Would it be real consent if the robot was just programmed to give it?
If the robots are intelligent enough to be given human rights, then they wouldn't be simply programmed to consent. It would have a complex thought process where many options are weighed based on how well it accomplishes the robot's goals (whatever those may be).
If robots weren't complex enough to do that, then consent isn't needed. You don't need to ask a vibrator whether it wants to be used sexually, for example.
Slippery slopes when these robots become ai+genetic material and humans start considering given them rights as 2/3rds human being or something like that.
You can build a robot that could give consent, unlike real children. You can also make it so it doesn't feel pain or enjoy sex.
Are there behaviors that should not be tolerated at all? Is it different if it is a lab created clone in the form of a child? As property would it be OK?
Is it better to have lived, suffered and died, or never lived at all? If you can answer this question on behalf of someone who doesn't exist yet, then you will have answered all those questions you posed.
Controllers and other electronics are what cost out the ass. Batteries are OMG expensive.
Battery aside, I had no idea those were the expensive parts. But I'm sure those will get cheaper over time too. I even don't remember a time when electronics didn't get better and cheaper every year.
For higher wages to drive job-loss -they must be so severe that it's no longer possible to operate the business at all.
So what would be a "severe" increase in wages? $20/hr? $40/hr? What if we increase it slowly, e.g. by 20% a year every year? Is there a point at which a "moderate" increase is no longer beneficial or is it always beneficial, no matter what the current minimum wage is?
Contrary to what you think economic theory is - hiring rates are relatively independent from the cost of labour because companies need to meet demand in order to stay in business.
That's not true at all. If there's more demand than what they can produce, they can also increase the price until they no longer have excess demand. There are several markets at work for a business: the goods market, the labor market, and the capital market. As far as the business is concerned, these markets are all independent, and their goal is to maximize the income from the goods market while minimizing the costs in the other two. Sometimes that means increasing production. Other times it means reducing it.
Imagine for example that I have 2 factories producing the same widget. The demand for the widget at the current market price is 5% more than a single factory's output. However, the lease on the second factory plus wages to run the production line costs significantly more than the revenue from that extra 5%. I can reduce costs and increase my total profit by shutting down the 2nd factory.
You also make the argument that increasing the wage would drive up demand, but the real question is how much, and for whom. Certain services will see a significant increase in demand with higher wages, but others won't. Gas stations for example, probably won't see any demand increase, because people don't drive more just because they can afford it. Some might take more road trips, but they would also be offset by those who can now afford to fly instead.
My next vehicle will be an EV I'm pretty sure. If they're at 200 miles now then in 4 years when I look to buy one it'll probably be 300 which will meet my need. I'm starting on solar panels now for my house so by the time I get the EV my fuel costs will be zero. Can't beat that. I like saving the environment when it saves me money.
You can also start the solar project when you actually buy the EV, since those panels will be even cheaper in 4 years.
I have a small Japanese car myself, which should last me until 2030, at which point I'm sure EV's will be everywhere. I'm also hoping self-driving will be an option by then.
Homes in the UK are usually good for 100A, which will probably have to increase to accommodate a cooker + shower + charger.
In other words, you can't do all three without upgrading your electric system (and I notice you didn't mention AC or heater).
Some people pay more to live conveniently, others pay more to live poorly. I'm glad you're willing to be the second kind of person so I can be the first kind.
A lot could be fixed if we just charged residents market rate instead of a fixed rate. This way people can buy smart appliances that take advantage of when the cost of electricity is low, and they can buy or repurpose old batteries to pick up cheap power and resell it when it's expensive.
California is a huge state with an economy larger than that of France. You need 27 Nebraska's to make 1 California. But for all of that size, CA doesn't get any more negotiating power in the federal government. With 2 Californias, we get more representatives in congress and more electoral votes. Some of the stupidity could also go away, like declaring a drought when it's been raining for a month straight in NorCal.
The only down side is that SoCal might join Mexico.
Let users share block lists. Hate bigots? There's a list for that. Hate conservatives? There's a list for that. Hate furries? There's a list for that.
Or better yet, grow up and accept the fact that other people will have different opinions. Hating people for their ideas isn't that far from hating them for what they are.
Google gets ~$200 per annum for each TB of disk sold in 100GB chunks, which is a pretty good RoI even before you factor in that Google is almost certainly doing a *lot* of de-duplication on the stored data.
I'm not sure what deduplication you're referring to, but they definitely do a lot of duplication. Each piece of data you hand over to them is mirrored at least twice to prevent catastrophes. There may also be offline backups on tape.
