Sepherose

Alright, first and foremost, I know people currently stationed in the middle east that have and use Steam, I chat with them. These are people I grew up with. So right there, saying they don't have a good enough connection, is ridiculous. Especially if a hard copy that only requires registration can be gotten, and when it can't, even with a bad connection, I'm pretty sure most of them would be more than willing to wait for a game they really wanted to download, even if it takes days. That said I would like to point a few things out: I have never in all my experience with Steam had an issue modding a single player game. Ever. At all. All I had to do was a few seconds of clicking and make sure it didn't try to always update. Interestingly enough, Steam is designed to be as mod friendly as possible, just look at all the source mods out there that work seamlessly with it. Any issues with modding are likely due to the game being set up in such a way as to be unmoddable by the devs, not due to steam. Either through a DRM built into the game, or because the game files are packaged in a certain way. This is not Valve's fault. I really do not see any issue whatsoever with game devs using Steam as a DRM platform, it's not nearly as draconian as Ubi's DRM software. Needing a constant internet connection is ridiculous. Steam requires you to connect to the net ONCE to activate the game in the instance of Beth games. Only once. You can then use it purely in offline mode after that, with exception for updates if you want them. Steam is also not a large program, it is non-invasive, and it is fairly low impact on your system. I have experienced many other DRM methods that are not easily noticed with exception of their effect on your gameplay performance. For example, I can run NV on my laptop on high settings for hours without having an issue, or any crashes. I can do the same with Oblivion. I can't say about F3, as I didn't buy through Steam, I bought it retail at Fred Meyers, but I have seen it run on another machine on the highest possible settings no issue at a friend's house, and all his game purchases are exclusively through Steam. Then there are the many other advantages, like if your disk get's busted or messed up in some way and it was a box version of a game requiring Steam for activation, you can simply DL it through Steam and burn a backup for yourself. TL;DR I myself also have issues installing third party software to play a game I bought with my hard earned cash, but I am much happier having it be Steam than something like Starforce.

So I started a new game in NV, all DLC installed (running on 360 right now for play purposes, my PC version is for modding). This guy is a cannibal addicted to everything he can be addicted to, kills and eats anyone he comes across (except Rex, he loves Rex) when he can easily get away with it unless he has an ulterior motive, and snags everything he can get his hangs on, stashing it in the Dino Bite gift shop in the now ghost town of Novac. My question is, how should I have him go about getting through the DLCs? HH is an easy one to figure out (kill everything and eat it), OWB and DM, not so much, I mean, obviously, kill everyone he can and eat everyone he can. But OTHER than that. I basically just want to see how messed up I can make things in the end.

I would agree about the engine. Creation engine seems nice, although we have to wait for Skyrim to really know. If Skyrim does deliver with the RAI and Radiant Storytelling, well, add those into the mix. That could be pretty neat...

In the articles I linked on the first page, there is one that describes a small "robot factory" that doesn't need human input at all to design and make small robots, so you have your self replication right there.

I do not think locking someone up in itself is a form of punishment, I think the way prison is now is a form of punishment. I think criminals should simply be separated into a different society that is similar to ours. Of course not the same, just similar. Some people may be able to be "fixed" other will need to be permanently separated. That is essentially exile, and it is absolutely a form of punishment. That seem more like "punish them but not where I have to see it." A society like that would be so brutal as to be more inhumane than what I suggest, IMO. Look at Cambodia, for instance. Crime is rampant there, and children are born into that, breeding more criminals because that is how they have to be to survive. That would be absolutely abhorrent. Exile? No. Exile is done to be negative to the person, it is not the same as separating someone from society. I only consider something punishment if it is done by a authoritative power and purposely negative. Punishment is done so people "learn a lesson." That is not why people need to be separated from society, it is just so they do not commit crimes, and they can be rehabilitated. Exile is forcing one out of their current society, which is EXACTLY what you are describing. Separating one from their native society IS a negative action. And no, not all punishment is so one can "learn a lesson", the death penalty is a perfect example.

