TOS Violation!!

You think the gum tastes funny - Amaranthim wants to pickle them! Remind me not to eat the hamburgers if she ever invites me to a BBQ.

I think I'll just stick to buying them in boxes. That is, if I'm ever in a position where a woman likes me enough so that I might potentially need one.

Hmmm..and what position would that be, dear?

One where she isn't pointing and laughing hysterically, running away or calling the police.

Botting, presumably. Others have scripted various interactivity, including auto-inviting residents to customer groups after a purchase. A whole class of SL avatars that are scripted for conversations and activity would be interesting.


Hm, let's think. I assume that a world that could develop and contain a self-aware and intelligent individual would by definition be complex and "deep" enough to fully engage that individual. If the newly developed intelligence has been developed separately or occupies a "learning" world or a succession of such environments, then it's possible that ever more complex environments would have to be developed that could not only nurture curiosity, but also share a frame of reference.

An "outbound" interface with the physical world would be the logical final extension. Considering that individuals, no matter how intelligent, really aren't able to interact with base level reality in any meaningfully comprehensive way, direct interaction might not even be necessary.

The power to take life is a responsibility and decision for all of us. Is the question whether a person would have the ethical or social-habit foundation to avoid extinguishing the life of a newly intelligent individual? Here's a question in turn: would we necessarily recognize that intelligence if we saw it?

You use the phrase 'playing god', care to field the subject of whether souls exist, and if so do they automatically attach to newly created or newly intelligent individuals? Would a fully intelligent being that just happened to live inside a bundle of chips and wires be deserving of life? Would the creation be a crime against god?


Teledildonics?

Snark- I am not a believer- no- I don't believe in souls and such- I used the phrase
playing god" as a literary tool-

I fully believe that the "life" would not necessarily need solid flesh to be considered life. I would accept an awareness of self as an individual and curiosity about things, as a basis for intelligence.

I couldn't comment on a "crime against god" seeing as how in the first part of this answer I state I am not a believer. I do believe it would be a crime against Intelligence, should one snuff out intelligent life regardless of how it manifests it self. (This statement precludes crimes where a society has accepted capital punishment as acceptable- but that is a whole other subject.)

And this is in danger of becoming a closed thread as being much too GD. IM me in world if you wish - always up for a good discussion .

And finally, Teledildonics...hmm...intrigued

A

That's an easy position to change ..... Keep your pants on....
next challenge boss?

OK, teledildonics?!?!
Come on I know some men really suck at sex, and any man that says he knows what a woman wants is more of a moron than the rest, but a device created by men to please women.....
Get a vibrating dildo and leave it at that.
that's the problem with sex these days, it's going the same way as fast food. Just skip to the end. Make a pill that gives instant orgasm and be done with the whole need for pleasure at the expense of needing anyone else.

I frankly enjoy the time getting to know the person to whom I wish to fornicate.

Of course, thats just my opinion.

Someday Stroker is prolly gonna come out with entire avatars.

Kinda like that one in the Spielberg AI movie!



Xitebots!

Because your needs are all so damn predictable anyway.

Both animal and human trials have been performed involving an insulated electrode wired straight into the pleasure center of the brain. Unfortunately, in all cases the eventual result is voluntary constant stimulation. It's simply anti-species survival.


Somehow, "you deserve...me" feels more like a threat than a promise.

How is Eddie's response not correct? the first person is going to look where they left it and say where is it? that's what eddie's answer is... i'm confused.

----------------
To test Eddie's reasoning powers, the group created a demo in Second Life in which Eddie was shown someone placing an object in one location then leaving the virtual room, followed by a second person who moved the object to another location in the room. Eddie was then asked where the first person would look for the object when he got back.

Eddie's response was the first location -- incorrect, but typical of a 4-year-old child in the real world.

That is sort of my problem. When the pleasure is obtainable with no more human interaction. We as a society are losing touch with our humanity. We seek mechines to satisfy our needs instead of each other.

