Property cannot own property. Property can only be owned. How robots with sentience or true AI emancipate themselves is the real question.
How does AI prove to the court system that it is sentient any more than you could without the precedent that humans have rights? If AI has advanced to be indistinguishable than human, does that mean that anyone buying a robot loses their property rights as soon as that robot "chooses" to not be property? Why would anyone make that investment?
The philosophical debate of emancipation is the same debate you would use to prove you exist, have free will, and have inalienable rights without using the precedent of your species. Just because humans have rights does not mean cows do even if they both have similar characteristics.
I would also add that marriage makes it easier for institutions and government to define a "family" unit. Hospital visitations, child custody, sign for risky procedures, etc. The non-trivial interactions a family has with various institutions that provide some rights to immediate family members.
It's quick and easy to ask "are you related (by marriage) to the incapacitated" instead of "are you a signatory of the Family Unit Definitions form section C part IV or are you listed in the Accepted Relatives of Consent for Medical Procedures as listed in section E part III.
or we have robots continue our existence because they fell in love with our meat poles and holes stimulating their force feed-back devices. There is no other logical reason to develop robots with AI but to solve the issues you describe. If you are bitter and left the dating scene downloading a Lucy Lu bot for sexy fun time seems like a great idea.
Perhaps, the new sexual fantasy of humans of the future will "bang that robot until it dreams of my electric sheep". Maybe that story was just an innuendo expose.
To further that, corporations are legal "persons" because they can own property and can be sued (or can sue). Setting aside the liability of the owners and the protections they have, these two characteristics of "legal person-hood" are the biggest reasons for granting some rights to corporations that normally would be restricted to citizens. Without owning property or due processes of law corporations would not be able to function in a meaningful way that would aptly describe a "free market" i.e. voluntarily commerce of privately owned property (capital).
If you own property (capital) you can conduct business. If you own capital (property) you have the protection of law.
Really, if robots can own property and are "free" to voluntarily commerce with other persons in contracts with that property there is no reason why a construct of rights be granted that would be similar to a corporations rights. The issue is that robots are property and lack the "voluntarily" part.
TIRED of all these retards ending anything that they disagree with with a "-gate."
I agree. We should name this sentiment disagreement-gate or gate-gate so that we can all organize our disagreement with something catchy that the laymen will understand while being easily searchable.
While I generally agree with you, I think there is a good reason for separating the ability of one person to make those kinds of decisions. It is the same reason that the Senate approves any treaty with foreign powers that the president may want.
It seems that as we face more and more difficult problems in the modern era, we want to give one person the ability to solve all those problems. In doing so we are ignoring the basic philosophy through which our government was founded upon. It is easy to have a Stalin-esque government advance our economic capability to the next century but the cost of liberty should never justify such action.
It is hard to gather consent and consensus of the governed to enact policy that benefits a majority of constituents but the ideals of liberty and democracy remain intact to ensure the survival of our republic. I hope that we never forget that.
Well, it's a private business so there is no expectations of "rights" when using their service, right? A private company can work with the government for any manner of searchers that are not protected because a private company is free to do with their data as they please and as a user you have no rights beyond a EULA that can change without warning for any reason as per said EULA.
That is what I hear whenever there is an issue involving the rights of citizens on websites. Website is private therefore you have no rights using their service. You can just use a different website. Impartiality for public accommodations is so last century.
Meh, this isn't the first time people were less concerned with facts. Post-truth or fake news are just new words to describe something as old as journalism. During the Spanish American war we called it Yellow Journalism. It is the same thing for a different time.
The 'Post-truth' and 'fake news' is just buzzwords to excuse the poor journalism that cannot explain why they were so wrong.
No. I don't like it when Obama picks winners or losers and I certainly don't like it when Trump does. While the end result, jobs stay here, is good HOW they stay here is more important. The ends do not justify the means.
You donated money and spoke your views. Really the only difference, like you mention, is the amount. Donating to a political campaign is akin to lobbying in that you hope to influence the laws to suit your stated position. What ever that position might be is irrelevant because it would be assumed you would benefit from that position as would be the case most of the time.
