Ten oz

8 are dead and many others are injured. The assailant has been identified as Robert Bowers. He reported was armed with an AR-15 styled rifle (of course) and target Jewish people. Robert Bowers was an active poster on the “alt-right” version of Twitter, Gab. He is known to have post anti-Semitic hate speech via Gab. As usual (it ridiculous mass shooting have become this common) discussion regarding this shooting with include gun control but is it time to also start having discussions about hate speech?

If it had "happened" my guess is you'd be glad it did. People like and love what they like and love.

This 'giving them the benefit' approach really frustrates me. Throughout my life it has always appeared to be Republicans who are benefiting from such errors. Whether it is a reduction in polling locations due to budget issues, old infrastructure breaking down , or hanging chads the error always seems to benefit the same party and/or disenfranchise the same demo. Even in a court of law where one is innocent till proven guilty there is still one side making the case to the jury that one is guilty. It isn't 2 defense attorneys outlining plausible deniability back and forth. Texas Attorney General and proud Tea Party Conservative Ken Paxton spent the the summer doing his party to prevent people from even being able to register to vote:

If you were to run a perfect simulation of this Universe the computer you were running such a simulation on would have to exist within the simulation or else your simulation would not be accurate. Earth is a planet and exists in the Universe. If you ran a simulation of this Universe and replaced Earth with something else the simulation would not be of this Universe. You would be changing endless bits of data associated with the creation and existence of Earth which would change data associated with solar system and etc.

I am not moving the goal post. I think there are computing limits within the universe. I already referenced such, Here. If you disagree than that is your prerogative. It seems we both agree a simulation of a specific universe can't take place within that universe so what's the crux of our continued exchange?

If you disagree that a computer cannot simulate the universe it is in why would it be obvious?

Am I making an argument? I am sharing my thoughts on a theoretical matter. No where have I argued I am right or anyone else is wrong. As for my view of a computer in this universe being able to simulate the universe, process power aside, the matter of infinite recursion comes into play as an infinite loop would be created. So if this universe is a simulation it would have to exist is a another universe.

I can neither confirm or deny this. Which is perfectly fine. I am not sure I wouldn't say it is compelling. It just makes sense to me that anything built within this universe would be limited by this universe. For that to apply to simulation theory the Universe where the processor we are in exists would need to follow similar rules and who's to say it does, not me.

Ironically penis replacements like lamborghinis, Vacheron Constantin watches, and bottles of cristal can't do either of those.

Our Universe cannot be simulated by computers we are capable of creating. It would take more computing power than exists in the Universe. That article goes into a bit. I never said it could. Rather I referenced the limits of the Universe as a clue. I have no idea if we are living in a simulated Universe nor do I have any idea have to prove it one way or another.

If "you" references us here today than sure. In a billion years why not? At some point provided Humans don't go extinct first there is a chance we will travel to other galaxies. Doing so will prove they are there and provide new opportunities for study. Isn't that what this thread is about though? Keep in mind in my first post I mentioned that limits as a "clue". I made no claim anything would be proved. If this were a simulated universe a lot of bets are off. You and eye could both be programmed mimicking debate for the sake of entertaining some god like alien's pet gold fish. There are not known hard and fast rules to a simulated universe as its design would be serving a purpose beyond our observation.

Humans have never been able to generate an experiment where we have sent anything out and measured over a galaxy sized distance. We measure on our end and are able to calculate what we receive but point of origin values are often assumed. By assumed I am not implying without solid reason. We are discussing a simulated universe though. To know for sure we have to get out. If you and I are simulations who is to say MACS0647 (furthest known Galaxy) isn't just a signal within the simulations program mimicking a distance Galaxy which isn't actually there?

Larger computers are not the entire universe itself. I don't understand the comparison. Doubt is the wrong word. Something is known till it is known. We can accept certian concepts as highly probable And still concede they are known for sure.

No, not in a vacuum but between galaxies. We have models which can predict this but predictions do still need to be proved. I am not sure what you mean. Computer created by humans exist in our universe and not inside of our minds. They exist within in same universe as we exist in. I don't understand the relevance able to out process a person.

For fewer than should. Chemistry is useful. Educating oneself on chemical reactions would enable one to figure out how to build an explosive. Just are understand electricity would would enable one to construct a device to electrocute someone. We can't control what people do with knowledge.

If the penis is made for the vagina does that mean celibacy is unnatural? Your dichotomy between natural vs unnatural creates any endless list of unnatural acts. Why stop at what the penis is made for. Semen is made to reproduce. That doesn't mean all ejaculation which isn't in the attempt to reproduce is unnatural. Nature doesn't work this way. Anything which exists in nature is natural. Homosexuality does naturally exist just as Heterosexuality does.