Plus if you can accept a slight quality loss, Photos gives you unlimited storage at "high quality".
Now deduct the cost of his office staff, the far more expensive rent in a medical building, and, most important of all, the cost of his malpractice insurance.
That salary is if he works for a hospital, so all of those would be paid already. Even if he had to pay that, it's only $20-30k a year.
And you have no idea how much plumbers make.
And you do? The guy I called to fix my sewer got $100 for 30 minutes of work and he spent 15 minutes driving to and from my house. Even if he's has work lined up perfectly, which he doesn't, he's still making only half as much as doctors.
Also, this site and several others say plumbers maxes out at $80k.
The lawsuit specifically refers to the in-store labels though:
3. Defendant regularly advertises for sale dimensional lumber products through instore
shelf tags and signage, labels, and flyers, which contain inaccurate and false product
dimensions that do not correspond to the actual dimensions of the products being advertised
And people wonder why plumbers make more than doctors.
This is definitely not true. My friend is looking at least $200k once he's out of residency, and as much as $500k if he's willing to go to a high-demand area. A plumber might be ahead for the first decade or so due to the cost of med school and the opportunity cost of not working right away, but every year after that they will fall further and further behind.
Just because it's done a certain way for a long time, doesn't mean we should never change it. It certainly doesn't cost Home Depot any more to print 1.5"x3.5" on the label instead of (or in addition to) 2x4. Anyone already familiar with lumber would know those are called 2x4's. They can save newbies the headache of buying the wrong size (who may not necessarily be buying wood for construction) and anyone looking for boards that are actually 2" x 4" can find them.
So the last time you hired someone to fix your house, did you also tip them 20%? A little $4000 on top of the $20,000 repair job? Or did you become a cheapskate and justify it to yourself with "this is the price we agreed on"?
Slashdot Mirror
Would it be real consent if the robot was just programmed to give it?
If the robots are intelligent enough to be given human rights, then they wouldn't be simply programmed to consent. It would have a complex thought process where many options are weighed based on how well it accomplishes the robot's goals (whatever those may be).
If robots weren't complex enough to do that, then consent isn't needed. You don't need to ask a vibrator whether it wants to be used sexually, for example.
Slippery slopes when these robots become ai+genetic material and humans start considering given them rights as 2/3rds human being or something like that.
You can build a robot that could give consent, unlike real children. You can also make it so it doesn't feel pain or enjoy sex.
Are there behaviors that should not be tolerated at all? Is it different if it is a lab created clone in the form of a child? As property would it be OK?
Is it better to have lived, suffered and died, or never lived at all? If you can answer this question on behalf of someone who doesn't exist yet, then you will have answered all those questions you posed.
Controllers and other electronics are what cost out the ass. Batteries are OMG expensive.
Battery aside, I had no idea those were the expensive parts. But I'm sure those will get cheaper over time too. I even don't remember a time when electronics didn't get better and cheaper every year.
For higher wages to drive job-loss -they must be so severe that it's no longer possible to operate the business at all.
So what would be a "severe" increase in wages? $20/hr? $40/hr? What if we increase it slowly, e.g. by 20% a year every year? Is there a point at which a "moderate" increase is no longer beneficial or is it always beneficial, no matter what the current minimum wage is?
Contrary to what you think economic theory is - hiring rates are relatively independent from the cost of labour because companies need to meet demand in order to stay in business.
That's not true at all. If there's more demand than what they can produce, they can also increase the price until they no longer have excess demand. There are several markets at work for a business: the goods market, the labor market, and the capital market. As far as the business is concerned, these markets are all independent, and their goal is to maximize the income from the goods market while minimizing the costs in the other two. Sometimes that means increasing production. Other times it means reducing it.
Imagine for example that I have 2 factories producing the same widget. The demand for the widget at the current market price is 5% more than a single factory's output. However, the lease on the second factory plus wages to run the production line costs significantly more than the revenue from that extra 5%. I can reduce costs and increase my total profit by shutting down the 2nd factory.
You also make the argument that increasing the wage would drive up demand, but the real question is how much, and for whom. Certain services will see a significant increase in demand with higher wages, but others won't. Gas stations for example, probably won't see any demand increase, because people don't drive more just because they can afford it. Some might take more road trips, but they would also be offset by those who can now afford to fly instead.