I will say it again in a different way. If a machine, without being told that it is being treated unfairly, has a realization that they are as smart as, or smarter than, a particular human that is being treated better, and asks why, that machine is self aware due to it's own learning. The concept of fair is a social construct, but you have to think: A learning capable machine in a human rich environment will develop a concept of fair*, if it's hardware is complex enough. *according to the cuture

I do not think locking someone up in itself is a form of punishment, I think the way prison is now is a form of punishment. I think criminals should simply be separated into a different society that is similar to ours. Of course not the same, just similar. Some people may be able to be "fixed" other will need to be permanently separated. That is essentially exile, and it is absolutely a form of punishment. That seem more like "punish them but not where I have to see it." A society like that would be so brutal as to be more inhumane than what I suggest, IMO. Look at Cambodia, for instance. Crime is rampant there, and children are born into that, breeding more criminals because that is how they have to be to survive. That would be absolutely abhorrent.

Actually no that is not the issue here. Now, I did muck up in the first post here and use the word sentient one time. That was a mistake. The poll on the other hand, only mentions intelligence, and I make multiple references to self awareness. I'm not talking about sentient machines. Self awareness can easily lead to something realizing it is being taken advantage of though, and the ability to learn can make that self awareness more complex, so I suppose in theory, self awareness could LEAD to sentience, but it is only a small piece of the puzzle. Machines, due to the nature of technology WILL improve their abilities and hardware faster than we do our organic bodies. And once we create a machine with even a modicum of ability to be innovative, we have sealed the deal on a complex, and artificial life form, coming about. Technology exponentially gets better, unlike organic life. I'll break down the question in the poll in a different way: If a machine looks at you one day and asks "What am I, and why am I here?", that alludes to self awareness. It doesn't have to be backed by emotion. That question can be asked from a purely logical standpoint. Maybe it suddenly realized it had the physical capabilities and software malleability to be doing something entirely different, and wants to know exactly why it is doing job A rather than job B. That is self awareness. Again, a part of sentience, but by no means all of it.

@marharth I must point out the flaw in your logic. Locking someone up IS a form of punishment, yet, you stand on the side "Why even bother punishing them?" leading me to believe that you would simply rather do away with punishment, meaning that crime rates would never drop as there would not be any locking them up, are you seeing the flaw here? If I have misinterpreted what you mean, please clarify, as that seems to be your stance.

Actually, if you read through all of those science articles, you would realize that something like that is in fact an actual likelihood. Actual to me doesn't fit in with the word likelihood. That's like distinct possibility of an affirmed maybe. I understand what you guys are trying to say and it is noble, but I was responding to the statement that those people who voted no weren't responding for a given reason. All sentient beings deserve respect, dignity and honor, even when they can't understand the concept. Animals are a good example of this. My question is how you can determine if these so-called intelligent machines are sentient. Are they self aware, beyond their mechanical need for diagnostics. A mere computer can be set to run diagnostic tests at startup, but does that make it sentient? I should clarify, intelligent and self aware machines are a likelihood, sentience is a different ball of wax. Sentience involves the ability to feel emotion, and that isn't what I am talking about. I was responding to your assertion that it is a purely fantasy idea, which it is not so far as science is concerned. It is a grey area though. And no, to answer your question, though I don't think it is needed. Self awareness is a difficult thing to measure. One thing that can hint that an animal is self aware, is if you place something on it's body that it won't notice without a mirror, and if it attempts to remove the object from it's own body, it is indicative of at least base self awareness. The same test could be done to a learning machine that has no programmed idea of what a mirror is, which would lean in the direction of some form of rudimentary self awareness and intelligence, if it were to pass.

