Oh, right. So what you're trying to say is that although courts are charged with upholding the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, a court of law is a valid exemption from the ordinary rule of freedom of expression, because of contempt-of-court, perjury, etc.
You did a seriously bad job of getting that across, by the way. You seemed to be saying that courts get to send people to prison for saying ordinary-but-unpopular things in their day to day lives, as if 'freedom of expression' doesn't actually give you any protections at all.
You are punished for the act of expression itself when you admit shit in court
What on Earth? Of course you aren't. It's called 'admitting' precisely because you're punished for, you know, what you did.
You aren't a free man nor a citizen when you are in court, you are not a person when you are in court, you are a suspect and an object for processing.
I get that you're trying to be dramatic, but again you're just spouting nonsense.
If you want to say a courtroom is a special exception to freedom of expression, just go ahead and say it plainly and clearly.
You appear to think that freedom of expression is a completely empty idea with no real bearing on... anything.
Sure, things you say have an impact on, for example, whether a court will find you to have had malicious intent. But freedom of expression means you aren't punished for an act of expression itself. Why you are trying to deny that this is the case, I'm not sure.
Freedom of expression is why you're allowed to call the president an asshole and the government isn't allowed to punish you for it. They don't get to imprison you and tell you Well sure you were free to do it, but you weren't free from consequences.
in court there is no freedom of expression without consequences
Actually, that's what freedom of expression means: you don't have to worry about consequences in court, even though you obviously still have to worry about consequences outside court.
No, AC, you're making a proper hash of things. If the legal system is punishing you for it, that means it apparently wasn't free speech.
Lying under oath, or threatening someone violence, or shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre, or infringing copyright, are not protected under free speech. Which means the government gets to punish you for it.
Calling someone an asshole is free speech, but you don't get immunity from consequences: that person will now dislike you.
This seems unlikely. I figure it's far more likely that the AI is simply solving the wrong problem.
If the AI's job is to assess the odds of recidivism, taking into account all available data, then it's neither going to go out of its way to be racist, nor go out of its way not to be racist.
If it's showing a bias against black convicts, presumably that's because black convicts really do have worse recidivism rates for whatever reason. (Of course, that's 'recidivism rate' according to the data. It doesn't disprove, say, the existence of a racist police force with a racially-biased arrest pattern.)
I'd be willing to bet that if you did a backtesting study, pitting the AI against human judges, the AI would beat them. It might well also be far more racist, as the judges are likely to want to discount race on moral grounds.
They don't just want an AI that predicts recidivism rates, they want one that does so whilst incorporating our senses of morality and fairness. They're obviously not the same thing.
If an AI is racist, it's for a different reason: it's picking up on inequalities (whether or not caused by society itself) that really do exist in the world today.
Besides, we as their creator are flawed beings so inherently, our creations will be also flawed.
No, this isn't what's happening at all.
An AI showing racial bias doesn't reveal racism on the part of the AI's designers, it shows that the data fed to the AI reveals politically-incorrect inequalities in society. An AI will detect these patterns, unless it's specifically designed not to.
Female drivers really do get into fewer traffic accidents, but society sees it as unfair to penalise men just for being male. We see the same situation here with the AI.
Here in the UK, Sky have NowTV, a subscription streaming service which includes some amount of HBO content. Game of Thrones in particular is available sometimes - clearly their licence is on-and-off. Currently GoT is available, and back when season 6 was being shown they were made available roughly as they came out.
your defense of our refusal to confirm "tips" and thus kill innocents is that "We just don't care"
Are you aware that there's a difference between wishing that I said something, and me actually having said it?
I can't even tell which line of mine you're twisting here.
You're right that the body count of the Iraq war (roughly 120,000) is a tragedy, and that the whole project was a huge mistake. But there is a moral difference between trying to overthrow a tyrant, and trying to impose a caliphate. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that, unlike those of the USA, ISIS's motivations are about as depraved as they come.
The USA has the decency to be ashamed of the My Lai massacre. ISIS, on the other hand, advertise that they torture and execute those that they capture, be they military or civilian. This is their recruitment material. They openly hope to build a society in which that sort of thing is normal.
Given that the "laser guided bombs" hit the wrong targets,it follows that the two are EXACTLY the same!!
....no, not even close. ISIS deliberately machine-gunned civilians, and do that kind of thing all the time. They're not ashamed of it, either. The US forces, on the other hand, screwed up rather badly.