My next vehicle will be an EV I'm pretty sure. If they're at 200 miles now then in 4 years when I look to buy one it'll probably be 300 which will meet my need. I'm starting on solar panels now for my house so by the time I get the EV my fuel costs will be zero. Can't beat that. I like saving the environment when it saves me money.
You can also start the solar project when you actually buy the EV, since those panels will be even cheaper in 4 years.
I have a small Japanese car myself, which should last me until 2030, at which point I'm sure EV's will be everywhere. I'm also hoping self-driving will be an option by then.
Homes in the UK are usually good for 100A, which will probably have to increase to accommodate a cooker + shower + charger.
In other words, you can't do all three without upgrading your electric system (and I notice you didn't mention AC or heater).
Some people pay more to live conveniently, others pay more to live poorly. I'm glad you're willing to be the second kind of person so I can be the first kind.
We'll need to build more walls.
That's what the FDA is for. Half of the country is trying to get rid of it though.
A lot could be fixed if we just charged residents market rate instead of a fixed rate. This way people can buy smart appliances that take advantage of when the cost of electricity is low, and they can buy or repurpose old batteries to pick up cheap power and resell it when it's expensive.
California is a huge state with an economy larger than that of France. You need 27 Nebraska's to make 1 California. But for all of that size, CA doesn't get any more negotiating power in the federal government. With 2 Californias, we get more representatives in congress and more electoral votes. Some of the stupidity could also go away, like declaring a drought when it's been raining for a month straight in NorCal.
The only down side is that SoCal might join Mexico.
Both Texas and Florida are heading towards the Democrats and they'll both be feeling the heat. Once they're blue the midwest won't matter anymore.
Let users share block lists. Hate bigots? There's a list for that. Hate conservatives? There's a list for that. Hate furries? There's a list for that.
Or better yet, grow up and accept the fact that other people will have different opinions. Hating people for their ideas isn't that far from hating them for what they are.
So if a law benefits you personally, it's automatically a good law?
How does this laser compare to some of the brightest objects in the universe, such as gamma ray bursts and quasars?
So basically a 2-lane road with roadside parking, except vertical.
Ordinary Oil does roll off the tongue pretty well though. Was there a Mundane Motors and Everyday Electric too?
On the other hand, the effects of geoengineering could last 1000 years, while you're only around for another 30.
Oh they can have as many safe spaces as they want, just leave public spaces alone.
Google gets ~$200 per annum for each TB of disk sold in 100GB chunks, which is a pretty good RoI even before you factor in that Google is almost certainly doing a *lot* of de-duplication on the stored data.
I'm not sure what deduplication you're referring to, but they definitely do a lot of duplication. Each piece of data you hand over to them is mirrored at least twice to prevent catastrophes. There may also be offline backups on tape.
Plus if you can accept a slight quality loss, Photos gives you unlimited storage at "high quality".
Now deduct the cost of his office staff, the far more expensive rent in a medical building, and, most important of all, the cost of his malpractice insurance.
That salary is if he works for a hospital, so all of those would be paid already. Even if he had to pay that, it's only $20-30k a year.
And you have no idea how much plumbers make.
And you do? The guy I called to fix my sewer got $100 for 30 minutes of work and he spent 15 minutes driving to and from my house. Even if he's has work lined up perfectly, which he doesn't, he's still making only half as much as doctors.
Also, this site and several others say plumbers maxes out at $80k.
3. Defendant regularly advertises for sale dimensional lumber products through instore shelf tags and signage, labels, and flyers, which contain inaccurate and false product dimensions that do not correspond to the actual dimensions of the products being advertised
If there is a demand for actual 2" x 4", how would you label them? 2.5" x 4.5"?
And people wonder why plumbers make more than doctors.
This is definitely not true. My friend is looking at least $200k once he's out of residency, and as much as $500k if he's willing to go to a high-demand area. A plumber might be ahead for the first decade or so due to the cost of med school and the opportunity cost of not working right away, but every year after that they will fall further and further behind.
Just because it's done a certain way for a long time, doesn't mean we should never change it. It certainly doesn't cost Home Depot any more to print 1.5"x3.5" on the label instead of (or in addition to) 2x4. Anyone already familiar with lumber would know those are called 2x4's. They can save newbies the headache of buying the wrong size (who may not necessarily be buying wood for construction) and anyone looking for boards that are actually 2" x 4" can find them.
One can always eat the bread cold.
So the last time you hired someone to fix your house, did you also tip them 20%? A little $4000 on top of the $20,000 repair job? Or did you become a cheapskate and justify it to yourself with "this is the price we agreed on"?