alanschu

If you read a point in wikipedia, that uses an appropriate reference that you feel is a good point for your discussion, you should reference it. If you don't bother citing it simply because it's wikipedia, and you still make use of that point, you're passing on someone else's idea as your own.

Exactly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because sometimes it's not just a citation, but an actual point that utilizes a reference. Just like an academic paper, encyclopedia, or (decent) textbook.

Then why do people often cite academic papers, which often have their own references to what the person is saying. A decent textbook still uses references as well. So instead of using the textbook (which cites its reference), I should actually go and find the original reference (and hope it isn't a reference in and of itself?). If Wikipedia says something and you have read it, and it was an interesting point, you better cite it. Since it wasn't something that you actually came up with.

I think he's still playing the "I'm the victim" card.

If your wikipedia link doesn't have valid references, then you should get smacked for it. An interesting thing though, is that if you go to Wikipedia, even if it is just to find other references, you should still cite Wikipedia. Otherwise it is way to easy to end up plagerizing.

I have cited Wikipedia in papers at my University. I know some people that have done it and gotten nailed for it, but I was always under the impression that it was because they didn't verify the accuracy of the information.

I liked Radek Dvorak, and thought he was underrated. Hopefully he can have some success with St. Louis as he was no longer in the Oilers' plans.

You can for the most part, as any self-respecting wiki page that would like to be taken seriously should have references.

Isn't that the same thing? The difference being the second statement would allow for a $250 price exactly? Old press release <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well since you're going to be a stickler for details, $249.99 is less than $250.

You're taking the term "consciousness" too literally. I'm not talking about being conscious in the sense that you're awake and lucid. The "consciousness" is rather something that some would probably refer to as a soul (or whatever). The fact that I go to sleep doesn't mean that my consciousness has disappeared. Define dead? Because clinically dead is just when the heart stops. Which it is possible to bring someone back from, because their brain is still functioning. If someone is biologically dead (their brain is no longer functioning), you cannot bring them back to life. It's beyond our current technology. So no, they wouldn't be "just as dead" because being "dead on the operating table" isn't actually being dead. Brain activity still exists. Just like it still exists when I sleep. Again, I'm not talking about "consciousness" as in being lucid. I'm not talking about something that "controls our consciousness." I'm talking about our soul or whatever. If your ability to "see through the eyes" of the cloned person upon teleportation exists when the original body is destroyed, then it should still exist when the original body is not destroyed. Because as far as the cloned copy is concerned, it doesn't care what you do to the original body. There's no reason to think it would be affected or not.

So you're telling me that if you were cloned, you'd have control over TWO bodies? I'm not disputing this. I'm operating under the assumption that everything is copied. But you couldn't possibly occupy two separate people. It just doesn't make any sense.

Sorry jags, but taking a Lou Bega song and modifying it, even with appropriate words, goes against all the is right and pure in this world. Sorry, but it has to be done..... -5 TOMBS points

The effect is not the same. People aren't concerned simply because there are two people, but the fact that this situation allows for two people has illustrated a flaw in the system. That the copied person is not the same as the person that was copied. Lets look at it from a different perspective. You clearly are looking through your own eyes right now, correct? So upon copying yourself for "teleportation," why would you expect yourself to be seeing through the eyes of the clone? It sounds like it might make sense, but the fact that this implementation could allow for two copies of mkreku to exist (if they didn't bother killing the original entity), serves as a paradox. The mkreku that you are now, that enjoys Gothic, feels the wind on his face, and whatnot, gets eradicated in this "teleportation" process. There is no reason to think that you (as in your consciousness) would carry over to the other mkreku. You would no longer be able to enjoy Gothic, feel the wind on your face, and whatnot. Because you would be dead. The new mkreku that was created would still be able to do all these actions, but the consciousness will not be the "you" that is currently looking through your eyes right now. It can't be. Because the fact that this concept could allow for two mkrekus, means that if in fact your consciousness does carry over, you'd not just be seeing through the eyes of the original mkreku, but also the new, teleported mkreku. The caveat is that, this "new" mkreku will still look and act like you just the same, and it would essentially be no different to a third party observer. But it would have to be a new consciousness, since it's technically a new life created. The mere fact that it is possible to have two mkreku's means that there has to be a new consciousness. I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to assume that if someone cloned you perfectly, the consciousness that you are now would still be in the original, and the clone would take on its own (that would be exactly like yours, but since you're not seeing through your clone's eyes, but rather your own eyes, it couldn't be the same consciousness). I don't see how this paradox is solved if you eradicate the original before making the copy. It's still the same situation as if the clone and the original existed at the same time. It's just that the sequence of events is different. To reiterate, here's the two sequences that may occur. Sequence one: Person A is cloned into Clone A during Teleportation. Even for a small time, Person A and Clone A exist at the same time. For all intents and purposes, the consciousness of Person A and Clone A are different (otherwise the same consciousness would be controlling two separate entities...and that's just ****ed up). Person A is eradicated since we couldn't have a copy. Sequence two Person A is eradicated Clone A is created from the gene sequence that was obtained from Person A prior to eradication. In both cases, you still have Person A being eradicated, and a new life in Clone A created at the teleported distance. There is no reason for Clone A to take on the consciousness of Person A, since for all intents and purposes the end result is identical. Person A is destroyed, Clone A is created.

Like Snakes on a Plane? :D

Wrong. Games typically take more than a year to make. The only exceptions come when they can license technology and/or otherwise use preexisting technology, like KOTOR 2. Even then, look at the issues a game like KOTOR 2 has with such a short development time. Furthermore, just because you haven't heard of a game yet, doesn't mean it isn't in development. Half-Life 2 (since it was brought up) was started shortly after the release of Half-Life, which came out in late 1998. But it was only announced for two years. As for them being able to make the game in two years, not a chance. Is it any surprise that games like Half-Life 2 and Doom 3, which require brand new, state of the art engines, have development times of 4+ years? (hint, no it's not). Unless it's a cookie cutter licensee/sequel, games take a long time to make.

You say it like it's mutually exclusive.

Hahahahaa. My condolences

Michael Bay is directing this?

Hahaha, go Rob Schremp. Hahaha. EDIT: Here is a YouTube link.

The white pee just means that they were properlly hydrated. You know, your pee SHOULD be white (well, clear)...not yellow "

I'm sure it was just the American soldiers too.

Right.

I think it might depend on the monitor bok. I looked at it at work, and the screens were essentially black. Now that I'm at home, I can see much more details in them.

Because it's going to take time to validate the genetic code. Even if it's very quick, it's still going to take time to verify the teleportation worked. While this validation went on, you'd have to keep the original, just in case the validation fails. If my consciousness remained intact, yes. Unfortunately, you can't really prove that it would. I'd be more convinced that the "Star Trek" way would work rather than this reconstruction way. To be honest I think this thread has presented quite a paradox, and demonstrates (at least now) the impossibility of teleportation (which is something I didn't think prior to this thread).

Those are some amazing screenshots. TOo bad I can't make out any details in them