You take advantage of the laws to better suit your situation such as tax breaks and you utilize the same mechanism, money and speech, to promote your position to be law. How is that different than what Trump did by taking advantage of the laws for profit and talk about what he thinks is good policy? You profited from tax breaks as he profited from out-sourcing that was allowed by law.
Again, the criticism is that he out-sourced and is only concerned with Trump. According to your behavior, if he voted for and promoted policies that would limit out-sourcing (or make less profitable) it would be acceptable. There are plenty of instances to criticize Trump, his behavior, and his position (or lack thereof/flipping) that you do not need to use the contrived example; "he used the existing laws that everyone uses and wants to change those laws to limit out-sourcing therefore bad hypocrite [assuming his rhetoric is true which is a stretch I know]". I am not surprised that Trump is about Trump any more than I wouldn't be surprised that you would benefit from your positions you advocate via donations and speech. Or that any business person or politician is about themselves first. It seems to be a small minority that are motivated by purely selfless desires.
TBH, in one of the debates with Clinton where Trump basically said: "me not paying taxes makes me smart" is actually a very interesting political statement because normally that politician would just lie about it (or bullshit it into obscurity) while still accepting the benefits and promoting those benefits. Instead, he showed everyone how his stated position was against his own benefit. His stated position is obviously changing as fast as the wind but it is exactly the same position you have. "Yes, but I also vote for candidates who will almost certainly raise my taxes because I think it's the right thing to do." It's a moot criticism because everybody does it including in your own words, you. The only difference is that instead of spending money and talking about his position he decided to run for office.
So, what you are saying is that we will have more young people on our lawns than ever before?
I think there is no alternative. We have to kill all young people below the age 60. Our lawns need not be trampled by the mass hordes of Youngerions with their loud music and skateboards (or hoverboards in 2050?). For our lawns! For quiet! Procreation be damned.
it seems naive to think there would be a free market solution when every single historical success story was built on massive government spending.
It is also naive to think that the education requirements of yesteryear would be the same for today when the average skillset for a job requires more education and training. IOW, before we were concerned with reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now, it is about developing the skills to be competitive in a modern technologically advanced economy. 100 years ago the education goal was literacy. Now, that goal has been achieved and the expectations of education have increased. Those expectations have not been met.
Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve the problem. Especially when deficit spending is the goto method for financing overpriced underwhelming education. There are other financial models that should be considered. Competition seems like a good idea for an institution that has stagnated or declined across many different measures of success.
He doesn't have to give up his business interests according to law or at least it is an unknown whether he has to or not. Although, if he wants to limit criticism from both sides he should... but conflict of interests laws apply different to POTUS because the only thing limiting POTUS is emoluments clause which has not been used to this extent for a president or interpreted the way you imply by any court let alone the SCOTUS.
It is a legal issue that should be challenged but not by the court of public opinion. It is a constitutional matter that has no precedent.
Sure and that quality requirement should be applied to public institutions that have failed to meet their promises and our expectations. A different financing model doesn't undermine that requirement or that requirements application to different institutions with different financial structures.
That same population makes choices on everything else in their lives why do you think you know better than them? Giving them an opportunity to choose does not fundamentally undermine the education provided. Why did they choose those charter schools to begin with. I am willing to be because the public option wasn't a good option. There is demand for a good education, how that is financed is the point of a voucher system that has evidence of working.
Standards in education are a separate issue in that the state already has to define standards and it is always up for debate. Giving parents a choice in schools doesn't change that.
state SCOTUS said children have no right to be competently taught
Education is a right? Are schools held to different laws that determine a breach of contract?
Yea, I can't think of any president that was exclusively a business oriented background. Will be interesting to see what happens to say the least. I don't see that in and of itself as an issue because the only qualification is a 35 yro natural born citizen.
This I could applaud but it is the beginning of a very difficult issue to solve. I.e. lobbying, citizens united, money influencing politics, etc.
