The iWatch is a fragile thing that won't last very long without specialized maintenance, replacement parts, et cetera.

That hasn't stopped us from making them, though, has it? That hasn't stopped it from being created by us for a specific purpose, has it? That hasn't made nature produce one on its own, has it? Remember, the claim was: "If grey goo replicators were possible, evolution would have already created them." Clearly the IWatch is possible; yet nature didn't create it. Therefore, it is a flat-out given that "If grey goo replicators were possible, evolution would have already created them." is invalid logic. The fact is, special purpose devices can, and have been, made by us, that evolution has not even come close to, which fact destroys the above assertion completely.

Grey goo replicators have to get energy from somewhere. Where?

Well, let's see. There's light; heat; motion; all in the environment, available for harvesting. That oughta do for a start. Then there's magnetic induction from a central source, and also the electrical component of RF emissions. Then there's chemical energy, atomic energy... for all we know at this point there's energy in vacuum -- a lot of theory points that way. So, presuming we can make disassemblers in the first place (not a given) odds are good that we can power them, or get them to power themselves. Or both. They may work in a bath of energy supplying chemicals, they may work by harvesting available energy, we may be the supplier of that, or nature may -- the possible and potential variations on the theme are quite extensive.

The organisms which can break down anything are readily out-competed by a variety of organisms which between them can break down anything. And that's why grey goo is not a credible threat.

Nope. Grey goo is not an organism. It won't be evolved, and it won't be competing. It'll be working. Like an iWatch. The potential to create such has nothing at all to do with what organisms are in the environment. You see anything in the biosphere "out-competing" an atomic weapon? No. That's because it's a purpose-designed machine. It does what it does, regardless of who made it; but we made it and nature didn't, and biological evolutionary competition and selection are not in the least relevant to the mechanism of the bomb, no more than they would be to the mechanism of a nanite of any stripe. Or an iWatch. :)

Just an also-ran. Chuck Norris built an AI out of RTL the day the chips were shipped. He kicked its ass in an intelligence test and it committed suicide.

If grey goo replicators were possible, evolution would have already created them.

Yes, that's why nature created the iWatch.

Oh.

Wait.

I have no idea if quantum computing will ever be a thing we want to use, but I know we're going to keep talking about it like we talk about nuclear fusion being humanities[sic] salvation.

Well, except that we have no particular evidence of "quantum computing" going on around us, whereas the reality of fusion reactions producing heat is an empirical fact, as are stable fusion reactions (look up in the daytime, dark filters strongly indicated.) If quantum computing is going to be a real thing, we'll have to create it from the ground up -- and that's precisely what we're trying to do.

So while I agree that quantum computing presently shows all the aspects of something almost entirely unknown, fusion is a technology we have already used (in the Castle Bravo weapon detonated at Bikini atoll, for instance), see working in nature in basically exactly the form we want (our star) and are simply working to tame down (various fusion power experimental setups and projects in progress.)

Presently, there are many reasons to speculate that we will have working fusion reactors on various useful scales; not so many to think that we can put quantum effects to use in significant computing contexts.

There is some investigation that suggests that quantum consciousness is possible based on interactions between microtubule structures inside of neurons.

No, there isn't. In fact, the term "quantum consciousness" is nonsensical. Unless you consider a bipolar transistor to have "quantum consciousness", and in which case, it isn't nonsensical so much as meaningless.

I think you're confusing Woz with Chuck Norris. :)

But recent advances in quantum computing have him reconsidering his stance.

To date, zero evidence of any active quantum process modulating the workings of human (or other) brains, regardless of low level structure, has been presented.

Consider a bipolar transistor. It is true that quantum effects make it work, in the sense that it definitely wouldn't work without them, but they are not, in any way, used to modulate or otherwise participate in actively, variably, moderating what the transistor does when actually performing -- amplifying, switching, etc. That process is exclusively moderated by current (electron) flow quantity -- for example, you modulate the current flow, the transistor accordingly modulates the current flowing between the collector and emitter. A bipolar transistor does not respond to quantum events (nor are any applied to it within the circuits we use every day), nor does it produce quantum outputs for the purpose of affecting other components.

The same can be said of the brain. Quantum effects are present -- we know this because two of the three active brain building blocks (chemistry, electricity) are what they are due to low level quantum effects. But just as one can very accurately model and simulate or emulate a transistor and its activities without ever considering anything at all on the quantum level, so it is with neurons -- all the evidence, bar none, presently says that brain operations are performed using chemical, electrical and topological moderation. Of quantum moderation there has been absolutely no sign at all.

