Are you suggesting that Microsoft named its new browser after its R&D department?

I'd argue that the process you're talking about is more like the standard "uploading" process, minus the usual caveat about destroying the original. I agree with you that the process you describe process creates a copy that thinks it's the original. I also agree that destroying the original as part of the process seems arbitrary: why would copying someone's mind necessitate destroying the original?

But what I describe is a different process. Instead of copying the subject's mind into a machine, the user gradually learns to use the machine to supplement, or even outright replace, parts of his brain. There is only one mind, which works "across" both the brain and the machine simultaneously, rather than being cleanly "in" either location. Another poster mentions a prosthesis for specific brain functions; this is a good metaphor.

Transferring, then, becomes the process of working "across" both the brain and the machine, and increasing the machine usage to the point that the brain can be taken out of the loop. Assuming for the moment that this ever becomes possible, would that be a true transference, or still just a duplicate that thinks it's the original?

That holds if the preferred method of transfer is "uploading", yes. But what about a more gradual method?

Suppose that rather than wholesale uploading your brain, the process were to start with an implantable (or even wearable) computer that interfaces directly with the brain, perhaps providing extra sensory data or storage space. Over time, the mind learns to make this integration seamless, partly integrating with the device.

At this point, a second device is added to the mix, providing some additional functionality, and the person learns to integrate with this as well. The cycle repeats, adding more and more devices, and the person learns to integrate with them more deeply.

Eventually, one might learn to "inhabit" these devices: integrating so deeply that the brain itself becomes unnecessary, like a vestigial organ. The person might go back and forth on several occasions, to build confidence both in the procedure and to build confidence that no matter what "side" of the brain/computer divide you happen to be on at the time, you are still you. Depending on how the technology works, you might even be able to learn how to "transfer" from one set of devices to another, likely starting from similar principles, though the process could be accelerated.

At that point, the last step is simple: inhabit the devices and do not go back. Once your body is disconnected from the system, you're "in" for good.

I'm afraid I don't recall the story where this concept originated, but I thought it was intriguing as a description of an "uploading" process that did not involve making a copy. Does anyone know what it might be?

Only by creating a system in which, in order to work properly, information must be hidden from the patient. This is unacceptable, full stop.

Maybe not with that exact filename, but I can't help but wonder if some people hear that "shadow passwords are more secure" and think this means that changing your password to "shadow" helps.

I mean, why that particular word? Is there another explanation for how it could be that popular? Other than hedgehogs with guns, I mean?

Please, please don't tell me that this word's popularity is an ill-conceived response to /etc/shadow. I may have to weep for humanity.

I'm really confused as to how this works: at least if I understand what you're saying correctly, that certainly would break the principle of least astonishment. Is there a more thorough explanation of the topic that I could look through?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you talking about switching the values of two variables? Python can do that in one line: "a,b = b,a" (no quotes).

Or is this some kind of syntactical thing where you're asking to write "b = a" and having it mean "a = b"? I don't think Python can do that, but I don't know how you do it in VB either.

More to the point, I'd love to see any "complex construct" that VB can do, that Python cannot.

The horrible Keanu Reeves movie was an "adaptation" (albeit a very, very loose one) of the comic. It may help to think of the series as what the movie could have been if it were actually done right.

There is a story arc at one point in the comics where the title character has to deal with a demon created from himself. It's my personal opinion that if the TV show ever does this arc, they should try to get Keanu Reeves to play the demon. It breaks from the comics a bit (since the comic book version of the demon looks exactly like his progenitor), but the fandom-troll would be epic.

NBC has been frustratingly ambiguous concerning whether or not Constantine has been cancelled. They refuse to state it one way or the other. They failed to order the back nine episodes for Season 1 (obviously a bad sign), but since that deadline passed, they've gone so far as to give it a much better time slot (obviously a good sign).

The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but wonder if this is some kind of marketing ploy: if they never intended to cancel it, but kept things ambiguous solely to whip up the fanbase.

Really? I thought I had that covered by "have long been exploited, and that genie is not going back in the bottle."

Because the harm done by vote-forcing and vote-buying far outweighs the harm done by all but the most egregiously inaccurate counts. It takes little more than a cursory glance at modern societies facing these problems to see that.

At best, that assumption is extremely naive. Even in places that practice secret ballots, attempts at vote-selling and coercive schemes are common. In places with a free press, they make the news all the time.

They don't tend to get very far, of course. But that's largely because it's impossible to verify that any given person actually voted in a particular way. There is no point in attempting to coerce someone to do something when all you have to verify that they've done what you wanted. There is no sense in buying votes when there is no way to verify that you've actually gotten the service you paid for. But for this to work, there must well and truly be no way to get that information.

Legal and procedural safeguards are not enough. It must be actually impossible to get this information: in other words, the secret ballot. There is a tradeoff involved, in that counts become marginally less accurate, but given the alternative, this price is worth paying.

It was a heck of a lot closer to one than it is now; that much is certain. And even if it were not, nostalgia for a bygone historical era is irrelevant in the face of current practice. The holes in non-secret ballots have long been exploited, and that genie is not going to go back into the bottle.

Besides which, you have still failed to state why non-secret ballots are any better. What purpose do they serve, other than to make it possible to pressure people to vote the way that some other party wants them to?

Care to elaborate? Open voting in the modern age tends to be practiced by dystopian regimes, as a means of asserting control over the voter base. How is that even remotely better than a secret ballot?

Even in the real world, a surprising number of languages contain characters that still have no single-point normalized forms. But the most widely-known case of multi-point characters doesn't correspond to any real-world language at all: look up "Zalgo" for more information on this.