So how many people infected with the real Yellow Fever develop unwanted and serious side-effects (including death and lifelong disabilities)?

It would work for a week, and then you'd spend the rest of your life feeling hungry whenever you see maggots or cockroaches.

Are you suggesting it would be impossible for a product to be 'fully open' unless there exists a 3D printer advanced enough to produce it?

> Illicit drugs reduce your life expentancy.

Some of them, perhaps. As do many licit drugs. I fail to see why you make the licit/illicit distinction, as it is not the legal status of a drug that determines its harmfulness (except perhaps when it lands you in prison...). How about "Some recreational drugs reduce life expectancy, in particular those that are (for that reason) illegal.

> FACT.

Not really.

Yes, that is a dumb thought.

Except that telnet is unencrypted...

> the brain is supposed to lose neurons that aren't needed because the brain uses such a large portion of the caloric intake.

That does not seem like a good explanation. The human brain has about 100 billion neurons, so even if you lose 100.000 neurons every day, that means only a 0.04 % reduction every year, which does not make a meaningful difference in brain energy consumption.

Do explain how extra cells you aren't using don't qualify as 'unnecessary detail'.

I did spend a few minutes on google before posting that reply, did not find anything substantial. The theory appears to be pushed primarily by Hameroff and Penrose, but I could not find any experiments that support their theory. Other scientists appear to be arguing that either quantum effects are not required to explain the operation of the brain, or quantum systems in the brain would decohere too quickly to have a meaningful influence on computation. Since you originally introduced the Quantum mind theory in this discussion in your reply to Shavano, perhaps you should carry the burden of proof, yes?

> I've read they are looking into quantum entanglement as a part of the brain process.

Is there actually any evidence that this is happening, or is it just someone's pet theory?

> The computing power of the human brain is infinite, by some standard definitions, as it is analogue (at least partially, according to some theories) and there are an infinite number of analogue states.

Just because the brain theoretically has a practically infinite number of possible states does not mean all (or even most) of those states are meaningful and important. People lose thousands of neurons each day without changing significantly (with respect to both personality and intelligence). Obviously the brain contains a lot of detail that it doesn't really need. There is no reason to believe it is impossible to create a significantly less complex model/simulation of the brain that is both functionally equivalent and finite (except our ego, which seems to prefer to think of the human brain as infinitely complex).

> Now if you could say on each image that "this is me", "this isn't me", and it could build up a database of people that should and should not be authorised and OVER TIME learn on it's own without just having a bunch of statistics like "> 20% green = > 90% probability", then you'd have some mild form of intelligence. Otherwise you just have heuristics, which are 0.000001% of how actual intelligence operates.

Cute. From which orifice did you pull the 0.000001%? Do share with the rust of us your elaborate knowledge concerning the workings of intelligence. What is the other 99.999999%? How did you obtain this information?

> but in Java you often have to use a debugger to find trivial bugs because of flaws in the way the standard library operates

Could you mention one or two examples? In my experience the standard library is pretty good.

That isn't a very meaningful limitation. All posters here are copyright holders, as you hold the copyright of your own post. Anyone who has ever drawn a picture or written a paragraph is a copyright owner. With the exception of infants, I don't think you would be able to find anyone who is *not* a copyright holder.

So it's okay with the Christians if we put the chips in left arms instead?

Except that this time the Jews have their own country, military, nukes, and backing of the USA. Meanwhile Iran, with the exception of Israel, has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East.

Let's be honest here, the tensions between Iran and Israel have very little to do with Iran hating the Jews, Iran is not going to start a war with Israel unless forced to because they have very little chance of winning (with Israel having nukes and a rather overpowered ally), and even if Iran had nukes they would only use them on Israel as a last resort because the USA would turn their country in a big sheet of glass about 30 minutes later.