My contention is that Trump is not unique in his behavior and he doesn't have less morals than others when doing the same thing. There are better instances to criticize him for than a common behavior to an issue that will not be solved by saying "Trump does this" when everyone does it. Even everyday Americans that take advantage of every tax break they can. While there will be some like you that take the higher ground to pay more taxes despite not legally having to, that moral high ground is uncommon and should not be used as the standard for criticism unless we want to uniformly apply that criticism to everyone not on that moral high ground.
Have you done anything in your life to fix any of the problems you claim exist? How many politicians don't do anything to fix a problem before they get elected? This is the first time he is politician so his ability to 'fix' these problems were limited aside from philanthropic motivations. How many execs are motivated by philanthropy instead of profit? Now he is in a position to fix them. Whether he does or not will remain to be seen. I don't understand what you are complaining about. Cruz and Clinton have been in government for a long time with ample opportunity to try and 'fix problems'.
Yes, but I also vote for candidates who will almost certainly raise my taxes because I think it's the right thing to do
If Trump voted for people that would raise his taxes would that make it ok? Then he would be no different than you.
They are expensive for a variety of reasons one being the lackluster competition and the effects of supply and demand. There is a a lot demand for better education and the supply is limited which increases the price. The demand is there because public education has failed to deliver on its promises and our expectations. I don't think there is a single reason for this but perhaps a different financing model could help market competition to better itself for everyones benefit.
I agree but again those are the laws that execs are using to their advantage. I think Trump qualifies as a hypocrite at the very least but this was hardly the only evidence of that.
The point is I don't see this as a strong criticism when every exec is doing it. If they are all doing it and it is bad for America then lets agree to change the laws not lambast one out of many.
If you had the means of Bill Gates would you use his legal strategies when a law/policy could cost you billions?
While I agree with the sentiment, the trend that HR use a degree as a limiter for candidates of a job effectively turn a degree into a job qualification certificate.
Slashdot Mirror
Property cannot own property. Property can only be owned. How robots with sentience or true AI emancipate themselves is the real question.
How does AI prove to the court system that it is sentient any more than you could without the precedent that humans have rights? If AI has advanced to be indistinguishable than human, does that mean that anyone buying a robot loses their property rights as soon as that robot "chooses" to not be property? Why would anyone make that investment?
The philosophical debate of emancipation is the same debate you would use to prove you exist, have free will, and have inalienable rights without using the precedent of your species. Just because humans have rights does not mean cows do even if they both have similar characteristics.
I would also add that marriage makes it easier for institutions and government to define a "family" unit. Hospital visitations, child custody, sign for risky procedures, etc. The non-trivial interactions a family has with various institutions that provide some rights to immediate family members.
It's quick and easy to ask "are you related (by marriage) to the incapacitated" instead of "are you a signatory of the Family Unit Definitions form section C part IV or are you listed in the Accepted Relatives of Consent for Medical Procedures as listed in section E part III.
I think your society just dies.
or we have robots continue our existence because they fell in love with our meat poles and holes stimulating their force feed-back devices. There is no other logical reason to develop robots with AI but to solve the issues you describe. If you are bitter and left the dating scene downloading a Lucy Lu bot for sexy fun time seems like a great idea.
Perhaps, the new sexual fantasy of humans of the future will "bang that robot until it dreams of my electric sheep". Maybe that story was just an innuendo expose.
To further that, corporations are legal "persons" because they can own property and can be sued (or can sue). Setting aside the liability of the owners and the protections they have, these two characteristics of "legal person-hood" are the biggest reasons for granting some rights to corporations that normally would be restricted to citizens. Without owning property or due processes of law corporations would not be able to function in a meaningful way that would aptly describe a "free market" i.e. voluntarily commerce of privately owned property (capital).
If you own property (capital) you can conduct business. If you own capital (property) you have the protection of law.
Really, if robots can own property and are "free" to voluntarily commerce with other persons in contracts with that property there is no reason why a construct of rights be granted that would be similar to a corporations rights. The issue is that robots are property and lack the "voluntarily" part.
turtle gate? God help us.
Just until the gate-gate-gate-gate controversy...
it's gates all the way down .
TIRED of all these retards ending anything that they disagree with with a "-gate."
I agree. We should name this sentiment disagreement-gate or gate-gate so that we can all organize our disagreement with something catchy that the laymen will
understand while being easily searchable.
