Notice he said "take to the tribunal", not sue in civil court
Notice that I didn't say "sue in civil court", I just said "sue". Criminal lawsuits are still lawsuits, and you can sue someone in criminal court using the exact same verb, "to sue", as you use when suing someone in civil court.
So in some ways, the British government has been ahead of the game technology-wise and control-wise, and the British citizens may already have had a small taste of what's to come for the rest of us.
You're assuming that different cultures with different values, different surpluses and scarcities, and generally different contexts will all evolve along the same lines towards the same end-states. That's not an assumption I think is warranted, really.
"If someone is severely punished by an autonomous robot, who are you going to take to a tribunal?"
So a company in America says they're going to try mounting tasers on robots, and before the first prototype is even built, and long before the first police department decides to evaluate them, some guy on the other side of the Atlantic is worrying about who to sue, if the robots ever get used in his country?
Besides, isn't the answer obvious? You sue the organization or individual who decided to deploy the robot. When did universities become repositories of dumb?
"If someone is severely punished by an autonomous robot, who are you going to take to a tribunal?"
So a company in America says they're going to try mounting tasers on robots, and before the first prototype is even built, and long before the first police department decides to evaluate them, some guy on the other side of the Atlantic is worrying about who to sue, if the robots ever get used in his country?
Besides, isn't the answer obvious? You sue the organization or individual who decided to deploy the robot. Whend did universities become repositories of dumb?
or people realise that country borders are arbitrary and their first responsibility should be to the human race.
I'm curious: Do you allow your neighbors free access to your home? They walk in and out whenever they wish, sleep on your couch, use your shower, throw parties in your living room, etc? Do you cash out your paycheck every payday and leave the money in a basket on the phone table in the front hall, for anybody in the community to dip into when they're low on funds?
Or do you insist on arbitrary boundaries between you and the people next door, and take care of your responsibilities to you and yours while your neighbors fend for themselves?
I think I understand, now. This is some sort of pissing contest where your lifting body is supposed to be much cooler than my lifting body. In fact I think that all lifting bodies are pretty cool. I think single-stage, self-propelled, "airplane"-style lifting bodies are pretty cool. The Apollo capsule always struck my fancy because it was a lifting body where I didn't expect one. I think it's unfair to dismiss it as not being a "fancy" lifting body. But as they say, "you can't argue with taste". You obviously think that lifting bodies in airplane applications are "fancier" than lifting bodies in space capsule applications. I think they're both pretty fancy. Luckily, the Internet is big enough for the two of us.
So is every golf ball. A lifting body capable of subsonic flight is a different matter.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the Apollo mission profile. The Apollo capsule's lifting body properties were exploited to maneuver it during reentry, giving it a much longer landing zone and the ability to avoid unfavorable weather conditions. It was much more sophisticated than a dimpled golf ball, and I'm not sure why you think that a lifting body capable of controlled supersonic flight is not as "fancy" as a lifting body capable of controlled subsonic flight.
but as a dusted-off Apollo Capsule instead of a fancy lifting body.
Actually, the Apollo Capsule is a lifting body. It was designed that way intentionally, and its properties as a lifting body were exploited as part of a normal Apollo mission profile. Fancy lifting body indeed!
On the other hand, maybe the added cost of making a spacesuit reusable is less than the cost of making a number of disposable spacesuits over the estimated lifetime of the reusable spacesuit. E.g., if a reusable spacesuit has a lifetime of five missions, but costs more than five times as much as a disposable spacesuit, then the choice is clear. Note that this solution may still give the contractor more money (in spacesuit manufacturing charges), while still saving NASA money overall in costs related to storing, retrieving, reconditioning, and re-certifying a reusable spacesuit.