Our computers have more processing power than our conscious minds but not more than the Universe. Which isn't to say the Universe is a computer but rather is to say that our computers are not capable of running our Universe as a simulations. Not even close. For example 5.5 petabits ( 1 petabit = 1015bits = 1000000000000000bits = 1000 terabits) can be stored in each cubic millimeter of DNA. Our computers could produce an in-depth simulation of us much less the whole universe.

There is a difference between the limits of what humans understand and the true limits of the universe. Models aside I think the real tests of speed, gravity, and so on will be done when human colonies are physically separated by larger distances than we have yet achieved. For example on its closet approach Mars is merely 3 minutes away at light speed.

When I was a young kid back in the early 90's several people at the local high school were going around blowing up garbage cans with pipe bombs. They weren't using the internet to figure out how to build their explosives. I have never built an explosive device nor do I currently have any idea how to specific build one. However I assume, perhaps naively, I would be able to build a rudimentary one easily if I bothered to try without the use of the internet. For those who would take the time to educate themselves and invest the time and money in constructing an explosive I don't think availability of specific information on the internet is a limiting factor.

A simulated universe wouldn't be able to exist equal to or larger than the universe it was created within. Identifying artificial, designed, or otherwise imposed limits would be a clue.

And yet "her emails" is the sort of baggage Hillary Clinton's name carries. Even some Sanders supporters on the left complain about her emails and how they exposed a twist political scheme to win the primary.

I didn't mean to imply you deny Climate Change. Rather I was just giving you an example of how something aligning more with one political party than another doesn't automatically make it bias. What I think you are missing here is that Trump himself is the catalyst for his own press. Trump purposefully conducts public feuds with people. It is his thing. He was a reality star before this and public fights were always his thing. Take all the Storm Daniels stuff Stormy is not a Democrat and Democrats are not responsible for the Stormy coverage. Stormy is a pornography actress that Trump slept with and pay offed. Trump calling Stormy Horseface and her calling him tiny back and forth has nothing to do with Political bias. Likewise for Trump firing people like Omarosa. It was Trump who hired Omarosa. She is not a Democrat. All of her coverage and their public feuding has nothing to do with Democrats. Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein are Republicans and both were appointed by Trump. All the threats and insults lobbed at them by Trump has nothing to do with Democrats. Heck, Bob Mueller is a Republican and his investigation was greenlit by Republicans in the DOJ that Trump appointed. It was Trump own Sec of State that call Trump a moron and who Trump later chose to fire via twitter. These are public spectacles of Trump's own creation. Subtract that stuff away from the equation here and what is CNN really doing to help Democrats, nothing. I'd argue they are helping Trump. Have you ever heard the showbiz saying "all press is good press"? Trump baits CNN because Trump loves being the lead story. If CNN stopped doing negative Trump stories tomorrow Trump himself would be upset about it in my opinion. Don't let it fool you. In an environment where Trump himself is creating feuds between himself and apolitical figures like reality stars, pron stars, athletes, and etc it simple isn't accurate to conflate all media coverage of Trump with political bias. Democratic based attacks and Democrats support occupies very little space in the U.S. news media currently. Another example of a seemingly politically bias Trump feud which actually isn't would be Colin Kaepernick and the whole issue of athletes and the national anthem. It is in the news a bit and Trump enjoys complaining about athletes at his rallies. It seems very partisan charged............ but it actually isn't. Colin Kaepernick is no Democrat. Keapernick's position is anti both Democrat and Republican equally. Trump simply has made the whole thing about himself because that is what he does.

Trump tweets attacks against CNN and gifs off himself beating up CNN. Trump himself singles CNN out to publicly brawl with. That plus the fact that Trump is a notorious liar is the root cause for his negative coverage by CNN. It isn't rooted in political bias for as I can tell or for as you have been able to provide examples of. Climate science is more aligned with Democrats. That doesn't mean climate scientists is bias. You are making loose unsupported associations. Nearly 70% of the U.S. supports stricter gun control, Here. One doesn't have to be politically bias to have a positive take on gun control. You are claiming equivalent political bias so examples of politic bias would be the useful types of examples.

I don't have cable and haven't watched CNN in a few years. From what I have seen online CNN is definitely negative towards Trump. That dispute doesn't seem exclusively politically motivated to me though as Trump regularly attack CNN at rallies and on Twitter. The two seem to have a childish beef going that Trump started and CNN continues for rating. No, I don't think it is in support of the Democratic party.

It is a question. Asking you if negative Trump sentiment is equal to partisan pro-Democrat sentiment isn't any sort of an equivalency. The example you provided wasn't one of CNN being pro-Democrat. It was an example of them being negative toward Trump. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive but they also aren't one in the same either. You are insisting that CNN is pro-democrat is an equivalent manner to the way FoxNews is pro-Republican yet Democrats aren't watching CNN at nearly the same levels Republicans watch FoxNews and you have yet to provide an example of CNN being pro-Democrat.