Violence is easy for children to process yet most adults still do not properly cope with sexuality.
Perhaps that's the result of children being exposed to violence, but not sexuality. I would also like to point out that "true" violence, not video game violence, is very difficult to cope with (see PTSD), while consensual sex is generally pleasant and unlikely to cause long mental health problems.
How is that 1984? It's simply consumer protection. Consumers do not have the time and/or knowledge to verify every claim made by all the people trying to sell products to them. So they pay some taxes, and let the government do it for them. Working as intended.
I lived in France for several years, and drank the tap water every day. I never got sick from it...
Many people in France do drink bottled water exclusively, but if you ask for a "carafe d'eau" at a restaurant, they'll certainly give it to you, and it won't make you sick.
I'd rather have an institution comprised of artists which determines which artists should receive a living stipend, rather than just having it be "whatever sells the best".
There's absolutely no useful information in the article. How big is the tax? Who exactly are they taxing? How are they calculating the tax rate?
I have no problem with a very small tax for having an internet connection which pays for the arts. Someone has to pay for the arts, might as well be people who consume it via the internet. In my mind I'd rather have artists getting a small stipend from the government, when the alternative is sucking at the teat of the corporations.
Yup, the community is paying. Which you have a problem with apparently. Fortunately, there are lots of people who don't have the mindset of "Screw you, I'm getting mine. If you want help, help yourself ya moocher". We all need help sometimes.
Suicide bombers did not exist before Israel, US and some other countries effectively occupied middle east.
That's ridiculous. Suicide bombers have existed for just as long as bombs. Persuasive leaders have always been able to convince their followers to die for them.
But I am for everybody having a nuclear bomb. Every single person. Unfortunately it's impractical, but every state should have their bombs.
I'm assuming that's just hyperbole, because nuclear weapons are only a deterrent for mentally stable people. If someone has no problem sacrificing themselves to blow others up, the whole idea of MAD and deterrence breaks down.
I don't know whether or not your predictions are correct, but as a scientist and engineer, I CAN say that I would never want to work with you. You may think spouting such vile nonsense is beneficial, but all it does is show how small-minded you are. Here's an idea, why don't we pursue both space exploration and the medical technology you mentioned. There's plenty of resources to do so... we could find ample funding for both if the "defense" budgets of the world were cut a few percent.
Gone in the sense of "not here". We have no way of proving anything beyond that.
An AI may be re-creatable.
We don't know one way or the other, so it's not really relevant. Besides, human consciousness might also be re-creatable. Can you say with 100% certainty that it is completely impossible to make an exact copy of the complete state of a human's neural network?
Also, human level intelligence does not imply human level morality or ethics
I would say that's exactly what it implies. I guess it depends on WHY you think killing humans is unethical, but killing insects, mice, cows, etc is fine. I say it's because of human intelligence. I can't figure out why you think so.
The AI, in essence is the sum of the inputs of its designers. Therefore they should decide what to do with the AI.
I don't see how that follows. Just because you created something doesn't mean you should always have the power to destroy it.
Neither did we define completely it's hardware.
You seem to be saying that the degree to which something is designed by its creator determines whether or not they can destroy it. I find that completely irrelevant. If it is wrong to kill a human, then it is wrong to kill something else that has the intelligence of a human. It doesn't matter who created it or designed it, or to what to what degree they did so. If it has human-level intelligence, then it should possess human-level rights.
A hypothetical baby is created through normal (hopefully) natural biological process. Any AI is created through application of intelligence.
I would argue that "application of intelligence" is a "natural biological process". We (and our brains) are, after all, creations of nature.
I would also point out that a baby created through in vitro fertilization is also, by definition, an "application of intelligence", and yet should also be treated as equal to a "natural" baby.
Would the artificial brain have rights? If you wiped its artificial neurons, would it be murder? If you give it control of a physical robot arm and it hurt someone, how and to what extent could you "punish" it? The ethical questions are virtually endless when you start to play "god". I would think that would be obvious.
The trick is that while it may take a while to train it, you only have to do it once. Then you can simply copy it as many times as you want.
Also, training would be significantly faster than in an actual human brain, since the connections are faster and you can simply train it using recorded data as input. No need to have it "actually" go through the teaching scenarios.
It's possible they're solar panels... in many areas here in Germany solar panels are put on all new houses built, or renovated. So they're actually quite common. Take the small village I used to live in for example: Guntersen. Those panels are far less "blue" than the ones you're talking about in China though, so I'm not really sure the Chinese ones are solar panels.
It's just a lie. There's absolutely no reason for McDonald's to mix together meat from different continents. Not only would it be stupid since it would make it all but impossible to track down where tainted meat originated from, but it would be more expensive than just buying local beef.
That's crazy. If that was me, I would say that I had given the money to my wife and that SHE was hiding it. At least then the bitch would go to jail too.
I think that it's more likely that the judge would simply not give that party (who didn't surrender their password) what they were seeking in the divorce. IANAL, but it seems rather harsh to throw someone in jail for refusing to surrender evidence in a civil case. Seems more likely that they would just lose the case...
Slashdot Mirror
Violence is easy for children to process yet most adults still do not properly cope with sexuality.