Also, regarding tax-funded things in museums, it could be that the cost of manufacturing and using these things does not include the cost of retaining them and storing them in a museum once their usefulness has come to an end. Have you considered the possibility that all the things you'd like to see in a museum would become prohibitively expensive if the cost of putting them in a museum were included in the initial bill to the taxpayer? And have you considered the possibility that your real problem is that you're not willing to pay enough taxes to properly fund the museums themselves, such that they can cover the retrieval, storage, and display costs of all the things you'd like museums to keep on hand?
When you ask yourself "am I allowed to use this network?", "I don't know" does not equal "yes". The onus is upon you to verify that you are not trespassing before proceeding.
What about when my very first act is to ask the network administrator if I'm allowed to use his network, and he says "yes"? Is it okay then? What if my NIC asks his router if I'm allowed to use his network, and his router says "yes"? Is it okay then?
When I submit any GPL code, it allows everyone to use it. In trade, I get your GPL code.
I've got a better idea: You submit GPL code for me to use, and I give you nothing in trade. I know what you're thinking: You'll just stop submitting GPL code. That's okay, though, because--to be perfectly honest--it's cheaper and easier for me to do without GPL code than to write my own. The only part of the equation you change is that you give me something that's even cheaper and easier than doing without.
The taxpayer isn't footing the bill for the documents. The taxpayer is footing the bill for the finished product, of which the documents are a necessary precursor and side effect.
And they do have a comprehensive policy for data retention: retain what you need, for as long as you can afford to, within the limits of the funds you've been given.
The complaint most people seem to have about this policy is that their idea of what is really needed, for how long, and at what cost, is far beyond what the actual rocket scientists think is needed over the same time period (and let's not even talk about the realities of the aerospace R&D budget!).
Mass-killing technologies certainly improve the lives of the killers, who now have more time and energy for doing other things, in addition to making their kill quotas.
Be careful not to confuse technology with humanity. I think you will find that in every case, it's the humans, not the technology, that are really making life worse for each other.
I for one will strive to honor your real estate investments to the best of my efforts as I flee desperately from my submerged home
If you sincerely believe that your home will be submerged by an inevitable global warming catastrophe, then you'd have to be a pretty big jerk to insist on living in it anyway, and then invading somebody else's home once yours becomes unlivable.
The responsible thing to do would be to move out of your home now, while there's still time, and take the necessary steps to provide for yourself now, before your own laziness inconveniences others.
The humanitarian thing to do, instead of threatening high-grounders with home invasion, would be to move out of your low-ground home now, and work to set up a refugee center on high ground through legal means, so that your farsightedness and sincere concern for the future of mankind can bear fruit for the greatest number of unfortunates.
However, given your threats and disrespect for those who have already invested in high-ground homes, I conclude that you're just a jerk who doesn't really care about anything except making other people pay for your mistakes.
For example, the question, "Will we survive the blast from Eta Carinae's supernova event?" begs the question that Eta Carinae has had a supernova event. We don't actually know whether or not Eta Carinae has exploded, but the question here assumes that it has and moves on. Begging the question is considered a logical fallacy, because it assumes something without proving it, and then bases further reasoning on that unproven assumption.
You're thinking of "raising the question", as in, "the possibility of Eta Carinae exploding raises the question of whether or not we would survive the blast".
Have you checked your List of Things DARPA Isn't Researching? It's probably on your bookshelf, right next to your List of RC Cars That Never Went To Market Because of Power Supply Problems.
Why does the article keep switching back and forth between "we think they might be caves" and "we're certain they really are caves"? Let me know when they've made up their minds about whether or not they've made up their minds, and I'll start caring about these (possible) caves.
So they have debris disks. That doesn't mean that planets are likely to coalesce. I'd guess the opposite, really, that proto-planets would tend to disintegrate under such conditions.
Even more surprising than the absurd 3-billion-deaths number, is how people are more than happy to harp on it, than to focus on the fact that many people do indeed die of starvation.
Why should that be surprising? Have you just not been paying attention to human nature, all your life?
Meanwhile, many people are dying of starvation, yet here you are, somehow coming up with an excuse to chide people for criticizing absurd political rhetoric. Do you find that surprising, or just embarassing and shameful?