Not entirely true. The rate of crimes occurring is more likely to decrease if there is a corresponding increase in the chances of being caught. If there's little-to-no chance of being caught the criminal will do the crime anyway, regardless of the severity of punishment - simply because you have to catch him before you can punish him. The general apathy of the human race helps the criminal in this case: "No, officer, I was there but I didnt see anything (*...because I don't want to get involved...*)..." On the other hand, if there's a very large chance of being caught the criminal will likely pause simply to avoid being caught, even if the punishment isn't as severe...and thus the crime rate drops. You are right, most certainly, I probably should have clarified a bit better what I meant, and honestly I completely forgot one part of what I was going to type. Essentially, if the likelihood is high, but the punishment is extremely weak, it will have little to no deterrent effect, whereas if the likelihood of getting caught is high, and the punishment severe as well as the punishment being well known about, that would most definitely increase deterrence. So severity does in fact have a direct relation to deterrence. Compare two scenarios: a) 10% chance of getting 30 years in prison b) 90% chance of getting 15 years in prison I submit that the majority of criminals will take the risk in situation (a), but will not in situation (b) - simply because the likelihood of losing 15 years of their own freedoms is so much higher than the likelihood of losing 30 years. You could impose the death penalty on every crime in existence, but if the chance of being caught is near-zero then criminals will more-than-likely keep going about their daily activities. On the other hand, if there is a 99% certainty of being stung for $10,000 each time you break the law, then crime rates will fall pretty sharply. I can easily agree that if rates of capture are increased, the severity can be decreased. I have no disagreement with what you say in your response, actually. I am simply saying that were the rates of capture brought up from where they sit now, AND the severity increased for at least a short duration, the crime rate would have an even sharper decline.

Actually, if you read through all of those science articles, you would realize that something like that is in fact an actual likelihood. Vernor Vinge on the Singularity Who Vernor Vinge is. And yes, he is a science fiction author, but was also a Mathematics Professor at SDSU, and a computer scientist. I would say that makes him a fairly reliable source.

Not entirely true. The rate of crimes occurring is more likely to decrease if there is a corresponding increase in the chances of being caught. If there's little-to-no chance of being caught the criminal will do the crime anyway, regardless of the severity of punishment - simply because you have to catch him before you can punish him. The general apathy of the human race helps the criminal in this case: "No, officer, I was there but I didnt see anything (*...because I don't want to get involved...*)..." On the other hand, if there's a very large chance of being caught the criminal will likely pause simply to avoid being caught, even if the punishment isn't as severe...and thus the crime rate drops. You are right, most certainly, I probably should have clarified a bit better what I meant, and honestly I completely forgot one part of what I was going to type. Essentially, if the likelihood is high, but the punishment is extremely weak, it will have little to no deterrent effect, whereas if the likelihood of getting caught is high, and the punishment severe as well as the punishment being well known about, that would most definitely increase deterrence. So severity does in fact have a direct relation to deterrence.

I agree, I would like to hear some arguments against the concept, as it almost seems like those opposed can't really grasp a reason why, which is understandable, as those machines would be fairly alien to us in many ways. I'm not saying they couldn't come up with a valid point, I just have yet to hear one or read one. And about the unsure vote, I don't know exactly, and this is pure speculation, but I think that may have been Vagrant0, and he was the first to reply to this thread.

From Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An analysis of Recent Research, which was cited in the first paper: Now correct me if I am wrong here, but I do believe this states that a severe punishment, if widely known about as being used in the event of certain crimes, does in fact increase deterrence to the criminal act. Now if you would argue that word of mouth through the criminal community would in fact spread the knowledge, this is not absolutely the case. From the same section: Also: In short, at the time of that particular writing, they know that knowledge of the actual severity of punishment, does in fact carry a deterrent effect, but the actual solid data cannot absolutely be determined. On the subject of those that will commit crimes regardless of the consequences, those individuals should be made example of. To answer your question, no, myself and no one I know would do such a thing in the event of punishment being removed from the equation. But I ask you this, if punishment is removed, how precisely would the system deal with criminals? To remind you you said: Also, you said this: Morality is subjective to culture and those around you. Many people would argue that is perfectly moral to kill homosexuals/blacks/hispanics/whites/etc., so if those are the morals one is taught, those are what would guide them. Sadly those with irrational fear or hatred for those that are different outweigh those that are completely at ease with difference. So what do you think would happen in the long run? My personal opinion is that since the irrational and intolerant outweigh the rational and tolerant, then in the end those, to my perception, irrational morals and mindsets would take over.

