It seems like the logical conclusion to this would be to have each avatar exist in its own instance. If a computer can simulate one avatar, it can simulate multiple copies of that avatar. E.g., in the simulation, you could say, "Gee, I haven't seen Alice in a while; I wonder what she's up to," and the computer would simulate Alice (with certain features built in, such as "Alice can actually stand to be around me"). You'd never actually interact with the real Alice. Prima facie, this is a good thing for both you and Alice: you both avoid an undesirable interaction. Creepy? Absolutely. Will it happen? Given that most of us hate uncomfortable situations (hence the word uncomfortable), I don't see how it couldn't.

Now that's just plain wrong. First off, the pentacene molecule imaged by the group at IBM was imaged using atomic force microscopy (AFM), which uses a nanoscale piezoelectric cantilever to measure the force between the tip of the microscope and the substrate. The IBM team realized that picking up a single CO molecule with the tip allowed them to have an atomically sharp tip, thus giving them the drastically increased resolution apparent in that paper. This paper presents an STM method, which uses the current caused by electron tunneling between a tip and substrate (which dies off exponentially with distance between the two). The major breakthrough is this: scientists working in this field have known for quite some time that the electron tunneling was a function of both the starting state (tip state) and the ending state (substrate) of the electron. The problem with this is that the tip state up until now has only been known very vaguely. At the atomic level, the tip of the STM is in general a poorly defined blob of metal. What the researchers in this paper have done is pick up a CO molecule to act as the tip of the probe, just like the researchers on the pentacene paper before. The advantage now is that we can model CO quite well quantum mechanically, so that we have a much better idea of the starting state of the electrons. Of course, there will be some interaction of the CO with the metal in the tip, but nonetheless, this method provides us with a much clearer picture of what the electrons are actually doing when they tunnel from the tip to the substrate below. This is the reason that the researchers were able to get so much more information out of these experiments than previous researchers. /rant

If my conservative friends are to be believed, you guys don't get out of bed for much of anything.

It's pretty clear that Taco doesn't even read /. anymore.

You know, I'm not one to don my tinfoil hat too often, but that's exactly what I thought when I read the "call to arms." Either that or it's a honeypot.

Mod parent up.

You're wrong. To be listed first author is generally an indication that you did the bulk of the work for the paper. Middle authors are usually minor contributors to some extent, and the last few names are usually the professors who employ the students/postdocs.

The solipsists would say that you can't have electrons without consciousness.

I noticed that too. Replace "linguistics" with "the space program" and watch how many slashdotters go supercritical.

You're totally right; we should ban carbon dioxide. But if you're waiting for the government to effectively regulate that, I just have one thing to say:

*puts on sunglasses*

Don't hold your breath.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Random audits at checkout. About every 10th time or so that I used the U-Scan at my local Stop & Shop, I was randomly selected to have 5 random items in my cart checked out by a clerk to make sure that I had scanned them. Takes about 30 seconds total, and not having to wait in line at checkout easily saved me at least 20 minutes at the grocery store per visit.

FTA:

What!?!? I'll present a similar argument. See if you can spot the flaw: I observe that white bread gets moldy after I open the package. Therefore I conclude that wheat bread doesn't get moldy after I open the package. She followed the outsiders (self-described, no less ["Yeah I'm a nonconformist, nbd"]) to determine the fate of the non-outsiders. Wow.

I thought I was going to keel over.

While I'm sure there will be plenty of people to naysay the book simply because of the mention of the names Peikoff and Rand (and perhaps Feyerabend), it's important to understand that the book is at least attempting to get a discussion started about a very real problem in the philosophy of science. Namely, two seemingly contradictory facts present themselves simultaneously. On the one hand, we have the fact that science is "inductive" and thus by its nature, its statements are never concretely true. On the other hand, we see that science has an uncanny predictive ability, allowing us to lead the comfortable, technologically enhanced lives we lead today. The philosophers' Cartesian doubt is in direct opposition to the faith that we place in the laws of physics remaining more or less constant over time. The question of paramount importance here is, "Why is science so good at telling us the future if its results are always in doubt?" I don't propose to be able to answer this question, but I think the solution probably lies in the fact that science (typically considered a field driven by inductive reasoning) is highly dependent on mathematics (typically considered a field driven by deductive reasoning). In this view, it seems to me the more appropriate question to ask is not, "Why is science so good at telling us the future," but rather, "Why is the natural world described so beautifully in the language of mathematics?" This question, at least to me, is probably one of the most fascinating in the philosophy of science. But as I said before, I am not yet myself sure what the answer to these questions is or should be, but I'm at least glad to see that someone's seriously working on them and trying to bring new viewpoints to the table.

Okay, I'll bite.

Granting a right to one party is essentially imposing a duty on one or more other parties. For example, if we as humans grant dolphins a right to life, then we are basically saying "We (humans) will try not to kill you (dolphins) on purpose." Thus, by granting them this right, we are imposing upon ourselves the duty to not purposefully kill any dolphins. You can view it, if you wish, as a type of contract, though I'll be quick to point out that the concept of rights and duties extends beyond the legal realm into the moral one.

Why would we grant dolphins rights? Possibly because of what we feel to be a collective moral obligation. Granting rights to animals on the basis of moral obligation is not unprecedented. For instance, most animals for whom there is significant evidence that they can feel pain are granted the legal (and moral) right not to be abused. There's nothing physical stopping me from beating the ever living shit out of my dog, but I don't, because I think that inflicting unnecessary pain is immoral. Thus, I have implicitly granted my dog the right not to have the ever living shit beaten out of him.

Why would we grant dolphins a right to life specifically? This is akin to the question of why we would grant, for example, Homeless Joe with no friends or family a right to life specifically. If you approach the question from a secular viewpoint, it's kind of tricky. After all, there's no one to mourn the homeless person if I kill him, and he certainly won't care if I do it painlessly (in fact, he can't care; he's dead). Most ethicists working in this field approach the problem by appealing to the human traits of foresight and planning. Killing Homeless Joe thwarts his plans and deprives him of the possibility of making his life better in the future. (Interestingly, a very similar argument is used to justify euthanasia in terminal patients). Assuming that the scientific studies that we've done on dolphins show that they share the traits of foresight and planning with humans, denying them the right to life while granting it to Homeless Joe is simply drawing a line arbitrarily and discriminating against dolphins simply because they are a different species. The discrimination has no underlying rational basis.

I think that at least begins to explain why intelligence is an important factor in granting rights to non-human animals and why other traits are not as important. As for the stupid people comment, see the above argument. Consistency would dictate that if a human is so severely mentally handicapped that they do not exhibit foresight (nor will they ever--otherwise it would be totally cool to kill babies), then they wouldn't have a specific right to life under this reasoning (similar to the euthanasia argument above). However, I doubt they would be in much danger. After all, most people would need a reason to kill them (otherwise, why would they expend the effort), and even then, based on the discussion above about non-human animals, it would still have to be done painlessly. Remember, we grant the right not to be abused to most animals anyway, so this case would be no different.

As for your last statement, you bet your ass if a tuna fisherman caught a SCUBA diver in their net and drowned him, they'd be in deep shit. But we've also seen that, unfortunately, commercial interests often trump even well-established human rights, so there's really no telling.