The intent of war is EXACTLY the same as the intent of ISIS, to impose political will upon others.
Not all political wills are morally equivalent. Fighting to overthrow a tyrant is not morally equivalent to fighting to empower tyranny.
Isis is not responsible for those war crimes.
I get that you're full-blown bleeding heart and all, but you've honestly lost me completely.
Did they accidentally machine-gun fleeing civilians?
Did they accidentally burn a captured pilot to death?
How on earth do you plan to argue they don't have moral culpability?
Dropping guided bombs on ISIS fighters is the moral equivalent of machine-gunning fleeing civilians?
Has no concern for innocent lives as demonstrated by the "Wedding party / terrorist kill ratio"
False equivalence. The US military can and does sometimes decide not to act because of civilian casualties. ISIS ritually execute civilians as for their promotional material. They're actually proud of it.
Uses threat of force and killing and, in Iraq, murder to achieve political change desired by command authority
The Iraq War was a huge mistake, but there isn't a moral equivalence here. The intent of the war is not the moral equivalent of the intent of ISIS.
Makes use of remote attack disguised in the air to strike without warning.
My favourite example of Facebook being deliberately anti-user is their recent decision to change the way personal-message email-alerts work. They used to include the full text of the personal message. Now, they just alert you that you've got one waiting... so you'd better fire up Facebook (ads and all) to see what it is.
Terrorism is designed to spread a message along with the fear.
I agree. It also gels with Schneier's brilliant article What the Terrorists Want, which starts at the other end (with an implicit understanding of what terrorism is) and explores the motivation (which we use here as part of the definition).
This definition is broad enough to include both the recent Borough Market and Finsbury Park attacks, but isn't so broad that it includes 'ordinary' murder.
(even just jaywalking) then the maximum punishment of the law should be immediately applied and afterwards (assuming the offender wasn't executed for, say, murder) the offender must be deported
Talk about going off the deep end...
look, if you're concerned about your personal safety then carry a weapon
I realise we're teetering on the gun debate rabbit-hole, but: it's hardly clear that arming thousands of untrained civilians reduces violent fatalities.
You know why the Borough Market attackers used knives? British gun control.
no violence, even in self defense, is acceptable... unless you're a muslim, then do whatever you want.
When you explain away attacks by Christians on Muslims by saying "he's just a nutter" and "as far as I can tell, we're not really sure what religion he held, if any", then you have biased your data set.
No, I'm not biasing my data set. Yet again: we don't yet know his motivations. We don't even know if he's a Christian! He could very well be an atheist, and even if he's a Christian, that doesn't necessarily mean his motivations were rooted in his religion.
There's no double-standard here.
Historically, in Britain the vast majority of terror attacks have been religiously motivated by Christian sects, primarily the IRA and affiliated groups
Historically yes, that's true -- and the body-count dwarfs what we see today. These days though, the terror we see here is almost exclusively Islamic.
Islamic terrorism has 'scaled' in a way that the IRA didn't. The world at large doesn't care about the parochial complaints of the IRA, or for the LRA's message, but Islamic terrorism has been able to inspire attacks worldwide.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that's conspiracy-theory reasoning. They might just figure that not enough people care to bother.
You think you have rights when you are in court?
Why are you so insistent on saying things which are obviously untrue?
Yes, you have all sorts of rights in a court, such as protection from self-incrimination, and for that matter, from the judge just punching you.
That you can disrupt the court
Of course not. I literally just spelt this out for you...
The court isn't a safespace you troglodyte
I can see you really want me to be some kind of idiot who hasn't heard of contempt of court, but you're going to have to look elsewhere.
Freedom of expression is a meme ultimately.
Meaningless.
Please go back and actually read my previous comment before wasting both our time with still more misguided blustering.
Oh, right. So what you're trying to say is that although courts are charged with upholding the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, a court of law is a valid exemption from the ordinary rule of freedom of expression, because of contempt-of-court, perjury, etc.
You did a seriously bad job of getting that across, by the way. You seemed to be saying that courts get to send people to prison for saying ordinary-but-unpopular things in their day to day lives, as if 'freedom of expression' doesn't actually give you any protections at all.
You are punished for the act of expression itself when you admit shit in court
What on Earth? Of course you aren't. It's called 'admitting' precisely because you're punished for, you know, what you did.
You aren't a free man nor a citizen when you are in court, you are not a person when you are in court, you are a suspect and an object for processing.
I get that you're trying to be dramatic, but again you're just spouting nonsense.