Thank you LadyMilla. From the abstract: This to me means that altering existing law will not increase deterrence. I would have to agree with this and the explanation they give, which is due to the average person not actually knowing the law to the fullest. But it also means that actually enforcing already solidly determined laws is in fact a deterrent, this is also stated in more detail in the actual opening paragraph, rather than in the abstract description. To increase the deterrent effect, as far as I have determined myself, and seems, so far, to be reinforced by that paper, certain things must change. One of those being plea bargaining. This should be outlawed. All it does is make sure the less honorable criminals are released, even after such crimes as murder or rape. Sure they will have the record, but they are essentially being handed a chance to do the same crime again, possibly influencing others to do the same thing. This can cause a short lived ripple effect through the more foolhardy people in society, effectively INCREASING crime rates for a short time, due to those people feeling like they have an easy "out" of the worst potential punishment, so long as they have a scapegoat.

I second greywaste here. You have been saying that there is evidence to support your claim and I have never, in my life, read anything that supports your side of this marharth. Until then I have to stick with punishment for crimes as a deterrent to committing said crimes.

That is a good question. Creating machines intelligent enough to think for themselves is entirely counter productive. Not necessarily, innovation, some would argue, requires creative thought, and that, some would again argue, requires emotion. They could still serve a purpose however. There are many dangerous jobs that they could do with ease comparative to us, also they could help develop cleaner, more efficient technology, at a faster rate I might add. I don't see how allowing them free will and intelligence would make them LESS productive. You would be required to give the machines equal pay and equal rights though. It is immoral to put intelligent beings into slave labor, and it will come back to bite you. So intelligent machines doing jobs that are dangerous to humans? Maybe, but it isn't worth it in my opinion. There are other options. I never said anything about treating them differently than humans in my post. I agree that if they were intelligent and self aware, that treating them like tools is the same as slavery. @ub3rman: I'm not talking about pre-programmed emotions here, I am talking about developing self awareness, whether or not emotions come into play. And by developing, I mean truly learning it themselves, so if they had emotion, they would have developed them, not been pre-programmed with them, therefore, not really showing off on the part of the programmer that made the base framework that the AI develops around.

That is a good question. Creating machines intelligent enough to think for themselves is entirely counter productive. Not necessarily, innovation, some would argue, requires creative thought, and that, some would again argue, requires emotion. They could still serve a purpose however. There are many dangerous jobs that they could do with ease comparative to us, also they could help develop cleaner, more efficient technology, at a faster rate I might add. I don't see how allowing them free will and intelligence would make them LESS productive.

Agreed on that. I was reading a while ago about the Grey Goo scenario, apparently there is a similar scenario that could come about by "Strange Matter". Fascinating stuff really. Slightly OT: Zombie Cancer

First I'm going to post links to various articles about innovations in robotics to give some perspective: Technological singularity <-Wiki Drones that can predict enemy intent Nanowire artificial skin Robotic skin factory Skin grafts grown outside of petridish <-Wiki RoboEarth (AKA Skynet Lite) Intelligent, learning satellite network Robot capable of learning and mimicking human emotion (kind of) Robot designs and builds other robots without human interaction Fast learning program can figure out how to walk within minutes Robot that can adapt to injury Innovations that could lead to "indestructible" bots And finally, this one I believe is very important: British Ministry of Defense concerned about possible "Terminator" event Alright, I am unsure about that last one, but I have watched a documentary about the "Technological Singularity" and the man saying that it will happen has a lot backing him in terms of previous technological predictions, as for the rest, I am fairly certain it will speak for itself, and it comes down to two question really. If self aware machines come about: 1. In terms of a "Terminator" event, could we avoid it? 2. And in terms of "Robotic Rights", akin to Asimov's "I, Robot", should self aware machines be granted equal rights? My answers to these questions are fairly straightforward, to the first, in all likelihood, yes. So long as the answer to the second is ALSO yes. What it boils down to really is the limitations of the machine instead of the programming. A learning, adaptive program, given the proper hardware on which to store it's collected information, could in theory become aware, and in that event, how should it be handled? There are probably many here who have played the Mass Effect series, and what led to the Quarians near extinction was there paranoid overreaction to a Geth gaining self awareness, attempting to wipe them all out, and as we would in an event like that, the Geth fought back. This is a perfect example of how NOT to react to a situation like that if it were to happen. But then where does that leave us with the exponential increase in technological advancement? We will be weaker, and likely stupider in a very short amount of time. To them, death would be a learning experience (ala' Battlestar Galactica Cylons), but to us, it is finality. I personally believe that a machine that becomes self aware will develop morals, but those morals will be colored by their initial interaction with humans. If intelligent machines come into being, I believe the only way we could survive it is if we do not treat them as trinkets or tools, but as self-aware beings. What are my fellow Nexus user's thoughts on this? TL;DR: Intelligent machines, if they come about, how should they be treated, and could we avoid a "Terminator" like end to the situation? EDIT: I used "sentient" instead of self-aware, this was a mistake.

