Deterministic machines build by man don't encompass everything, the way the universe does.

A universe being nondeterministic does not mean it is impossible to construct smaller entirely deterministic systems within that framework... "if A then B" can be entirely determistic, even if the universe which runs it is not, if no aspects of the universe's non-determinism impact the execution of the statement. However, a determistic universe means that it *IS* impossible to construct a non-deterministic system. above, I show how such a system can be constructed, however, which suggests the universe cannot be determistic (even though it may possess many deterministic qualities).

Again, the ability for the agent to gather the information that would predict its outcome is superfluous... if the the universe is deterministic, then the information to predict the state exists, but in this extremely simple experiment, it is illustrated that not even an infinite amount of information can be sufficient to predict the outcome of the experiment because it contains an inherent contradiction, and if information about the universe's current state is insufficient to predict a future state of *ANY* experiment, then the universe is non-deterministic.

I didn't put the word ever in there because I didn't mean ever... I meant the results of *THIS* test, and no other. I don't care what happens any other time I run the test, I want to know the results of *THIS* test. If the universe is deterministic, then at any point in time, then it must contain sufficient information in its state to predict some future state, and that information is the only input to the algorithm. The fact that any such agent which tries to examine such a state may never stop trying to gather information about the current state to make the prediction is irrelevant... if the universe is genuinely deterministic, then the state exists and is sufficient to predict the universe's future state, even if it takes an infinite amount of time to actually do... and the definition of determinism itself is sufficient to illustrate the point.

And my point is that it is, by definition, impossible for any current state at the point in time that we try to predict the outcome of even that single experiment to correctly predict its outcome, and without such state, the universe cannot be deterministic either.

The halting problem only exhibits the trait... you don't need to look infinitely far ahead to make a conclusion as long as the experiment conclusion is truly binary.

As I said.... "if this program will take branch A after executing this statement then take branch B, else take branch A" where branches A and B are mutually exclusive is an extremely simple example of a system where no amount of information will be sufficient to predict its conclusion, and if an experiment can be derived whose outcome cannot be predicted by any amount of information, then the universe cannot be deterministic either.

You might not be able to predict what the machine does in the infinite future

You don't even need to predict infinitely far ahead... for example:

if this program's else clause will execute, then take branch A, else take branch B.

Regardless of what information you allegedly have about the program's future state will be incorrect, so it is trivially provable that no amount of information can be sufficient to even predict the future in a simple closed experiment such as this, and if even a single experiment can be designed where the result is not predictable, the universe cannot be deterministic.

The existence of the Halting Problem disproves determinism.

If the universe were deterministic, then it follows that with sufficient information about the universe one could theoretically predict the state of the universe at any given point in the future. However, if one took this information about the universe to predict what the outcome of some particular binary state in a closed experiment would be, and were to formulate the conditions of the experiment so that the outcome of it would always be the opposite of whatever the information about the future appeared to reveal about it (eg, if this program will terminate then loop forever, else stop), it becomes evident that no amount of information can ever be sufficient to actually predict the future with 100% confidence, and so the universe cannot actually be deterministic.

An interesting side effect of the universe being non-deterministic is that may allow for the existence of certain metaphysical concepts such as free-will, although a non-deterministic universe does not necessarily prove that they exist, it seems to at least makes such things plausibly consistent with reality.

.... this story is unfortunately somewhat believable.

Or trademark issue? Nintendo is using the DMCA here, but if the work contains none of Nintendo's code, then why would copyright apply?

Certainly I can see trademarks being an issue here, and it's only right that Nintendo try and put a stop to it.

All very well and good for roads, but how does that extend to things like public sidewalks, bicycle paths, or usage of any other kind of public area. for which regular maintenance needs to be done?

As I was perhaps a bit too obscurely attempting to point out, that these people who were offended by the remarks on the project are reacting only in the way that society has programmed them, because our society protects people against abuse to such a degree that they can often be incapable of even recognizing it when it actually happens, or how to tell the difference between actual abuse and something like what is happening with this project. I'm not saying that protecting people against real abuse is bad.... I'm saying that as long as we intend to keep doing so, then we need to keep expecting that there are going to be people reacting like this, because that is what people are being told is the norm.

Of course.... I am suggesting that society has created the infrustructure that allows such views to flourish.... we try and protect people from abuse, but in so doing, we may stop people from being able to recognize such abuse when it actually happens (because they are so protected from it), and in turn be able to tell the difference between actual abuse and what is going on with this software project.

It's less that the people who are offended are being immature than that they are just reacting in the manner that modern society has programmed them to behave.

Agreed, but in practice there will always exist a confidence level somewhere below 100% where the confidence still outweighs any concerns they have about their security. Requiring me to have a backdoor in my computers or network for *ANYONE* that I do not personally administrate would put my confidence level somewhere in the vicinity of 0.

100% confidence in all circumstances is not required... and as you point out, it is actually useless. Anything that simply approaches 100% for all practical purposes is actually entirely sufficient.

Just because a person is not given the opportunity to learn something does not make them an idiot or particularly immature if they complain about something. it make them ignorant, but there is a pretty big difference

My point is that the kinds of rights that are given to employees in the workplace or to the general public on many popular social networks has probably created an expectation for many people that such rights actually extend to absolutely every avenue of society and practice. The fact that they may be wrong about this doesn't necessarily make them immature, except to the extent that laws that might protect people from abuse might also keep them from being able to learn how to recognize what such abuse actually is, and the difference between that and what is happening with this project.