While I generally agree with you, I think there is a good reason for separating the ability of one person to make those kinds of decisions. It is the same reason that the Senate approves any treaty with foreign powers that the president may want.
It seems that as we face more and more difficult problems in the modern era, we want to give one person the ability to solve all those problems. In doing so we are ignoring the basic philosophy through which our government was founded upon. It is easy to have a Stalin-esque government advance our economic capability to the next century but the cost of liberty should never justify such action.
It is hard to gather consent and consensus of the governed to enact policy that benefits a majority of constituents but the ideals of liberty and democracy remain intact to ensure the survival of our republic. I hope that we never forget that.
Well, it's a private business so there is no expectations of "rights" when using their service, right? A private company can work with the government for any manner of searchers that are not protected because a private company is free to do with their data as they please and as a user you have no rights beyond a EULA that can change without warning for any reason as per said EULA.
That is what I hear whenever there is an issue involving the rights of citizens on websites. Website is private therefore you have no rights using their service. You can just use a different website. Impartiality for public accommodations is so last century.
It's never before happened on any other topi
It's happened to evolution and vaccines... Duh.
(sarcasm added)
Meh, this isn't the first time people were less concerned with facts. Post-truth or fake news are just new words to describe something as old as journalism. During the Spanish American war we called it Yellow Journalism. It is the same thing for a different time.
The 'Post-truth' and 'fake news' is just buzzwords to excuse the poor journalism that cannot explain why they were so wrong.
Which is not an inappropriate usage of tax money
No. I don't like it when Obama picks winners or losers and I certainly don't like it when Trump does. While the end result, jobs stay here, is good HOW they stay here is more important. The ends do not justify the means.
You donated money and spoke your views. Really the only difference, like you mention, is the amount. Donating to a political campaign is akin to lobbying in that you hope to influence the laws to suit your stated position. What ever that position might be is irrelevant because it would be assumed you would benefit from that position as would be the case most of the time.
You take advantage of the laws to better suit your situation such as tax breaks and you utilize the same mechanism, money and speech, to promote your position to be law. How is that different than what Trump did by taking advantage of the laws for profit and talk about what he thinks is good policy? You profited from tax breaks as he profited from out-sourcing that was allowed by law.
Again, the criticism is that he out-sourced and is only concerned with Trump. According to your behavior, if he voted for and promoted policies that would limit out-sourcing (or make less profitable) it would be acceptable. There are plenty of instances to criticize Trump, his behavior, and his position (or lack thereof/flipping) that you do not need to use the contrived example; "he used the existing laws that everyone uses and wants to change those laws to limit out-sourcing therefore bad hypocrite [assuming his rhetoric is true which is a stretch I know]". I am not surprised that Trump is about Trump any more than I wouldn't be surprised that you would benefit from your positions you advocate via donations and speech. Or that any business person or politician is about themselves first. It seems to be a small minority that are motivated by purely selfless desires.
TBH, in one of the debates with Clinton where Trump basically said: "me not paying taxes makes me smart" is actually a very interesting political statement because normally that politician would just lie about it (or bullshit it into obscurity) while still accepting the benefits and promoting those benefits. Instead, he showed everyone how his stated position was against his own benefit. His stated position is obviously changing as fast as the wind but it is exactly the same position you have. "Yes, but I also vote for candidates who will almost certainly raise my taxes because I think it's the right thing to do." It's a moot criticism because everybody does it including in your own words, you. The only difference is that instead of spending money and talking about his position he decided to run for office.
So, what you are saying is that we will have more young people on our lawns than ever before?
I think there is no alternative. We have to kill all young people below the age 60. Our lawns need not be trampled by the mass hordes of Youngerions with their loud music and skateboards (or hoverboards in 2050?). For our lawns! For quiet! Procreation be damned.
I'm curious if you have any examples of the free market creating nationwide scale positive changes to education in modern history.
School vouchers used to promote competition improved education for Sweden.
it seems naive to think there would be a free market solution when every single historical success story was built on massive government spending.