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day. Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded. What is the logic in punishment? Is there any real point in punishing criminals? Yes, yes there is. But the sad truth of it, without a shock, many won't learn the lesson. As an example, is someone has committed rape, I see one potential punishment that would most definitely teach a lesson to those that have considered it. And yes, I am prepared to take flak for this as "barbaric", but I don't see a problem with treating a monster in a monstrous way. In short, remove their unmentionables in a public forum. The shock through society will spread at the brutality of the act, and individuals that might have considered such an act will think twice. This is simply a thought, and yes, as stated, I understand there are those out there that will very much disagree with me. Punishment won't make criminals better, punishment will make criminals want to harm people more. Shock won't stop people from committing crimes. Your punishment system could be death for even petty theft, people will still do crimes. I'm not saying crime will stop altogether, that is utopian and naive. Also, I wouldn't want death for petty theft, or anything of that caliber, but I do believe that harsh examples will curb crime, leaving the true criminals more obvious, as they would be more likely to be the ones doing the crime rather than those that are simply curious. I'm am not so simple minded as to think all criminals are evil or bad either, there are genuine cases where someone commits a crime out of necessity rather than simple curiosity. An example would be someone that had a life and a job, but due to circumstances out of there control, suddenly find their life pinwheeling and end up on the streets. That does happen, as I am sure you know, and with today's economy, it would be difficult, and near impossible in some places, to get back on their feet, so to survive they end up stealing a loaf of bread or something similar. And before someone attempts to say it, I am aware that there are programs in place to help those on the streets, but those programs are horribly underfunded, and are being cut in many places, also, that's a debate for a different thread I would think :P Edit: Also, what would you suggest in place of punishment? Rehabilitation tend to have the same problem, if not more of them. And without punishment for criminals, well, that is practically anarchy. Criminals would not be concerned with restraint, and society would become stupidly unbalanced.

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day. Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded. What is the logic in punishment? Is there any real point in punishing criminals? Yes, yes there is. But the sad truth of it, without a shock, many won't learn the lesson. As an example, is someone has committed rape, I see one potential punishment that would most definitely teach a lesson to those that have considered it. And yes, I am prepared to take flak for this as "barbaric", but I don't see a problem with treating a monster in a monstrous way. In short, remove their unmentionables in a public forum. The shock through society will spread at the brutality of the act, and individuals that might have considered such an act will think twice. This is simply a thought, and yes, as stated, I understand there are those out there that will very much disagree with me.

583.... That's after 0 right?

Personally, I prefer New Vegas, for various reasons. First and foremost, I'll say this, Fallout 3 was innovative and a good game in it's own right, now onto some of the more glaring problems I saw: 1. The most glaring issue I had was the main quest line, as it seemed lazy. I say this because it was like Beth had smashed the story lines of F1 and F2 together and just kind of mashed other aspects from them in there for good measure thinking to themselves "The old fans will love this Pollock* of a Fallout story". Basic breakdown indicates this to me. So, in short, I loved the feel of the old games, and as far as I can tell, New Vegas is much more in line with that. *Jackson Pollock, Painter