Perhaps that's the result of children being exposed to violence, but not sexuality. I would also like to point out that "true" violence, not video game violence, is very difficult to cope with (see PTSD), while consensual sex is generally pleasant and unlikely to cause long mental health problems.
There's nothing fundamentally amoral about eugenics. The problem was the assholes applying the theory.
How is that 1984? It's simply consumer protection. Consumers do not have the time and/or knowledge to verify every claim made by all the people trying to sell products to them. So they pay some taxes, and let the government do it for them. Working as intended.
Many people in France do drink bottled water exclusively, but if you ask for a "carafe d'eau" at a restaurant, they'll certainly give it to you, and it won't make you sick.
Seriously. He magically appears on every space story, but still remains anon. Lame!
I'd rather have an institution comprised of artists which determines which artists should receive a living stipend, rather than just having it be "whatever sells the best".
I have no problem with a very small tax for having an internet connection which pays for the arts. Someone has to pay for the arts, might as well be people who consume it via the internet. In my mind I'd rather have artists getting a small stipend from the government, when the alternative is sucking at the teat of the corporations.
Yup, the community is paying. Which you have a problem with apparently. Fortunately, there are lots of people who don't have the mindset of "Screw you, I'm getting mine. If you want help, help yourself ya moocher". We all need help sometimes.
Suicide bombers did not exist before Israel, US and some other countries effectively occupied middle east.
That's ridiculous. Suicide bombers have existed for just as long as bombs. Persuasive leaders have always been able to convince their followers to die for them.
But I am for everybody having a nuclear bomb. Every single person. Unfortunately it's impractical, but every state should have their bombs.
I'm assuming that's just hyperbole, because nuclear weapons are only a deterrent for mentally stable people. If someone has no problem sacrificing themselves to blow others up, the whole idea of MAD and deterrence breaks down.
I don't know whether or not your predictions are correct, but as a scientist and engineer, I CAN say that I would never want to work with you. You may think spouting such vile nonsense is beneficial, but all it does is show how small-minded you are. Here's an idea, why don't we pursue both space exploration and the medical technology you mentioned. There's plenty of resources to do so... we could find ample funding for both if the "defense" budgets of the world were cut a few percent.
If you kill a human they are gone.
Gone in the sense of "not here". We have no way of proving anything beyond that.
An AI may be re-creatable.
We don't know one way or the other, so it's not really relevant. Besides, human consciousness might also be re-creatable. Can you say with 100% certainty that it is completely impossible to make an exact copy of the complete state of a human's neural network?
Also, human level intelligence does not imply human level morality or ethics
I would say that's exactly what it implies. I guess it depends on WHY you think killing humans is unethical, but killing insects, mice, cows, etc is fine. I say it's because of human intelligence. I can't figure out why you think so.
The AI, in essence is the sum of the inputs of its designers. Therefore they should decide what to do with the AI.
I don't see how that follows. Just because you created something doesn't mean you should always have the power to destroy it.
Neither did we define completely it's hardware.
You seem to be saying that the degree to which something is designed by its creator determines whether or not they can destroy it. I find that completely irrelevant. If it is wrong to kill a human, then it is wrong to kill something else that has the intelligence of a human. It doesn't matter who created it or designed it, or to what to what degree they did so. If it has human-level intelligence, then it should possess human-level rights.
I know the "I think that would be obvious" was snarky, but come on.
A hypothetical baby is created through normal (hopefully) natural biological process. Any AI is created through application of intelligence.
I would argue that "application of intelligence" is a "natural biological process". We (and our brains) are, after all, creations of nature.
I would also point out that a baby created through in vitro fertilization is also, by definition, an "application of intelligence", and yet should also be treated as equal to a "natural" baby.
Would the artificial brain have rights? If you wiped its artificial neurons, would it be murder? If you give it control of a physical robot arm and it hurt someone, how and to what extent could you "punish" it? The ethical questions are virtually endless when you start to play "god". I would think that would be obvious.
Also, training would be significantly faster than in an actual human brain, since the connections are faster and you can simply train it using recorded data as input. No need to have it "actually" go through the teaching scenarios.
It's possible they're solar panels... in many areas here in Germany solar panels are put on all new houses built, or renovated. So they're actually quite common. Take the small village I used to live in for example:
Guntersen. Those panels are far less "blue" than the ones you're talking about in China though, so I'm not really sure the Chinese ones are solar panels.
Besides, the main airport for Taipei is Taoyuan Airport, not the small old one you linked to.
It's just a lie. There's absolutely no reason for McDonald's to mix together meat from different continents. Not only would it be stupid since it would make it all but impossible to track down where tainted meat originated from, but it would be more expensive than just buying local beef.
That's crazy. If that was me, I would say that I had given the money to my wife and that SHE was hiding it. At least then the bitch would go to jail too.
Well, you have to admit, 11.11.11 is a pretty awesome date. We won't see another like it in our lifetimes.
I think that it's more likely that the judge would simply not give that party (who didn't surrender their password) what they were seeking in the divorce. IANAL, but it seems rather harsh to throw someone in jail for refusing to surrender evidence in a civil case. Seems more likely that they would just lose the case...
That doesn't mean Facebook is obligated to keep the accounts active... Unless of course the judge issues a warrant/subpoena.
Spoilation alert!