Active quantum effects do play a role in some natural systems. For instance, quantum superposition is an active mechanism in photosynthesis. This was discovered because in photosynthesis something very low-level, but obvious (extreme high efficiency in energy conversion) was happening that could not be explained; when they went looking for what the mechanism for that was (by examining the precise states of molecular photosynthetic antenna proteins), that's the mechanism that was found.

The critical difference is that neurons and glia have not been found to exhibit any low level behaviors that are otherwise inexplicable.

The vast majority of speculation that "quantum" processes actively modulate brain operations is uninformed, typically brought about by fundamental misunderstandings of quantum effects, which in turn have been disseminated by the popular media attempting to "simplify" quantum mechanics for the layperson. Among the exceptions, none of the suggested ideas have yet to be backed by any evidence; there's no reason to think that they will hold up at this juncture. Determining that quantum modulation was ongoing would also have to be accompanied by the discovery of a presently unknown and non-indicated modulating mechanism -- but there's presently no evidence for that to even stimulate a question along those lines.

The relevant, fundamental question with regard to AI is: Can we, using other technology such as software emulation and hardware neural analogs, perform the same kinds of operations as a neuron, with all known modulating effects of the glia (propagation delay, synaptic neurotransmitter uptake, topological scaffolding/ specificity)? The answer to that is a definite yes. Consequently, just as with modeling and emulating a transistor's function, there has been, and no future likelihood portends of, any role for quantum operations whatsoever.

So when someone -- even someone as interesting and accomplished in other fields as Wozniak is -- starts talking about quantum computing ushering in AI in some fashion, you may rest assured that they are not talking about anything known to be valid in AI research today. However, he has drawn the correct conclusion from his incorrect perception of brain operations: The impending debut of artificial intelligence is not science fiction. Simply given that we can keep working on it (no nuclear wars, bad law, etc.), research is now moving forward in ways that were simply unimaginable just a few decades ago and the low-level unknowns along the path best described as "brain emulation" have dwindled to matters of structure. Even these are now falling with researchers like Numenta doing practical work along the lines of cortical structure and processing. Much of that is available for download and experimentation, by the way -- fascinating stuff.

I've written more about the chemical, electrical and topological nature of the human brain here for those who are interested.

So water hitting your car causes risk.

Yes, it certainly does. A sudden splash that opaques your windshield and/or distorts your view -- which a water balloon can most definitely do -- can startle and disorient the driver, leading to dire consequences. Throwing water balloons at vehicles is not a harmless prank. It is a thoughtless act that can directly endanger others. It is shortsighted and naive to characterize it any other way.

I guess you never drive when rain is predicted.

First of all, rain is an act of nature. Consequently you're going to have trouble equating it to voluntary human action. Secondly, rain can indeed endanger drivers. As can sudden splashes from puddles, clouds of spray from passing trucks and so on. Mitigating these risks is a big part of why cars have windshield wipers, why companies sell products like "Rain-X", and why sane people drive differently when rain interferes with their view of the road and/or the vehicles on it. And yes, absolutely, if rain is predicted, it is factored into my driving plans. Likewise snow, hail, high winds, or sandstorms.

I think your logic is flawed.

You have not demonstrated this in any way. You may, of course, continue to attempt to try. :)

So I'm trying to identify the edges, if any.

There aren't any when offense is the metric. There certainly are where incitement is concerned, though. You put your finger right on one of them: when incitement is directed at someone who is not competent to take responsibility for their own actions -- such as your putative mentally ill minor.

Offense is real, and measurable. It can be measured with medical tools, like you can see a bruise on someone's nose when you hit them. Yet the nose is sacred to you, and the ears aren't.

Pleasure is real and measurable with medical tools as well. So is itching, the length of your fingernails, and the salinity of your tear ducts. The point is that measurement is not the determinant. The determinant is, is it harmful, and with offense, the answer is no unless you undertake self-caused harm entirely on your own.

For your benefit, from my other writings:

What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa. What serves no purpose for you, may serve a purpose for me. Be it intended offense, or otherwise, or both at once.

No one in the USA (or anywhere with sane law) has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a particular group; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (of any size) may not offend another, nor a person of another grouping; and in the final analysis, it is also flawed in that it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another.

And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not -- any more than you can guess what is offensive to me, or not.

Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. It does not rely on the idea that we "must not cause offense." It relies on the idea that we must not cause harm.

Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration of others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

Is being offended a harm? If so, should it be illegal?

No. And no.

That would move the discussion from "offense" to "harm" so that a rational discussion could be had.

No, it simply miscasts offense in an attempt to gain an unjustified rhetorical handle on it.

Offense is like a water balloon thrown from a bridge at a passing car.