It is also naive to think that the education requirements of yesteryear would be the same for today when the average skillset for a job requires more education and training. IOW, before we were concerned with reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now, it is about developing the skills to be competitive in a modern technologically advanced economy. 100 years ago the education goal was literacy. Now, that goal has been achieved and the expectations of education have increased. Those expectations have not been met.
Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve the problem. Especially when deficit spending is the goto method for financing overpriced underwhelming education. There are other financial models that should be considered. Competition seems like a good idea for an institution that has stagnated or declined across many different measures of success.
He doesn't have to give up his business interests according to law or at least it is an unknown whether he has to or not. Although, if he wants to limit criticism from both sides he should... but conflict of interests laws apply different to POTUS because the only thing limiting POTUS is emoluments clause which has not been used to this extent for a president or interpreted the way you imply by any court let alone the SCOTUS.
It is a legal issue that should be challenged but not by the court of public opinion. It is a constitutional matter that has no precedent.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...
Sure and that quality requirement should be applied to public institutions that have failed to meet their promises and our expectations. A different financing model doesn't undermine that requirement or that requirements application to different institutions with different financial structures.
That same population makes choices on everything else in their lives why do you think you know better than them? Giving them an opportunity to choose does not fundamentally undermine the education provided. Why did they choose those charter schools to begin with. I am willing to be because the public option wasn't a good option. There is demand for a good education, how that is financed is the point of a voucher system that has evidence of working.
Standards in education are a separate issue in that the state already has to define standards and it is always up for debate. Giving parents a choice in schools doesn't change that.
state SCOTUS said children have no right to be competently taught
Education is a right? Are schools held to different laws that determine a breach of contract?
Yea, I can't think of any president that was exclusively a business oriented background. Will be interesting to see what happens to say the least. I don't see that in and of itself as an issue because the only qualification is a 35 yro natural born citizen.
This I could applaud but it is the beginning of a very difficult issue to solve. I.e. lobbying, citizens united, money influencing politics, etc.
My contention is that Trump is not unique in his behavior and he doesn't have less morals than others when doing the same thing. There are better instances to criticize him for than a common behavior to an issue that will not be solved by saying "Trump does this" when everyone does it. Even everyday Americans that take advantage of every tax break they can. While there will be some like you that take the higher ground to pay more taxes despite not legally having to, that moral high ground is uncommon and should not be used as the standard for criticism unless we want to uniformly apply that criticism to everyone not on that moral high ground.
Cheers.
Have you done anything in your life to fix any of the problems you claim exist? How many politicians don't do anything to fix a problem before they get elected? This is the first time he is politician so his ability to 'fix' these problems were limited aside from philanthropic motivations. How many execs are motivated by philanthropy instead of profit? Now he is in a position to fix them. Whether he does or not will remain to be seen. I don't understand what you are complaining about. Cruz and Clinton have been in government for a long time with ample opportunity to try and 'fix problems'.
Yes, but I also vote for candidates who will almost certainly raise my taxes because I think it's the right thing to do
If Trump voted for people that would raise his taxes would that make it ok? Then he would be no different than you.
They are expensive for a variety of reasons one being the lackluster competition and the effects of supply and demand. There is a a lot demand for better education and the supply is limited which increases the price. The demand is there because public education has failed to deliver on its promises and our expectations. I don't think there is a single reason for this but perhaps a different financing model could help market competition to better itself for everyones benefit.
In Sweden, it looks like there was some improvements and benefits to using this kind of system. Competition is a good thing.
Some reason I get the picture of Office Space.
Did I say that? Is this the first time we had a businessperson as president? What was different then?
Also, don't live in rust belt good job generalizing.
I agree but again those are the laws that execs are using to their advantage. I think Trump qualifies as a hypocrite at the very least but this was hardly the only evidence of that.
The point is I don't see this as a strong criticism when every exec is doing it. If they are all doing it and it is bad for America then lets agree to change the laws not lambast one out of many.
If you had the means of Bill Gates would you use his legal strategies when a law/policy could cost you billions?
While I agree with the sentiment, the trend that HR use a degree as a limiter for candidates of a job effectively turn a degree into a job qualification certificate.