There's hope, though: A new bill is making its way through the House of Representatives, with bipartisan backing, that would strengthen the FOIA, one of a host of open government measures being looked at by the new Congress.
Oh, well, if the politicians are talking about passing a law, then our problems are almost over! Leave it to politicians to understand the problem, figure out the right solution, and save the day!
Slashdot Mirror
Notice that I didn't say "sue in civil court", I just said "sue". Criminal lawsuits are still lawsuits, and you can sue someone in criminal court using the exact same verb, "to sue", as you use when suing someone in civil court.
You're assuming that different cultures with different values, different surpluses and scarcities, and generally different contexts will all evolve along the same lines towards the same end-states. That's not an assumption I think is warranted, really.
So a company in America says they're going to try mounting tasers on robots, and before the first prototype is even built, and long before the first police department decides to evaluate them, some guy on the other side of the Atlantic is worrying about who to sue, if the robots ever get used in his country?
Besides, isn't the answer obvious? You sue the organization or individual who decided to deploy the robot. When did universities become repositories of dumb?
So a company in America says they're going to try mounting tasers on robots, and before the first prototype is even built, and long before the first police department decides to evaluate them, some guy on the other side of the Atlantic is worrying about who to sue, if the robots ever get used in his country?
Besides, isn't the answer obvious? You sue the organization or individual who decided to deploy the robot. Whend did universities become repositories of dumb?
..."I blame George Bush".
I'm curious: Do you allow your neighbors free access to your home? They walk in and out whenever they wish, sleep on your couch, use your shower, throw parties in your living room, etc? Do you cash out your paycheck every payday and leave the money in a basket on the phone table in the front hall, for anybody in the community to dip into when they're low on funds?
Or do you insist on arbitrary boundaries between you and the people next door, and take care of your responsibilities to you and yours while your neighbors fend for themselves?
I think I understand, now. This is some sort of pissing contest where your lifting body is supposed to be much cooler than my lifting body. In fact I think that all lifting bodies are pretty cool. I think single-stage, self-propelled, "airplane"-style lifting bodies are pretty cool. The Apollo capsule always struck my fancy because it was a lifting body where I didn't expect one. I think it's unfair to dismiss it as not being a "fancy" lifting body. But as they say, "you can't argue with taste". You obviously think that lifting bodies in airplane applications are "fancier" than lifting bodies in space capsule applications. I think they're both pretty fancy. Luckily, the Internet is big enough for the two of us.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the Apollo mission profile. The Apollo capsule's lifting body properties were exploited to maneuver it during reentry, giving it a much longer landing zone and the ability to avoid unfavorable weather conditions. It was much more sophisticated than a dimpled golf ball, and I'm not sure why you think that a lifting body capable of controlled supersonic flight is not as "fancy" as a lifting body capable of controlled subsonic flight.
Actually, the Apollo Capsule is a lifting body. It was designed that way intentionally, and its properties as a lifting body were exploited as part of a normal Apollo mission profile. Fancy lifting body indeed!
On the other hand, maybe the added cost of making a spacesuit reusable is less than the cost of making a number of disposable spacesuits over the estimated lifetime of the reusable spacesuit. E.g., if a reusable spacesuit has a lifetime of five missions, but costs more than five times as much as a disposable spacesuit, then the choice is clear. Note that this solution may still give the contractor more money (in spacesuit manufacturing charges), while still saving NASA money overall in costs related to storing, retrieving, reconditioning, and re-certifying a reusable spacesuit.
Also, regarding tax-funded things in museums, it could be that the cost of manufacturing and using these things does not include the cost of retaining them and storing them in a museum once their usefulness has come to an end. Have you considered the possibility that all the things you'd like to see in a museum would become prohibitively expensive if the cost of putting them in a museum were included in the initial bill to the taxpayer? And have you considered the possibility that your real problem is that you're not willing to pay enough taxes to properly fund the museums themselves, such that they can cover the retrieval, storage, and display costs of all the things you'd like museums to keep on hand?