If you want to say a courtroom is a special exception to freedom of expression, just go ahead and say it plainly and clearly.
You appear to think that freedom of expression is a completely empty idea with no real bearing on... anything.
Sure, things you say have an impact on, for example, whether a court will find you to have had malicious intent. But freedom of expression means you aren't punished for an act of expression itself. Why you are trying to deny that this is the case, I'm not sure.
Freedom of expression is why you're allowed to call the president an asshole and the government isn't allowed to punish you for it. They don't get to imprison you and tell you Well sure you were free to do it, but you weren't free from consequences.
in court there is no freedom of expression without consequences
Actually, that's what freedom of expression means: you don't have to worry about consequences in court, even though you obviously still have to worry about consequences outside court.
Are you the same AC who posted this rather confused comment above?
stupidity in court should be, and is, punished.
Well, no, stupidity isn't an offence. You are being awfully imprecise here, just as you were earlier with your speech-vs-action distinction.
No, AC, you're making a proper hash of things. If the legal system is punishing you for it, that means it apparently wasn't free speech.
Lying under oath, or threatening someone violence, or shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre, or infringing copyright, are not protected under free speech. Which means the government gets to punish you for it.
Calling someone an asshole is free speech, but you don't get immunity from consequences: that person will now dislike you.
Much potential for a dark comedy.
mistakes
This seems unlikely. I figure it's far more likely that the AI is simply solving the wrong problem.
If the AI's job is to assess the odds of recidivism, taking into account all available data, then it's neither going to go out of its way to be racist, nor go out of its way not to be racist.
If it's showing a bias against black convicts, presumably that's because black convicts really do have worse recidivism rates for whatever reason. (Of course, that's 'recidivism rate' according to the data. It doesn't disprove, say, the existence of a racist police force with a racially-biased arrest pattern.)
I'd be willing to bet that if you did a backtesting study, pitting the AI against human judges, the AI would beat them. It might well also be far more racist, as the judges are likely to want to discount race on moral grounds.
They don't just want an AI that predicts recidivism rates, they want one that does so whilst incorporating our senses of morality and fairness. They're obviously not the same thing.
Why would AI be any different?
Because it doesn't have a messy evolutionary history.
Human babies are known to be racist. This makes some level of evolutionary sense: favour your own.
If an AI is racist, it's for a different reason: it's picking up on inequalities (whether or not caused by society itself) that really do exist in the world today.
Besides, we as their creator are flawed beings so inherently, our creations will be also flawed.
No, this isn't what's happening at all.
An AI showing racial bias doesn't reveal racism on the part of the AI's designers, it shows that the data fed to the AI reveals politically-incorrect inequalities in society. An AI will detect these patterns, unless it's specifically designed not to.
In the EU, car insurance companies are specifically forbidden from factoring in your gender when deciding what price to offer you. That law is in place not because it's irrational to discriminate on gender (profit-wise, that is). If it were irrational, insurance companies wouldn't do it anyway. No, it's because it's seen as an unpleasant/immoral thing to do.
Female drivers really do get into fewer traffic accidents, but society sees it as unfair to penalise men just for being male. We see the same situation here with the AI.
ZDNet article on that case.
I'll just leave this here - hopefully you'll avoid making yourself look this silly in future.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/03/investing/tesla-ford-market-value-gm/index.html
Here in the UK, Sky have NowTV, a subscription streaming service which includes some amount of HBO content. Game of Thrones in particular is available sometimes - clearly their licence is on-and-off. Currently GoT is available, and back when season 6 was being shown they were made available roughly as they came out.
Right... so I suppose the folks who run the school are being bribed by... someone?
Or, you know, maybe you're just spouting conspiratorial nonsense.
I agree this choice of words is particularly insufferable.
I don't follow Amazon's Alexa, so I had no idea what TFS was trying to say.
It would have done better to put 'skills' (apps) rather than simply misusing the word the way Amazon do.
your defense of our refusal to confirm "tips" and thus kill innocents is that "We just don't care"
Are you aware that there's a difference between wishing that I said something, and me actually having said it?
I can't even tell which line of mine you're twisting here.
You're right that the body count of the Iraq war (roughly 120,000) is a tragedy, and that the whole project was a huge mistake. But there is a moral difference between trying to overthrow a tyrant, and trying to impose a caliphate. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that, unlike those of the USA, ISIS's motivations are about as depraved as they come.
