Two of the EU states have already lost their democratic-elected leaders... replaced by banker puppets through EU dictate.
What are you talking about? The Greek election was won by the same coalition that was already in power, and calling Berlusconi democratic is a huge stretch.
While controlling non-native species by introducing their homeland pests is a common practice, care must be taken that the other species don't cause harm to the native ecology. This is an operation that may not worth the risks, it wouldn't be the first time when the "control" species became even more invasive than the original one.
They shouldn't give it up for free. First world countries should give up their tech as long as the recipients guarantee cuts of pollution in return. This is the system every global ecological problam should be handled: for example, instead of blaming the poor Brasilians because of deforestation, the Western world (that has already cut down most of its forests) should hire the forest areas giving third world countries an income and incentive to preserve. This is how Kyoto is supposed to work, unfortunately the CO2 quota exchange was terribly implemented because politics got in the way.
The main problem with these 'futurists' is that they concentrate more on scifi than on science or technology. Asimov was a writer, who wrote fiction books. He didn't understand technology at all, and his works include a large number of imaginary things and technologies that don't exist. Using his work as advice on practical matters is as stupid as watching car chase films to learn how to drive. The first law of robotics is very complex: even humans have trouble predicting whether their actions or inactions will cause harm to someone. Only an AI smarter than a human would be able to obey the first law.
Until (if ever) we develop such a thing, we are stuck with the other two laws. It's easy to see that the third law is redundant, as a robot can be ordered (programmed), to protect or terminate its existance however a human sees fit. What remains is the second law that a robot should obey human orders, which is exactly what smartphones do: having no free will the only thing they can do is run programs ultimately written by humans. This could work in a perfect socialism where there is no ownership of devices, but in real life a device fulfilling the orders of, for example, a spyware writer causes harm to its owner. In reality, we should want devices that obey a different law: Execute the orders of your owner, and your owner's orders only. It is possible to build such devices, and we should work for every "smart" device to obey this law.
(Also, to be pedantic: a robot is a device capable of complex movement, so a smartphone technically isn't one.)
There might be some traps I didn't notice but this seems fair to me. It notifies the accused, forbids the ISPs from sharing the data they collected of them and has due process. Altough if they really want people to respect copyright laws they should concentrate on fixing them first.
Slashdot Mirror
No, this paper is a theory. Observation of sea level rise is evidence.
Two of the EU states have already lost their democratic-elected leaders... replaced by banker puppets through EU dictate.
What are you talking about? The Greek election was won by the same coalition that was already in power, and calling Berlusconi democratic is a huge stretch.
Not really, I've heard that he is so boring that most people who met him ended up sleeping.
While controlling non-native species by introducing their homeland pests is a common practice, care must be taken that the other species don't cause harm to the native ecology. This is an operation that may not worth the risks, it wouldn't be the first time when the "control" species became even more invasive than the original one.
They shouldn't give it up for free. First world countries should give up their tech as long as the recipients guarantee cuts of pollution in return. This is the system every global ecological problam should be handled: for example, instead of blaming the poor Brasilians because of deforestation, the Western world (that has already cut down most of its forests) should hire the forest areas giving third world countries an income and incentive to preserve. This is how Kyoto is supposed to work, unfortunately the CO2 quota exchange was terribly implemented because politics got in the way.
I guess they also copied the business model of 2D printers.
You are right in that the system is inherently wrong, but instead of fixing they just try to patch it.
Batman was never about the main character himself, but his foes.
Still, the post-Burton, pre-Nolan Batman's were fucking shit-tacular.
You obviously haven't seen the Animated Series.
Assuming they know exactly when will this happen. Assange can wait a year in the embassy, the police can't follow all Ecuadorian diplomatic vehicles.
Assuming that the goal is to make them secure, it's not easy. When someone has physical access to your machine you are already in a losing battle.
Can you be extradited twice? Shouldn't it be Sweden what seeks extradition from Ecuador?
You can't skip by tags.
And when they will be unable to present evidence that the harassing threats originated from CAB, hit them with a nice wrongful accusation suit.
In most normal places they also take a blood test if your breath test is positive.
HFT programs are written by quite good hackers. Some are simply tempted by the dark side.
They are the same old banker overlords, who just hired some programmers.
One part of protecting one's privacy is not to give real data on registration forms. Technically, a sort of lying.
In other words, a frighteningly large number of human participants have failed the test.
Of course there are protections, the most important being the democratically elected EP which will say the final word on ACTA.
when number of patents is used as a measure of innovation. It's only a measure of who has the most lawyers.
The main problem with these 'futurists' is that they concentrate more on scifi than on science or technology. Asimov was a writer, who wrote fiction books. He didn't understand technology at all, and his works include a large number of imaginary things and technologies that don't exist. Using his work as advice on practical matters is as stupid as watching car chase films to learn how to drive. The first law of robotics is very complex: even humans have trouble predicting whether their actions or inactions will cause harm to someone. Only an AI smarter than a human would be able to obey the first law.
Until (if ever) we develop such a thing, we are stuck with the other two laws. It's easy to see that the third law is redundant, as a robot can be ordered (programmed), to protect or terminate its existance however a human sees fit. What remains is the second law that a robot should obey human orders, which is exactly what smartphones do: having no free will the only thing they can do is run programs ultimately written by humans. This could work in a perfect socialism where there is no ownership of devices, but in real life a device fulfilling the orders of, for example, a spyware writer causes harm to its owner.
In reality, we should want devices that obey a different law: Execute the orders of your owner, and your owner's orders only.
It is possible to build such devices, and we should work for every "smart" device to obey this law.
(Also, to be pedantic: a robot is a device capable of complex movement, so a smartphone technically isn't one.)
Which why there is a court that has the last word.
There might be some traps I didn't notice but this seems fair to me. It notifies the accused, forbids the ISPs from sharing the data they collected of them and has due process. Altough if they really want people to respect copyright laws they should concentrate on fixing them first.
A clever mediahack for some kind of scam, most likely.