American companies swiftly followed, even after Google promised Tuesday to work harder to block ads on "hateful, offensive and derogatory" videos.
So let me get this straight -- racists, misogynists, and terrorists are going to benefit from an ad-free experience, and yet my 6 year old daughter has to put up with ads for mortgages and makeup and other adult stuff when she wants to watch kids videos? WTF did we ever do to you Google that dirtbags get an out from Youtube ads, but the rest of us have to suffer?
Daddy? What's erectile dysfunction and should we ask the perdiatrician if cialis is right for me?
Pretty creepy crap for kids to be watching.
...said the main living in the glorious country where the simple apparition of a nipple is considered a major mediatic catastrophe, where breast feeding is a public offense, and where anything remotely sexual is sure to traumatise the next few generations of youth. (and where nude bodies are probably terrorism-level material).
To each country and culture its own taboos. For Germany, it might be hate speech, for France it might be "right to be forgotten", and for the USA it's anything which isn't missionary position with the sole purpose to procreate.
Beware of the nude-nipple-terrorists, America !
Cool story Bro!
You really don't know much about us. But you have a nice far right wing level of pre-judgement.
the technology has yet to be named
In the light of recent app naming schemes, I propose: - Jizzr - MyLoad - Cumcountify
Those names are pretty cumbersome.
I prefer Sploogeinator
The simulated universe conjecture doesn't lend anything new to the believers of the supernatural that they don't already have.
Oh but it does. One of the greatest victories for the fundamental set would be if they could manage to get their religious beliefs taught as science in the classroom. Angered by biology and evolution, they have been trying every ten years or so to re-introduce their belief into science classrooms. Creation science was rejected by science first, then the creationists turned to Intelligent design, which ostensibly suggests the possibility of their god or aliens - though of course, wink wink, you know who we really mean. Fortunately that was shown to be lying for god.
So now, here we have people claiming that our universe is a simulation. Any Intelligent design advocates will hop on that like crocodiles on a wildebeest.
What does God need with a starship (or simulation)?
If existing, it could do all that without a simulation. So any evidence for a simulation would be evidence against it being a supreme being.
Of course. But how well will your logic play with people who believe things like the Noah's Ark myth being literally true? People who believe that the entire world was covered with water to overtop the earth's highest mountains in a rain event lasting 960 hours raising sea level by 8,850 meters today's Everest height, less at that time due to plate tectonics. I did BOE calculations and it was essentially a solid wall of falling water - the ark would need to be a submarine or else be swamped. Not to mention, all of the animals from Australia would have to swim to the middle east, covering thousands of miles - so they wouldn't drown.
People who believe that would have no problem with a spaceship god, and it's computer simulation.
And it would go against the tenets of free will. Granted, some flavors of godbothering believe in predestination, but most claim there's free will, including creationists.
Free will is another one of those philosophical brouhahas that I prefer to avoid, reminds me of angels dancing on the head of a pin discussions.
Regardless, the same folk who got wood over their incorrect application of the second law of thermodynamics will be really excited to talk about how Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees with them about a single creator of the universe. Scientists will rue the day they came up with this admission of defeat.
What? Maybe an OS lets you store a password but they don't generate passwords for you.
Umm - MacOS will generate passwords for you if you like.
There is a perplexing amount of GNOME hate in the top comments. I'm a very happy user. I've been using Linux almost exclusively in all capacities since about 1999 and have sampled and/or used a lot of desktop environments. GNOME is the best, IMHO.
If its what you like, it's all you need. Too many slashdot users seem to think that something they don't like must suck.
Seriously, why is this a thing?
So someone held a gun to your head and forced you to use it? Go to distrowatch, and get one of the distros that doesn't cause you to blow your stack
Seems odd that some people can get so upset about other people choosing not to have their code on their system, let alone run it.
Kinda have that the wrong way around Cowboy. You can't make a thread about Linux without systemd trolling.
Don't whinge about Gnome 3 and its applications, just use MATE
Exactly. I don't like Gnome, and I found this incredibly simple trick to avoid it. You won't believe what happens next!
I use Ubuntu Mate. Works a trick. If I didn't use Mate, I'd use Mint. Seems weird about people crying about an interface thy don't like, then there are so many alternatives, a few of them exemplary.
Or this is just another god of the gaps argument.
It is exactly that. Only the faithful are calling God the entity running the simulator.
Maybe a ploy to end science funding because what's the point anymore?
And this, sir, is why you really need to consider taking a course in formal logic and maybe learn about logical fallacies.
Minor point - logic does not mean correct. It merely means logical. I agree with ya otherwise.
Umm no and here's the rebuttal: http://backreaction.blogspot.c...
To tell the truth, I think that the "Universe is a simulation" is just the latest creationist effort. In a simulation, dinosaurs can be put in the ground just for fun, bioogical relations are just that way because the great simulator in the sky wants them that way, and the apparent age of the universe, speed of light, and radioactivity are all 100 percent arbitrary.
So if the universe is a simulation, there is no reason why the Abrahamic God didn't create it in October 4004 b.c.e. as determined by Usher so it is now science, and must be taught in the nation's classrooms. The Bible is now the scientific description of a scientific simulation program.
Solved everything and did the final endrun around those supreme court athiests. Howbow dah?
It isn't even a theory though, as there isn't anything to support it.
There is no conclusive proof, but there is plenty of evidence that the universe is a simulation. In many ways, the universe appears to be designed to be easy to simulate. If you were designing a universe simulation, what would you do?
1. Due to limited computational resources, the simulated universe would be granular or "quantum". 2. To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how a GPU running OpenGL will skip the generation of hidden polygons. 3. The maximum speed of information transfer would be finite, to limit the propagation of changes through the universe.
All of these are actually true in our universe, ergo, we are very likely a simulation.
I have it even better using the same logic. God made us - let's say the Abrahamic God. We are here, which is completey consistent with God making us, therefore - proven that God made us.
God's running the simulation, and that's all anyone needs to know. It all depends one's ability to give up and stop thinking, because if we live in a simulation, there is no point in studying anything, because at any moment, the great simulator in the sky can turn off the computer, and make a different simulation.
Is it me, or does it seem like those who argument so adamantly against the concept of a supreme being are perfectly happy to entertain the idea that we are part of a stimulation?
Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me! What a finely tuned response to the situation!