I would define "knowing" as the the robot kills the wrong target, and then it takes active steps to evade it's creators so that it won't be taken offline. Such as networking with other killer robots to destroy everything.
And then they run experiments on humans to either produce robots that look a lot like people or to network people into a giant simulation to somehow use them as batteries (because apparently humans are net producers of energy).
I don't know. Why would a company want to hire someone who cares more about their own interests than the company's interests? Only when the two interests happen to coincide does the company win.
My feeling is that in the UN, each country should get a number of votes based on the proportion of free people in the population that has real say in said country's government (based on some standard set of checks, but mostly based on whether they can vote in honest elections). In a government like China, that would mean they would only get a tiny fraction of a vote, based on the small minority of high ranking government officials who get to choose how China actually operates. The same would be true in countries like Iran that hold mostly fraudulent elections.
Well established verifiable democracies would have a lot more influence in the UN than dictatorships.
The best part is that countries like China can't realistically complain about not having a voice proportional to their people when they can't truly say they represent those people. If they want a democratic say in how the planet is run, then they have to offer that same right to the people in their country.
However, the content and frequency of the posts is also relevant, albeit less so in a quantitative analysis. In some parts of the world, it's an uphill battle to be an overt, extreme racist, and such people must resort to subtle and implied racism. In other parts of the world, with a critical mass of racists, it's much easier to be overt.
In other words, the comments of the racists say just about as much about the authors as they do of their silently supportive peers.
A potential solution on other sites would be shared accounts or the anonymous coward option. Even if you let government know, if enough people are using the account it becomes meaningless.
But then couldn't a political party threaten to repeal the licensing fee (as has happened in other countries) just as they could control BBC with any tax? How does this avert bias in a way a tax would not?
A smarter model would just be a tax. The healthy pay for the sick, the childless pay for schools, and cyclists pay for roads. A small increase to property tax or whatever would cover it, if UKers think it worthwhile. But why pay for the infrastructure of fools running around trying to determine if you are scamming the system.
The step he took towards universal health care was a pretty big change. Used up a lot of political capital. At least he doesn't have to worry about re-election if he wins.
Arguably, the US president impacts the rest of the world a whole bunch more than it does US citizens.
Your lives are run by your corporations. The rest of the world is impacted by your wars and international bullying. Therefore, you should vote for your corporations and we should vote for your president.
I would have thought that discrimination laws would transcend the private/public barrier. For example, can a private institution not hire black people (you know, for being black)?
In Canada (it varies from province to province), discrimination is discrimination. While there are different rules for different areas (i.e. tenancy vs employment) I do not believe that in the area of employment that private institutions have a different set of rules when it comes to discrimination.
The only exception is if it's an organization that specifically caters to a disadvantaged group, and the discrimination is in favour of said disadvantaged group (for example, battered women's shelter doesn't hire men).
Also, could a religious organization not fire someone who is promoting ideas contrary to the church? Why should a secular organization have to tolerate religious fanaticism if a religious organization does not have to tolerate other views?
Slashdot Mirror
Aw so now the UK censors speech based on the speaker, rather than the speech.
Smile!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esyUrIT0mpo
Seriously, smile.
I would define "knowing" as the the robot kills the wrong target, and then it takes active steps to evade it's creators so that it won't be taken offline. Such as networking with other killer robots to destroy everything.
And then they run experiments on humans to either produce robots that look a lot like people or to network people into a giant simulation to somehow use them as batteries (because apparently humans are net producers of energy).
It sounds so callous when you put it like that.
"I'd like to buy two wars please."
"I'm sorry, sir, but it looks like you only have enough money for one."
"Aww fine. I'll put the other one on my Christmas wishlist."
Just look at Wall Street! They sure learned you can't route around the law.
I don't know. Why would a company want to hire someone who cares more about their own interests than the company's interests? Only when the two interests happen to coincide does the company win.
My feeling is that in the UN, each country should get a number of votes based on the proportion of free people in the population that has real say in said country's government (based on some standard set of checks, but mostly based on whether they can vote in honest elections). In a government like China, that would mean they would only get a tiny fraction of a vote, based on the small minority of high ranking government officials who get to choose how China actually operates. The same would be true in countries like Iran that hold mostly fraudulent elections.
Well established verifiable democracies would have a lot more influence in the UN than dictatorships.
The best part is that countries like China can't realistically complain about not having a voice proportional to their people when they can't truly say they represent those people. If they want a democratic say in how the planet is run, then they have to offer that same right to the people in their country.
Amen brother. Gotta love strawmen arguments.
"Let's do away with political correctness and multiculturalism and all that shit because my tortured definition of it is so flawed."
I guess that's why there are so few civilian casualties for drone strikes, right?
I just wish they'd pay me $1 billion to tell them something's not going to work out. Plus I bet I could do it in half the time.
The funny thing is: what's a more common word than 'Memory?' How about 'Apple?'
However, the content and frequency of the posts is also relevant, albeit less so in a quantitative analysis. In some parts of the world, it's an uphill battle to be an overt, extreme racist, and such people must resort to subtle and implied racism. In other parts of the world, with a critical mass of racists, it's much easier to be overt.
In other words, the comments of the racists say just about as much about the authors as they do of their silently supportive peers.
One would hope they would take into account the name of the original tweeter so as not to double count.
A potential solution on other sites would be shared accounts or the anonymous coward option. Even if you let government know, if enough people are using the account it becomes meaningless.
Tor is also fun.
Ahh point taken.
But then couldn't a political party threaten to repeal the licensing fee (as has happened in other countries) just as they could control BBC with any tax? How does this avert bias in a way a tax would not?
yes :)
A smarter model would just be a tax. The healthy pay for the sick, the childless pay for schools, and cyclists pay for roads. A small increase to property tax or whatever would cover it, if UKers think it worthwhile. But why pay for the infrastructure of fools running around trying to determine if you are scamming the system.
The step he took towards universal health care was a pretty big change. Used up a lot of political capital. At least he doesn't have to worry about re-election if he wins.
Arguably, the US president impacts the rest of the world a whole bunch more than it does US citizens.
Your lives are run by your corporations. The rest of the world is impacted by your wars and international bullying. Therefore, you should vote for your corporations and we should vote for your president.
I see. You pay for the pleasure of being bombarded by electromagnetic radiation.
How about this:
"You don't want me to have access to your programming? Stop directing your radio waves at my house."
WTF is a TV license. That is absurd.
Basically, intelligent life can only evolve under circumstances identical to the way we evolved.
"100 percent of the cases where we know life evolved, these circumstances prevailed. Therefore..."
Sure. Don't disagree with any one point.
My point is many religious people want religious freedom for themselves and not for others.
I would have thought that discrimination laws would transcend the private/public barrier. For example, can a private institution not hire black people (you know, for being black)?
In Canada (it varies from province to province), discrimination is discrimination. While there are different rules for different areas (i.e. tenancy vs employment) I do not believe that in the area of employment that private institutions have a different set of rules when it comes to discrimination.
The only exception is if it's an organization that specifically caters to a disadvantaged group, and the discrimination is in favour of said disadvantaged group (for example, battered women's shelter doesn't hire men).
Also, could a religious organization not fire someone who is promoting ideas contrary to the church? Why should a secular organization have to tolerate religious fanaticism if a religious organization does not have to tolerate other views?