No. The PSX wasn't the fastest of its generation. Hell, it couldn't even do perspective-correct texture mapping. But it had a lot of storage and it was easy to program for.

Tee hee. Corporations can ruin your life on a whim at a negligable cost, with no consequences, and it doesn't even matter if they're in the right morally, legally, or factually.

Actually now that I think about it, it's not very funny...

They only have as much control as you give them. A cracked executable works with Steam just as well as a retail game.

Transporters would be even more useful than they seem.

Mining would be revolutionised. Teleporting minerals out of the ground would be incredibly handy.

Construction would be revolutionised, microscopic and macroscopic alike. Computers, buildings, nanomachines, all so much easier.

Medicine would be revolutionised. Arteries clogged? Bone marrow transplant? Heart replacement? Stand still for five seconds please.

Travel to the Moon would become trivial. The Moon would become like another country in practical terms.

Put some relays in space and travel anywhere in the solar system becomes a day-trip.

Giant asteroids body-slamming the Earth wouldn't be a problem anymore. Just teleport small chunks onto Earth until the blighter ceases to exist. Hell, we probably need the resources now since it's so easy to build things!

Transport food into your stomach, the ultimate act of laziness!

Then there's all the bad stuff, which someone else will already have listed in miserable detail.

Only if you classify a person as matter. We're made of matter but I think it's more accurate to describe a person as a state or configuration; mutable; destructable; transferrable.

By the way - it's already happened. How many cells in your body remain from birth, from a decade ago? Most of your body has been destroyed and recreated many times.

It's fun to think about. Our instincts about identity completely fall apart beyond a certain point. Like the way we think of the world, the way we think of ourselves is merely a model with finite accuracy and relevance.

Remember in university when you learned that argument from lack of imagination was a fallacy?

Remember in highschool when you learned that there was more than one side to an issue, and that issues generally aren't black and white even when you fully agree?

Remember in primary school when you learned other people had different preferences and sensibilities, that they didn't like everything you liked?

Combine them and *bam!*, understanding!

That would be true in an idealised fantasy world where everyone had infinite time, were lawyers, and were aware of the potential problems with EULAs. Back here on Earth...

EULAs aren't upfront. Nobody reads them and nobody expects them to be read. People couldn't understand them if they tried. They're created with that fact in mind:

EULAs aren't specific. They are to a lawyer, but for the people reading them the text is incomprehensible obfuscated gibberish. Clearly they don't give a shit about agreement since it's physically impossible for most people to agree:

Consent requires comprehension. Perhaps you've heard of statuatory rape, a law that employs this principle. Contracts are also supposed to require mutual understanding because the entire concept is logically incoherant otherwise.

But of course that wouldn't be convenient in consumer electronics. So it's ignored, leaving us with a nonsensical system that bears no relevance to reality whatsoever. We pretend to agree and they pretend we agreed. And everyone knows it's bullshit.

Except for the law of course. "Legally binding" loses meaning as a defence when the law itself loses relevance. A law which completely fails to take into account how society operates is a law that should not exist.

Therefore, EULAs are hokum, people are dumbasses, companies are shitheads and the law is morally wrong. Merry Christmas!

Happened to me a few times as well. Genuine retail copy on my shelf, real disc in a real CD drive - base explodes. I got bitten by Operation Flashpoint's over-zealous FADE DRM as well.

The brain is good at filtering out ambient noise and gibberish. Having filtered it out, you now realise you're sitting around like a lemon and feel you must actually do something.

That's what it feels like to me anyway.

Is there any other kind?

It's okay. You can go back and tell yourself not to do it.

The reason you noticed that is the reason they're making it. Brand recognition.

Asimov was pretty much the only one who wrote about robots. That is, about machines and the the logical consequences of their design.

What everyone else writes about are mechanical monsters. They could be aliens or goblins or anything else and it would make no difference.

There's no such thing as infinite smallness. I said that to highlight the absurdity of thinking that the number goes on infinitely while at the same time thinking it eventually ends. The entire point of an infinity is that it doesn't end. There is no space by definition.

You've dealt with such numbers many times without any problems. For example, in primary school when you learned about fractions:

2/3 + 1/3 = 1.

Or in decimal:

0.666... + 0.333... = 1

If you now find yourself wanting the revise the curriculum, you have a problem understanding the notion of infinity. :)

The idea of "closeness" doesn't apply in an infinite series. The number doesn't end.

It's an abstract logical construct with no analogue in reality. Do you honestly expect an intuitive answer?

And did you just seriously say you don't care what the numbers say in a mathematics discussion? Damn son, talk about overvaluing your instincts.