What about when my very first act is to ask the network administrator if I'm allowed to use his network, and he says "yes"? Is it okay then? What if my NIC asks his router if I'm allowed to use his network, and his router says "yes"? Is it okay then?
I've got a better idea: You submit GPL code for me to use, and I give you nothing in trade. I know what you're thinking: You'll just stop submitting GPL code. That's okay, though, because--to be perfectly honest--it's cheaper and easier for me to do without GPL code than to write my own. The only part of the equation you change is that you give me something that's even cheaper and easier than doing without.
I love the Open Source movement!
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that engaging, high-quality content is key for new video games.
If that content comes from users, great. If it comes from paid professionals, great.
The taxpayer isn't footing the bill for the documents. The taxpayer is footing the bill for the finished product, of which the documents are a necessary precursor and side effect.
And they do have a comprehensive policy for data retention: retain what you need, for as long as you can afford to, within the limits of the funds you've been given.
The complaint most people seem to have about this policy is that their idea of what is really needed, for how long, and at what cost, is far beyond what the actual rocket scientists think is needed over the same time period (and let's not even talk about the realities of the aerospace R&D budget!).
Mass-killing technologies certainly improve the lives of the killers, who now have more time and energy for doing other things, in addition to making their kill quotas.
Be careful not to confuse technology with humanity. I think you will find that in every case, it's the humans, not the technology, that are really making life worse for each other.
If you sincerely believe that your home will be submerged by an inevitable global warming catastrophe, then you'd have to be a pretty big jerk to insist on living in it anyway, and then invading somebody else's home once yours becomes unlivable.
The responsible thing to do would be to move out of your home now, while there's still time, and take the necessary steps to provide for yourself now, before your own laziness inconveniences others.
The humanitarian thing to do, instead of threatening high-grounders with home invasion, would be to move out of your low-ground home now, and work to set up a refugee center on high ground through legal means, so that your farsightedness and sincere concern for the future of mankind can bear fruit for the greatest number of unfortunates.
However, given your threats and disrespect for those who have already invested in high-ground homes, I conclude that you're just a jerk who doesn't really care about anything except making other people pay for your mistakes.
"Begs the question" actually means "assumes".
For example, the question, "Will we survive the blast from Eta Carinae's supernova event?" begs the question that Eta Carinae has had a supernova event. We don't actually know whether or not Eta Carinae has exploded, but the question here assumes that it has and moves on. Begging the question is considered a logical fallacy, because it assumes something without proving it, and then bases further reasoning on that unproven assumption.
You're thinking of "raising the question", as in, "the possibility of Eta Carinae exploding raises the question of whether or not we would survive the blast".
Wake me up when Linux is more ready for the desktop than Windows is.
Have you checked your List of Things DARPA Isn't Researching? It's probably on your bookshelf, right next to your List of RC Cars That Never Went To Market Because of Power Supply Problems.
Why does the article keep switching back and forth between "we think they might be caves" and "we're certain they really are caves"? Let me know when they've made up their minds about whether or not they've made up their minds, and I'll start caring about these (possible) caves.
So they have debris disks. That doesn't mean that planets are likely to coalesce. I'd guess the opposite, really, that proto-planets would tend to disintegrate under such conditions.
Why should that be surprising? Have you just not been paying attention to human nature, all your life?
Meanwhile, many people are dying of starvation, yet here you are, somehow coming up with an excuse to chide people for criticizing absurd political rhetoric. Do you find that surprising, or just embarassing and shameful?
I read the opening line as ""124 brands-- including R.E.M., Sarah McLachlan, and the Pearl Jam..."
Which actually made more sense to me.
Poke.
Oh, well, if the politicians are talking about passing a law, then our problems are almost over! Leave it to politicians to understand the problem, figure out the right solution, and save the day!
Ah, I see you do include references for some of your points. I'll start there, then. Thanks again!