The USA has the decency to be ashamed of the My Lai massacre. ISIS, on the other hand, advertise that they torture and execute those that they capture, be they military or civilian. This is their recruitment material. They openly hope to build a society in which that sort of thing is normal.
Given that the "laser guided bombs" hit the wrong targets,it follows that the two are EXACTLY the same!!
....no, not even close. ISIS deliberately machine-gunned civilians, and do that kind of thing all the time. They're not ashamed of it, either. The US forces, on the other hand, screwed up rather badly.
The intent of war is EXACTLY the same as the intent of ISIS, to impose political will upon others.
Not all political wills are morally equivalent. Fighting to overthrow a tyrant is not morally equivalent to fighting to empower tyranny.
Isis is not responsible for those war crimes.
I get that you're full-blown bleeding heart and all, but you've honestly lost me completely.
Did they accidentally machine-gun fleeing civilians?
Did they accidentally burn a captured pilot to death?
How on earth do you plan to argue they don't have moral culpability?
Attacks victims who cannot retaliate nor defend
Dropping guided bombs on ISIS fighters is the moral equivalent of machine-gunning fleeing civilians?
Has no concern for innocent lives as demonstrated by the "Wedding party / terrorist kill ratio"
False equivalence. The US military can and does sometimes decide not to act because of civilian casualties. ISIS ritually execute civilians as for their promotional material. They're actually proud of it.
Uses threat of force and killing and, in Iraq, murder to achieve political change desired by command authority
The Iraq War was a huge mistake, but there isn't a moral equivalence here. The intent of the war is not the moral equivalent of the intent of ISIS.
Makes use of remote attack disguised in the air to strike without warning.
Did I miss ISIS getting an air force?
My favourite example of Facebook being deliberately anti-user is their recent decision to change the way personal-message email-alerts work. They used to include the full text of the personal message. Now, they just alert you that you've got one waiting... so you'd better fire up Facebook (ads and all) to see what it is.
Come on then, let's have it. Explain to us why the US military is basically the moral equivalent of ISIS.
But the two aren't exclusive, and your own definition doesn't exclude state actions.
Terrorism is designed to spread a message along with the fear.
I agree. It also gels with Schneier's brilliant article What the Terrorists Want, which starts at the other end (with an implicit understanding of what terrorism is) and explores the motivation (which we use here as part of the definition).
This definition is broad enough to include both the recent Borough Market and Finsbury Park attacks, but isn't so broad that it includes 'ordinary' murder.
Except it's cyber, so you'll never know who really sent it.
Terrorism is simply instilling fear, anxiety or dread in people to make them comply with your wishes.
Most violent criminals fit this definition, no?
(even just jaywalking) then the maximum punishment of the law should be immediately applied and afterwards (assuming the offender wasn't executed for, say, murder) the offender must be deported
Talk about going off the deep end...
look, if you're concerned about your personal safety then carry a weapon
I realise we're teetering on the gun debate rabbit-hole, but: it's hardly clear that arming thousands of untrained civilians reduces violent fatalities.
You know why the Borough Market attackers used knives? British gun control.
no violence, even in self defense, is acceptable... unless you're a muslim, then do whatever you want.
That's not the impression I've been getting. I mean, Corbyn said that shooting terrorists dead is mean, but I don't think anyone's saying violence is ok if it's muslims doing it.
This head-in-the-sand approach that Western governments are currently taking is pathetic and ineffective
Tentatively agree.
Is there a fourth option that I'm missing which actually addresses the problem here?
Yes: emphasising the root causes of Islamic terrorism, supporting organisations like Quilliam who promote moderate liberalised Islam.
A necessary first step is to stop politely pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.
When you explain away attacks by Christians on Muslims by saying "he's just a nutter" and "as far as I can tell, we're not really sure what religion he held, if any", then you have biased your data set.
No, I'm not biasing my data set. Yet again: we don't yet know his motivations. We don't even know if he's a Christian! He could very well be an atheist, and even if he's a Christian, that doesn't necessarily mean his motivations were rooted in his religion.
There's no double-standard here.
Historically, in Britain the vast majority of terror attacks have been religiously motivated by Christian sects, primarily the IRA and affiliated groups
Historically yes, that's true -- and the body-count dwarfs what we see today. These days though, the terror we see here is almost exclusively Islamic.
Islamic terrorism has 'scaled' in a way that the IRA didn't. The world at large doesn't care about the parochial complaints of the IRA, or for the LRA's message, but Islamic terrorism has been able to inspire attacks worldwide.