Who is suggesting subsidized access to drugs? That's a pretty blatant strawman, as is the illusion that making possession of drugs criminal just makes drugs go away.
Perhaps the Bay Area is not representative of the US as a whole. I know, it's a crazy concept to take in, but there are places where not everybody is an arrogant jackass who can't contemplate anything between dining establishments that are snooty enough to be insulted by asking for the bill to be split and fast food.
How about we cut off the oxygen supply at the NSA HQ? After all, terrorists breathe oxygen too, and given the incompetence of the NSA, I'd be surprised if anybody in there WASN'T a terrorist.
You might be able to teach someone to learn to learn, and how to best compensate for their weaknesses. Generally, learning to learn is not the result of having difficulty learning so much as it is learning. The more you learn, the more you learn how to learn to learn.
Machines don't take advantage of workman's comp, social security, unemployment, health insurance, etc., and don't demand a minimum wage. The level playing field you talk about doesn't make sense, because labor itself is not generally taxed. What is taxed is the income from that labor, risks associated with that labor, which are not present for the machine.
Automation can only take jobs up until the point where they can't effectively replace humans. So, so long as a machine has not approached the level of a typical human in some aspect,typical humans will have potential for jobs. The point in which there is no more room for jobs is when robots can do all the jobs done by the masses. That would mean that we could be freed up to do whatever we want.
they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.
That sounds like they were opposed to their guild or equivalent being undermined. They wanted the industry to be dominated by skilled workers such as themselves, when skilled workers were no longer needed.
Perhaps you should take a refresher course on reading comprehension. The first sentence mentions that Android OEMs were analyzed. Apple is not an Android OEM, so they were not included at that point.
Last time I checked, the only thing the constitution has to say about patents was that Congress CAN grant them, and they were supposed to be placed on a short leash, what with the limited times clause and the purpose explicitly being the promotion of progress. As others have said, a part of why the USPTO is still running is because of their funding model. This is just something done by statute.
Everyone always talks about docking Congress's pay, but nobody joins Congress for the money. The money is small potatoes compared to the gains they get by lobbying, the revolving door, and acting in the interests of businesses they already own. You could cut off Congress's salaries permanently without any real effect on them.
The first amendment limits the powers of the US, and makes no mention of citizens. It says Congress can't limit free speech. period. If it's not within the US jurisdiction, then the US doens't have the power at all.
Also, putting aside the specific letter of the law, free speech is considered to be an inalienable right to all men. So, you would have to claim that non-Americans aren't human in order to deny them a human right.
That's strange, I seem to recall the US constitution explicitly putting a time limit on defense spending, which would suggest that it should be pretty early on the chopping block.
If you are being serious, let me address this. The low cost is quite evident. Doors with locks are not much more expensive than doors without them, doors are a key element of insulation, and act as a barrier to various pests. The act of locking a door is quick with no learning curve. So, there's no reasonable doubt on the low cost part.
You can debate the effectiveness of locks on doors, and it would vary considerably on the circumstances. There are places where doors are often left unlocked because there is no perceived threat. Now, it's true that a door alone will not stop a determined burglar. However, not all burglars are 'determined', and even if they are, they will likely opt for an easier target, especially since it is much easier to hide an intrusion. While circumstantial, it's very hard to argue that locking doors doesn't have a very favorable cost to benefit ratio in all but the most cozy of environments.
Locking your door has a low cost and a fairly high rate of effectiveness. The fact that most of the terrorists are morons prevents far more terrorism than the NSA does.
The problem being solved there is the opposite of the problem here. By tagging your stuff with the DNA, you are saying that it is yours. A thief isn't going to make something appear to be yours, because there's no value when fencing goods in proving that something is stolen. That's the opposite of why fencing exists. By contrast, a counterfeiter has strong incentives to make something appear to be made by someone else, because that's exactly what counterfeiting is.
I don't see any way this can possibly fail. We all know it's very difficult for DNA to be replicated, and it certainly isn't self-replicating, so it's not as if some party could obtain the DNA, replicate it, and then place it on their counterfeit product.
The DEA is the party that filed the brief. The court document lists "UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, an agency of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE" as the Defendant in Intervention. Yes, it is not a sentient being, but the actions are being taken as the official statement of the DEA.
I was under the impression that surface area played a significant role in this as well, which probably couldn't be easily discounted. The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi times the radius squared while the volume is 4/3 pi times the radius cubed. So, the greater the radius, the greater the ratio of volume to surface area. This usually doesn't scale well, as it means there is more mass to support and less means of getting the input and output needed to support it. I'm not saying that gravity doesn't contribute as well, but that's a fairly difficult barrier as well.
I nominate an adorable puppy. They will protect our civil liberties as much as whomever they decide to hire will be able to, will be more adorable than any adult human, and will work for costs significantly below minimum wage. They would probably even be good for morale within the NSA.
You forgot the third option: Don't engage in unnecessary wars. These bots may keep our service members out of harm's way, but how does it change our role on the world stage? One advantage of sending meatbags is that it requires us to consider the lives lost, and thus restrain our usage, unless we want to collapse very quickly. So, we first opt for the path of diplomacy. If we have an army of murderbots, then we have very little incentive to seriously engage in diplomacy. You paint this as valuing the lives of humans over machines, but you are forgetting that these robots would exist for the purpose of killing humans. When are on the other side of such a conflict, it's a very different scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is suggesting subsidized access to drugs? That's a pretty blatant strawman, as is the illusion that making possession of drugs criminal just makes drugs go away.
I dunno, I think I'd be pretty happy about it.
