a recursion, when the end of our Universe results in the new Bang. The arrow of time may not exist or casuality may be totally different in those other dimensions in such multiverses - we just don't know. Yet. There may be a way to see... There are hypotheses that CMB may contain information about the pre-Bang environment, there may be cross-talk between universes or there may be a way to travel from our Universe to others, including the pre-Bang one(s). Anyway, if you are God you will find a way to present convincing evidence Regards

To me it's pretty simple - any candidate God must have a reasonable claim on having created this Universe and having existed in some shape and form before the Big Bang. Anyone or anything that came into being after the Big Bang, no matter how powerful he is, cannot be God. Regards

"A Louse Is Not A Home" gEv1qc3wl-U Solo number in the name only - the whole Van Der Graaf Generator lineup is playing with Hammill here. Regards

I mean when the system starts working on probabilities, estimates and incorporates learning. Yes, individual neurons are simple but the complexity would increase exponentially with the number of elements. The system will be producing different results starting from the same initial state and you will not be able to predict deterministically what the end result will be, only in terms of probabilities... But here again there is no fundamental difference between electronic and biological machines if you build the former on the same principles as the latter. Would I call machine conscious or accept that it may have feelings if I know that it is a sum of parts governed by calculations and algorithms designed by someone? Of course I would. Conversely, would you stop considering humans human when we will find out exactly how brain works and determine all the algorithms and calculation it performs as it functions? To me humans are just complex biological machines. Our brains also perform the same calculations and are subject to the same mathematical and logical principles as the machines we make. These principles have not been designed by us, they were only discovered, and we could only discover them because they exist and are universal. There is one issue that intrigues me though - self awareness. At what point all these processes combine to create the "first person" perception? Is it in design of the hardware, software or is it, perhaps, a fundamental property of the universe? Regards

@BTGNullseye: the original question was "should they be charged". That's why I said "as stated" before posting my opinion. Your interpretation of the question is moral and should be restated as "should it be an offence to cause pain to a machine that feels pain?". This is a valid question. In fact I think that was the intent of the original question but I did not want to second guess the OP. Whether animals have rights (and are therefore persons in law) or not is still a grey area, their status in law is still changing and evolving and will continue to do so for decades to come - that is why I used them as an example, which I think illustrates how long and drawn out the process can be. @St. Goliath - deterministic algorithms (your "cooking recipes") are suitable only to simplest types of robots. Once you move into fuzzy logic, neural networks etc even the people who design them cannot say how exactly they will operate. Biological brains are not magic either. They also started with very simple systems and algorithms, which rapidly became complicated and non-deterministic. People will not refuse to recognise consciousness of a machine just because they think they know how it's made. Quite the opposite, people tend to anthropomorphise and ascribe human characteristics to just about anything, from dead trees in the forest to even simple robotic toys. The problems I see in the recognition of robots' rights will be of similar nature to our present day's racism, chauvinism and xenophobia. I think lots of people will feel that sentient robots are so human that they pose a competitive threat to them. Regards

http://www.supercheats.com/pc/halflifecheats.htm Regards

I think AI becoming human-like is just a matter of time. It's inevitable. There are two converging processes here - one, is that to do things for us we would want robots able to make decisions and not having to be programmed all the time. But to make sophisticated decisions and to fit within the human society the machine will have to understand humans and act in a compatible manner. The obvious way to achieve that is to give the machine the same social logic and emotions as humans possess. In fact, there is no other way - just like nature has developed emotions and intuition as solutions to decision making in natural environment, so we will have to do the same for our machines to be able to co-exist usefully with us. - two, is humans modifying and augmenting their bodies with artificial enhancements - implants, replacement body part etc. This is already happening - 2-way human/machine synaptic interfaces for prosthetics are being developed and some stage it will be too difficult to say whether you are dealing with a machine with biological components or a human with machine parts. This question, as stated, is easy to answer - whatever the law of the day says. Or, in other words, you cannot be charged with breaking a law that does not exist. Robots first will have to be recognised as persons in law, then they will acquire rights which the state will have to protect. When that happens, causing robot pain will become an offense. This will, most likely, be a lengthy process, though - perhaps, the evolution of animal rights is an appropriate analogy here. Regards

