Honestly if there were a solid, unbiased news source that just covered geopolitics and science, I'd be all over that. But now I just sub to Ground, and that works decently well.
Reading through that, it does seem like a very hasty decision on the judge's part. But then again, I don't know what else you're supposed to do if you think the warrant for the arrest is based on an unjust premise (Which Dugan presumably thought, otherwise I have no idea why she'd act the way she did). This does make it pretty clear that the arrest of the judge is justified, unless there are some special provisions for judges that I'm unaware of that allow judges to be exempt from title 18 code 1071 and code 1505, which is entirely possible since the most relevant thing about US law I know is jurisprudence. Barring that possibility, what should be more on the top of everyone's minds is how this is resolved in court.
Yah but CBSA it states that only certain offenses allow for devices to be searched as part of standard procedure. The article states, that the US border can do it without justification. You may be cynical towards what the Canadian border might consider valid justification, but unless you believe that they're lying or the Auarticle is lying,
The inefficiencies come from infrastructure. Transferring electricity is so goddamn cheap, that city planners and developers hardly consider it a footnote. Water, sewage and drainage on the other hand are much, much more expensive. They require much more space, and oft times need to be pressurized. Imagine that with steam pipes where the steam on top of all that, needs to be heated too. Sure, hooking up to an existing steam main probably doesn't cost too much, but building new mains can't be worth it, even in the long run, as infrastructure constantly needs to be upgraded.
I don't think it quite the arbitrary distinction you're making it out to be. If you were cloned every time you went to sleep, and those clones awoke with the same memories you had before going to bed.
Would you consider all of those clones' consciousnesses to be part of your own? Surely not, because you're not experiencing them, you're only experiencing your own. This means that the "you", in this case, is the self reflective portion of the collection of interpretations of sensory stimulus and memories, whereas consciousness is that collection as a whole. That's why these clones can't possibly be "you", because if there's no sensory stimulus being experienced or interpreted by your brain, then there is no consciousness and there certainly is no "you". What this ends up meaning is that "you" are necessarily bound to the mechanical component that interprets stimuli. That component can be adjusted over time, but the process must be interpreted in such a way that it seems gradual enough that your brain can still recognize those intermediary interpretations as "you".
So, when you state that robo brain is still "you", I have to disagree. While robo-brain can still believe it's "you", it can't possibly be "you", as "you" could potentially still exist in the original biomechanical device, which isn't interpreting the new body's stimuli, and thus not building a sensory profile based on the stimulus. Even if there was a transfer that resulted in the original device's (i.e. your body) death, the new body still couldn't be considered "you" as there isn't anything physically different about the two scenarios for the body.
Of course, if you consider every clone to be an extension of your consciousness, then you could argue all this. But at that point I think we'd have vastly different interpretations on what consciousness and "you" are. You could also argue that there is something physically different about the two scenarios presented in the robo-brain example, but the only way I can imagine a sincere argument for that is if you told me it was due to the transference of some soul-like entity. But, of course, if you were to tell me that, I would simply disagree.
Also yes, if there's a consensus on something, thinking different to said consensus would be unusual because it's not the usual. There are no value judgements in this article, so really interpreting this in any other way other than the literal sense makes you come off as defensive.
More to the article itself, I wonder which comes first, the unusual thoughts, or the loneliness?
This list is so generic, so uninspired, that I'd of thought an AI generated it had it not been for the advertisement for the author's own book at the top and bottom of the page... Actually, I'm still not convinced it wasn't generated by an AI.