If an invention could be practiced in secret to any real extent for over 20 years, you'd be a fool to seek a patent.
Perhaps the Bay Area is not representative of the US as a whole. I know, it's a crazy concept to take in, but there are places where not everybody is an arrogant jackass who can't contemplate anything between dining establishments that are snooty enough to be insulted by asking for the bill to be split and fast food.
How about we cut off the oxygen supply at the NSA HQ? After all, terrorists breathe oxygen too, and given the incompetence of the NSA, I'd be surprised if anybody in there WASN'T a terrorist.
Actually, we've had some rather accomplished autodidacts as well, and some of those stories we really love about someone who overcame the odds.
You might be able to teach someone to learn to learn, and how to best compensate for their weaknesses. Generally, learning to learn is not the result of having difficulty learning so much as it is learning. The more you learn, the more you learn how to learn to learn.
Machines don't take advantage of workman's comp, social security, unemployment, health insurance, etc., and don't demand a minimum wage. The level playing field you talk about doesn't make sense, because labor itself is not generally taxed. What is taxed is the income from that labor, risks associated with that labor, which are not present for the machine.
Automation can only take jobs up until the point where they can't effectively replace humans. So, so long as a machine has not approached the level of a typical human in some aspect,typical humans will have potential for jobs. The point in which there is no more room for jobs is when robots can do all the jobs done by the masses. That would mean that we could be freed up to do whatever we want.
That sounds like they were opposed to their guild or equivalent being undermined. They wanted the industry to be dominated by skilled workers such as themselves, when skilled workers were no longer needed.
Perhaps you should take a refresher course on reading comprehension. The first sentence mentions that Android OEMs were analyzed. Apple is not an Android OEM, so they were not included at that point.
Last time I checked, the only thing the constitution has to say about patents was that Congress CAN grant them, and they were supposed to be placed on a short leash, what with the limited times clause and the purpose explicitly being the promotion of progress. As others have said, a part of why the USPTO is still running is because of their funding model. This is just something done by statute.
Using that definition, all US citizens are ultimately African-Americans.
The center of the sun would be my recommendation.
Everyone always talks about docking Congress's pay, but nobody joins Congress for the money. The money is small potatoes compared to the gains they get by lobbying, the revolving door, and acting in the interests of businesses they already own. You could cut off Congress's salaries permanently without any real effect on them.
The first amendment limits the powers of the US, and makes no mention of citizens. It says Congress can't limit free speech. period. If it's not within the US jurisdiction, then the US doens't have the power at all.
Also, putting aside the specific letter of the law, free speech is considered to be an inalienable right to all men. So, you would have to claim that non-Americans aren't human in order to deny them a human right.
That's strange, I seem to recall the US constitution explicitly putting a time limit on defense spending, which would suggest that it should be pretty early on the chopping block.
If you are being serious, let me address this. The low cost is quite evident. Doors with locks are not much more expensive than doors without them, doors are a key element of insulation, and act as a barrier to various pests. The act of locking a door is quick with no learning curve. So, there's no reasonable doubt on the low cost part.
You can debate the effectiveness of locks on doors, and it would vary considerably on the circumstances. There are places where doors are often left unlocked because there is no perceived threat. Now, it's true that a door alone will not stop a determined burglar. However, not all burglars are 'determined', and even if they are, they will likely opt for an easier target, especially since it is much easier to hide an intrusion. While circumstantial, it's very hard to argue that locking doors doesn't have a very favorable cost to benefit ratio in all but the most cozy of environments.
Locking your door has a low cost and a fairly high rate of effectiveness. The fact that most of the terrorists are morons prevents far more terrorism than the NSA does.
The problem being solved there is the opposite of the problem here. By tagging your stuff with the DNA, you are saying that it is yours. A thief isn't going to make something appear to be yours, because there's no value when fencing goods in proving that something is stolen. That's the opposite of why fencing exists. By contrast, a counterfeiter has strong incentives to make something appear to be made by someone else, because that's exactly what counterfeiting is.
I don't see any way this can possibly fail. We all know it's very difficult for DNA to be replicated, and it certainly isn't self-replicating, so it's not as if some party could obtain the DNA, replicate it, and then place it on their counterfeit product.
The DEA is the party that filed the brief. The court document lists "UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, an agency of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE" as the Defendant in Intervention. Yes, it is not a sentient being, but the actions are being taken as the official statement of the DEA.
I was under the impression that surface area played a significant role in this as well, which probably couldn't be easily discounted. The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi times the radius squared while the volume is 4/3 pi times the radius cubed. So, the greater the radius, the greater the ratio of volume to surface area. This usually doesn't scale well, as it means there is more mass to support and less means of getting the input and output needed to support it. I'm not saying that gravity doesn't contribute as well, but that's a fairly difficult barrier as well.
I nominate an adorable puppy. They will protect our civil liberties as much as whomever they decide to hire will be able to, will be more adorable than any adult human, and will work for costs significantly below minimum wage. They would probably even be good for morale within the NSA.
You forgot the third option: Don't engage in unnecessary wars. These bots may keep our service members out of harm's way, but how does it change our role on the world stage? One advantage of sending meatbags is that it requires us to consider the lives lost, and thus restrain our usage, unless we want to collapse very quickly. So, we first opt for the path of diplomacy. If we have an army of murderbots, then we have very little incentive to seriously engage in diplomacy. You paint this as valuing the lives of humans over machines, but you are forgetting that these robots would exist for the purpose of killing humans. When are on the other side of such a conflict, it's a very different scenario.