Or even that using drones instead of soldiers kills less civilians. Care to guess how many civilians die if we have to invade Pakistan with the army instead of calling in a drone? The historical ratio for conventional military invasion is something like 100 times worse in terms of killing civilians.
I think your unstated assumption that this would increase empathy for the victims is mistaken. Higher realism in games has been on a pretty consistent trend of reducing empathy for the victims.
They really wouldn't. Random hookups at a bar rarely involve a person who has sex with more than a dozen or so partners per year. The really good prostitutes could push a thousand.
No threat of bodily harm is the main problem. That threat is present in virtually all prostitution, even the kind where the threat is kept secret from the johns.
So since drinking lots of alcohol is legal and driving a car is legal then drink driving should be legal? Voltaire is correct but the absurdity here is your argument.
Drinking is legal. Driving is legal. Having had drinks prior to driving is also legal, up to a limit. That's because after that limit you're a danger to yourself and also society. How is having sex a danger to society?
Well, the most obvious answer would seem to be spread of disease.
Prostitution is controlled on a state by state basis in the US, it is NOT universally illegal. The separation of powers between states and federal government is a big deal here that burns a lot of court $$$ in figuring out who gets to decide what.
The argument in favor is that the purely consensual kind is so rare that the harm done in suppressing it is warranted by the benefit gained in the other 99.9% of cases. Similarly, a justified homicide is occasionally swept up by the murder laws, and while unfortunate, we really want to retain the benefit of having those laws on the books.
I'd say that's destroying it. The data alone are nothing, the algorithms are integral, even perhaps more important than the data. Would you claim my younger self still exists just because a few of his thought processes are still around? Even myself from yesterday is gone forever.
Sure, I programmed in that exact phrase in response to a mirror image, as it happens.
Also, here's a fun thought: You think that you know what you know about what you know. But what if you're wrong? (This is why pinning down when AI is real is very challenging).
A significant fraction of gays are now reproducing via surrogate. It's hardly the dead end it used to be. It would be easy to create a growing population consisting of only gays and lesbians. And that's just today. In a decade, two at worst, two gay men will be able to create a child that is a combination of their genes.
We upgrade almost everything on people other than the brain. Also, changing or replacing the logic on the AI would seem to be destroying it by definition.
Slashdot Mirror
We have about 10 where I work. Dev team of about 200 overall. So they are a small percentage, but clearly not mythical.
A poorly defined plan is bad by definition. It doesn't meet the core requirements of 'plan'.
I dont see one good solution here.
How about going home?
He requested a good solution. If you don't understand the obvious ways in which that won't work ...
Or even that using drones instead of soldiers kills less civilians. Care to guess how many civilians die if we have to invade Pakistan with the army instead of calling in a drone? The historical ratio for conventional military invasion is something like 100 times worse in terms of killing civilians.
I think your unstated assumption that this would increase empathy for the victims is mistaken. Higher realism in games has been on a pretty consistent trend of reducing empathy for the victims.
Than all other forms of combat. If we're going to kill terrrorists, there's no less civilian killing way to do it (currently).
Well, no, 'your property' is pretty much the opposite of 'public'.
Research studies.
They really wouldn't. Random hookups at a bar rarely involve a person who has sex with more than a dozen or so partners per year. The really good prostitutes could push a thousand.
No threat of bodily harm is the main problem. That threat is present in virtually all prostitution, even the kind where the threat is kept secret from the johns.
So since drinking lots of alcohol is legal and driving a car is legal then drink driving should be legal? Voltaire is correct but the absurdity here is your argument.
Drinking is legal. Driving is legal. Having had drinks prior to driving is also legal, up to a limit. That's because after that limit you're a danger to yourself and also society. How is having sex a danger to society?
Well, the most obvious answer would seem to be spread of disease.
Stuffing animals is legal but there are laws against taxidermy on people.
I wondered why that wasn't a more popular choice than burial or cremation. TMYK, thanks!
Maybe you should try publicly assaulting someone in the US where violence is OK, and compare how those things turn out.
If you don't know, I really recommend having sex. Or maybe sex with a more skilled partner.
Prostitution is controlled on a state by state basis in the US, it is NOT universally illegal. The separation of powers between states and federal government is a big deal here that burns a lot of court $$$ in figuring out who gets to decide what.
The argument in favor is that the purely consensual kind is so rare that the harm done in suppressing it is warranted by the benefit gained in the other 99.9% of cases. Similarly, a justified homicide is occasionally swept up by the murder laws, and while unfortunate, we really want to retain the benefit of having those laws on the books.
I'd say that's destroying it. The data alone are nothing, the algorithms are integral, even perhaps more important than the data. Would you claim my younger self still exists just because a few of his thought processes are still around? Even myself from yesterday is gone forever.
Sure, I programmed in that exact phrase in response to a mirror image, as it happens.
Also, here's a fun thought: You think that you know what you know about what you know. But what if you're wrong? (This is why pinning down when AI is real is very challenging).
It's simulations all the way up and turtles all the way down, with elephants on both ends.
A significant fraction of gays are now reproducing via surrogate. It's hardly the dead end it used to be. It would be easy to create a growing population consisting of only gays and lesbians. And that's just today. In a decade, two at worst, two gay men will be able to create a child that is a combination of their genes.
We upgrade almost everything on people other than the brain. Also, changing or replacing the logic on the AI would seem to be destroying it by definition.
I print them a body using a makerbot and embed a chip for them to run on, then wire them up to some sensors.
It's not nice to make fun of stutterers. Fun though.
I came to mention Khan Academy, and AC beat me to it. Tragedy. But here's the donate link:
http://www.khanacademy.org/donate
There are only millions (and not even tens of millions) of patents, so a 1000X exaggeration.