No. It isn't. When someone messes with your wallet, your person, your reputation, your family in like manner, or your property, you have been interfered with. Actions designed to remedy the interference can now be put on the table. This is a very sane way to look at these matters, and it is generally what anyone seriously considering them will come up with. From it, we derive that any such action constitutes violation of the principle that "your right to swing your fist ends at anyone else's nose", or in other words such action is "swinging one's fist where it impacts the other person's nose" and so we don't accept it as valid action when considering these issues.

The water balloon constitutes physical interference with your property, your path, and your ability to drive in a safe manner, thereby additionally and (further) irresponsibly constituting risk to yet others via potential secondary and tertiary effects. Your suggestion is not the same, or even similar to, someone cracking a dick joke.

Does it matter if the "offensive language" is an adult trying to talk a mentally ill minor into suicide?

This is not "offense." This is incitement and inappropriate exercise of power. You are moving the goalposts quite a distance here.

"Offense" is seeing or hearing something that you don't approve of, and undertaking, at a minimum, a line of thought that criticizes that thing. Offense may often further extend to a verbal or written reaction, but its root remains in your own thought processes, for which you, and only you, are responsible.

If others are made responsible for what you think, then it follows that everyone is responsible for everything everyone else thinks in an unending causative loop, and as virtually everything offends someone, life would be constrained to living in an isolated environment so no one could see, hear or otherwise be exposed to you -- as your speech, appearance, actions, or even your very presence might very well be offensive to them.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that something you find offensive, should also be found offensive by others; even so, no one has the obligation to agree with you, or even to pay you any attention. But when you impose control of others based on your perception of offense -- legislation, rule making -- now we're back to behavior that can only be valid on property you own or otherwise control (rent, have custody of, etc.)

On the other hand, tolerance, that thing we offhandedly characterize as "live and let live", is a social practice that leads to people generally not interfering with others, or even confronting them with argument. Highly recommended. It's very respectful of the personal agency of others. Note that this is not advice for discussion; it simply applies to venues and happenings that you were not involved with in the first place. There's nothing wrong with amiable discussion of issues that concern you, of course, as long as the other party(s) wish to engage.

Not only is it funny (with overtones of pitiful), it gets a rise out just about everyone who cares to erect an objection. Rigid, upright individuals, blood flowing copiously to their heads, cocking their virtual pistols and ready to shoot the first time someone rubs them in a manner that provides enough friction. It's a penetrating form of humor, a kind of humor that some have to stretch to get, especially those who are anally retentive. For others, it's just plugging along as usual, strapping on the first thing they come to, and then using it to probe everyone within reach. I don't know why it's got you so inflamed. Me, I'm having a ball sacking the opposition. I can't do it all the time (I'm old) but I find it satisfactory to work in spurts. And while my youth is gone, at least I can remember it as not so much checkered, as spattered. Because the rubber didn't always meet the rode, y'see.

There is no right to create a hostile working environment for women.

What you want is an environment that is hostile to men. Offended by this project? WTF are you doing nosing around the project? Offended by strippers? WTF are you doing nosing around strip clubs and the like? Offended by foul language? Why are you listening? Offended by... well, you get the idea. You don't like something, don't pay money for it, don't support it, don't publicize it, don't bother with it, etc. Find something you DO support and do something you find to be positive. Otherwise, yes, you're going to be offended, and it's your own stupid fault.

Until someone messes with your wallet, your person, your reputation, your family in like manner, or your property, your right to exert control ends on property you have control of (which usually means you own or rent it.) Other than that, you can say anything you want, anywhere you want but on property others rent or own where you are not, and should not be, in control, and sane people will roundly ignore you.

Because there truly is not, and should not be, any right "not to be offended." Pull up your big girl panties and buck the heck up. The world is not made of sugar and spice, and every effort you undertake to make it so is a Very Bad Idea.

Push your controlling ideas too far, and someone will eventually push back. Odds are you really won't enjoy it.

There is no right "not to be offended."

No such right should exist.

No one should agitate for such a right.

End of story.

"now"?

You mean all those corporate tax cuts which were handed to them which was supposed to trickle down to the rest of us?

Trickle down economics carefully explained

From TFS:

this raises some unsettling questions about our ability to trust government officials and why they might be tempted to fall back on such blatant hyperbole.

Really? REALLY? If this just NOW raises those "unsettling questions", your head has been in the sand for the last, hell, I don't know, 80 years? 100? More?

Who wrote this, some wide-eyed first-grader?

I mean, really, holy crap. Sometimes I forget the Gaussian doesn't quite flatten all the way to the left...