That's a looong list For me it's normally quite the opposite - when I start listening to something I don't know what I will end with. I just do it on the whim... BLU2wNuMS1M Regards

Dumb schmucks. They must have done that out of envy. If anything is a ground for a fight, that surely is... Regards

Been sorting out some old papers and found some of my very old drawings... These ones are drawn from memory - we were not allowed to take pictures or draw any equipment during training as it was considered classified. The first picture is SA-8 TELAR (Transporter, Erector, Launcher And Radar) with the search radar operating but no missiles loaded. The second picture is the SAM launcher about to be reloaded from a transporter-loader. My job was to command the TELAR... This is what was inside the TELAR. I used to know the functions and operation of every button, switch and dial there but now I can't remember a thing. As above, by necessity drawn from memory... Above, under my drawing, is the only photo of the equipment I could find for comparison (it's clearly not inside a TELAR vehicle and is a slightly different model). Here is the thing in action (the video was shot by the manufacturer): These following pictures are not connected with anything or with each other - just doodles drawn for fun or when I was bored during lectures... Regards

0EYUqsfl7gE Regards

Somebody put a bunch of Black Mesa pictures, apparently made using TriDef, here. I have to say that it looks like it works... Regards

How would Paris call girls, joyful or not, be of any help to Ross and his animation requirements, may I ask? Regards P.S. Apologies. That spammer went to great lengths to blend in - inconspicuous name, avatar pic, even the usual nonsense was Half-Life-related. I could not resist...

Whatever is the understanding of the original intent of that separation, it objectively remains an essential requirement of proper governance. Look at what happens in any country where such separation does not work. Also, even the literal interpretation of Jefferson's statement requires that the government is isolated from the influence of any church, as otherwise the church which influences the government will be able to subvert that government to suppress any other rival religions. In that sense, having some kind of Mormonic front-man elected as the President of the US would hardly strengthen that principle. *Every* government is very against all forms of freedom, except the freedom of their own backers to benefit from their position of power. To say that Obama is "against freedom" is OK, I guess, as long as it does not imply that some other candidate is "for freedom", because that would be naive, to say the least. Regards

Estuans Interius wgZAc27901U Electronically different Carmina Burana, music by Carl Orff, arrangements by Ray Manzarek. Regards

UcJny6spMAk Regards

Italian judge jails 6 scientists for 6 years for failure to predict earthquake. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626 Italy should be kicked out from the EU and be subject to sanctions for that. It is far more dangerous and damaging for the West than imaginary WMDs of some obscure Middle-Eastern countries. Regards

At the moment the use of hydrocarbons as fuel for transportation solves two problems - energy production and energy transmission. As and when fusion power becomes available, the production issue will largely go away and the question will be the most efficient energy transmission. Roughly speaking, we can choose among chemical batteries, synthetic hydrocarbons and hydrogen. - Batteries have very low energy density and long recharge times (with significant improvements being unlikely). - Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport and has low volumetric energy density (but is clean burning). - Hydrocarbons have good energy density and are easy to transport and store (but give off CO2 when burned). All in all, if the synthetic hydrocarbon process can be made economic with the cheap power from fission/fusion and it can be used to recycle some or all of the CO2 it gives off in combustion, then it will be much preferable to either hydrogen or batteries. The greatest thing is that with a power source like fusion, the use of hydrocarbons ceases to be a necessity and becomes a matter of convenience. The overall consumption of hydrocarbons will dramatically fall, as will probably the price (with the price of synthetic fuel being the upper limiting factor, or the "incremental barrel" cost). Regards

Why did you need to say that? Now I can't get this out of my head... YmHzK4vnVTM Regards

BlfimJJ1Ob4 Regards

RhWDbdS-vjg Regards