Have you been to a play lately? Ever go out to eat and talk to the host or your waiter? Your hair dresser?

I've read about this particular test before. I'm pretty sure the actual result was that most 4-year-olds and no doubt this ai expect the first person to look where the item actually is rather than where they left it. Which has a logic of it's own but is not what those of us who have been around a bit longer would guess. Either it's a typo or the reporter was seriously confused.

For a very long time, the "growing reliance" on activities in the home has been accused of decreasing interest in travel, or just plain going out. Accusations started with audio recordings threatening live music, then home video threatening movie theaters. Before those, film theaters threatened plays, opera, and live music all at the same time! But despite generally changing public interests, we still have all of these activities, and last I checked, neither Wolf Trap nor the Kennedy Center (nor my local bar with live music!) have attendance problems.

What does anyone do when having a haircut except chat with the hairdresser?

I watch the sports on the screen
Frankly hair dressers scare me. Last tiem I went to get my hair cut and talked to the male hair dresser he insisted on powdering my face .....

Aside from that issue lol.
Its not the places of entertainment, its the level of interaction that seems to have suffered.
Relationships still take place. Years before having a relationship meant something. Now I'm suprised getting a marriage license doesnt come with a divorce packet.
Sexual relations are about getting off and not who your with.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy sex and being with more than one person for the rest of my life. But it seems the interaction between people has become hollow. When you start talking about bringing in mechanics to satisfy a sexual urge ... well thats just to inhuman for me.

Nothing wrong with playing god - someone has to do it, since God isn't.

Gotta agree on teledildonics - although it could turn the likes of Paris Hilton into a whole minor industry unto herself! (Personally, I'll hold out for Kim Kardashian O.O) And apparently there are a LOT of men who really suck at sex, though for the life of me I can't understand why they wouldn't make it their business to be good at it, or at least good enough...I agree also that it's good to get to know the person you're having sex with.

But as for what women want, that's easy. Now, you can't say what ALL women want, because they're so various, but the vast majority of women want the same things:
- In the long run, they want a permanent commitment from a man who is strong, reliable, and kind
- In the medium run, they want romance
- In the short run, they want extended cunnilingus followed by vigorous intercourse (whether they know it yet or not). Trust me on this. If you don't believe me, just try it, and you will see.

There, that wasn't so hard, and you don't even have to be a moron.

How come we never see threads on discussion boards or magazine articles about what men want? We're bombarded with articles in our magazines about what women want, and yet I've yet to see a women's magazine return the favour.

Because when they try, they get it wrong.

If they got it right, they couldn't make a whole article out of it. We're pretty simple.

Check out Cosmopolitan.

Of course, they don't quite have it right, either. Men are indeed quite simple.

The vast majority want: Sex, emotional support when they need it, and the feeling that they are in charge. (Relax on this last one, ladies. If you keep him well-supplied on the first two, he will be highly motivated to use his position of "being in charge" to keep you happy).

Did I mention sex?

And why aren't there more articles about what men want elsewhere? I think because the women who read women's magazines are too busy relating to what other women think. The smart ones figure out themselves what men want; gives them a competitive advantage.

im with ya since thats where the first person put it...therefore Eddie had more sense than the reporter

cause we got you guys pegged: Sex, Sports, Control of the remote, sammiches, and beer....and you want Pamela Anderson. or what you guys feel is a reasonable facsimile, to serve the beerand or sammich...naked, while calling you King....

who the hell cares what men want?

Its not like it has anything to do with keeping them wrapped around your finger.

Why - I see them all the time in the grocery line. "Inside this issue: Why all men are pigs -- and how to get one!"

You must never look at the cover of Cosmopolitan or Cosmo Girl or all the other magazines in the check-out line.

Current cover of the former: "50 things guys wish you knew."

Mari

It needs to be that way because most of us become self-deluded and think the new guy isn't a pig until its too late.