Here's an idea: work on your own societies until they're fixed, and then you can come around to looking down on the Americans again. Oh, but you won't because it's too satisfying. Carry on, then!
The main countries looking down on you already have a better system than you. You're not #1 in most things, no matter how many times you repeat it.
And what if it turned out it was a wrongful conviction? Would you then allow that person's family to kill you out of revenge? After all, in this case, they KNOW who killed their family member.
Yeah? Then why do people still spend so much time avoiding jail if it was such a pampering experience?
As for the rest of your argument - how is that different from someone who accidentally killed someone else, like in a car crash? Would you claim they similarly shouldn't have to be "pampered" by the victims and that they should be executed to alleviate the pain of their loss too?
The death penalty will not deter a crime of passion. That is absolutely true. However, if you are thinking about murder, and you start imagining the needle is waiting for you.... Its a little different.
A murder typically is a crime of passion. Even in cases where people spend a lot of time thinking, they can still involve some kind of passion, like losing custody of the children. In the remaining cases where a person spends time thinking about a murder and it is not a "passion", they likely are psychopathic. None of these cases are deterred by imagining a needle waiting for you. Almost no one in their right mind would murder.
Other cases of murder may involve accidental killings while engaging in other illegal activities like burglary. The death penalty would not deter these because they are reflex actions. And you won't deter burglary either since burglaries are symptoms of poor local economics.
Yeah, but it hinges on a twisted definition of "co-equals". What does that even mean? Either you're equal or you're not. "Co-equal" sounds like ACTUAL political correct bullshit to me.
You still retain copyright over your own copy. That's how it stops other people from dictate what you can or cannot do with your copy outside the scope of the licence and what makes that licence desirable to that person.
The person I replied said 'subsidize' and so I used the word 'subsidize'. So let's talk about subsidization: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Also, your federal government is owned in large part by corporations and yes they are winning many exemptions from regulations and preventing newcomers from entering the market. Hell, a large segment of your own people VOTE to make them exempt from regulations and to allow them to prevent newcomers from entering the market.
Sorry, but no human can perform all the activities a human can. Can you do quantum physics, compose symphonies, play Go, manage a hedge fund, and write software to do all of those on your own? Hell, most humans still can't understand algebra, some of whom even live in the first world and think they know enough about economics to vote. And some of those humans can't fit into the same physical space as a human.
So yes it is a ridiculously high bar. Furthermore, no human can do any of those things without being trained for decades but there is an expectation (not necessarily coming from you) that "true AI" is supposed to be able to create new things ex nihilo.
The point is that AI is ARTIFICIAL intelligence. Just like an artificial leg, you would not say "that artificial leg is not a true artificial leg because it can't do all the things a leg does". We are trying to create AIs, not Is. We have not created true consciousness that is true. But leaving aside questions on what is consciousness and if it even exists, what does consciousness have anything to do with intelligence? People who are conscious have committed crimes stupidly and get caught. Are they more intelligent than a computer that can play Go?
Funny how I'm a troll because people can't handle the facts. Only 3000 people died from 9/11. Over 100,000 people died because of the invasion. Let's start with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't pretend you care.
Here's an idea: work on your own societies until they're fixed, and then you can come around to looking down on the Americans again. Oh, but you won't because it's too satisfying. Carry on, then!
The main countries looking down on you already have a better system than you. You're not #1 in most things, no matter how many times you repeat it.
So would a life sentence without parole.
It's not zero, so it must be 100, right?
Luckily, the universe doesn't work on definitions of words, but statistically.
And what if it turned out it was a wrongful conviction? Would you then allow that person's family to kill you out of revenge? After all, in this case, they KNOW who killed their family member.
Yeah? Then why do people still spend so much time avoiding jail if it was such a pampering experience?
As for the rest of your argument - how is that different from someone who accidentally killed someone else, like in a car crash? Would you claim they similarly shouldn't have to be "pampered" by the victims and that they should be executed to alleviate the pain of their loss too?
The death penalty will not deter a crime of passion. That is absolutely true. However, if you are thinking about murder, and you start imagining the needle is waiting for you.... Its a little different.
A murder typically is a crime of passion. Even in cases where people spend a lot of time thinking, they can still involve some kind of passion, like losing custody of the children. In the remaining cases where a person spends time thinking about a murder and it is not a "passion", they likely are psychopathic. None of these cases are deterred by imagining a needle waiting for you. Almost no one in their right mind would murder.
Other cases of murder may involve accidental killings while engaging in other illegal activities like burglary. The death penalty would not deter these because they are reflex actions. And you won't deter burglary either since burglaries are symptoms of poor local economics.
Yeah, but it hinges on a twisted definition of "co-equals". What does that even mean? Either you're equal or you're not. "Co-equal" sounds like ACTUAL political correct bullshit to me.
To an MRA, any disagreement or admission of the facts is synonymous with being an SJW.
Restoring something that someone has removed is the same as making a copy. It is not distributing.
Yes, OUTSIDE of NPM in Github.
You make a stupid point. What has that got to do with ethics, as opposed to someone deciding how to release code? Retard.
You still retain copyright over your own copy. That's how it stops other people from dictate what you can or cannot do with your copy outside the scope of the licence and what makes that licence desirable to that person.
They're a messaging application and have been around 5-6 years.
Oh, so I don't need to do anything then.
Recall that trademark owners are required to protect their trademark.
Trademarks are only in effect for what purposes they filed for. It cannot just cover any use of the word in any context.
Yeah, because should only apply their ethics when you say it's okay. How vain of people to care about their personal ethics.
And fuck NPM for restoring someone else's work without their permission. Surely that's got to be a copyright infringement.
Don't know who they are or what they do, but fuck them and boycott whatever it is they sell.
Guess what - computers can run more than just AlphaGo.
The person I replied said 'subsidize' and so I used the word 'subsidize'. So let's talk about subsidization: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Also, your federal government is owned in large part by corporations and yes they are winning many exemptions from regulations and preventing newcomers from entering the market. Hell, a large segment of your own people VOTE to make them exempt from regulations and to allow them to prevent newcomers from entering the market.
The US subsidizes its large industries and cries about it when the same tactics are used against them.
No, because the conflict is not ongoing anymore.
Seriously, can someone come up with something that is not strawman argument?
Or a libertarian regime.
You Only Nuke Once?
Sorry, but no human can perform all the activities a human can. Can you do quantum physics, compose symphonies, play Go, manage a hedge fund, and write software to do all of those on your own? Hell, most humans still can't understand algebra, some of whom even live in the first world and think they know enough about economics to vote. And some of those humans can't fit into the same physical space as a human.
So yes it is a ridiculously high bar. Furthermore, no human can do any of those things without being trained for decades but there is an expectation (not necessarily coming from you) that "true AI" is supposed to be able to create new things ex nihilo.
The point is that AI is ARTIFICIAL intelligence. Just like an artificial leg, you would not say "that artificial leg is not a true artificial leg because it can't do all the things a leg does". We are trying to create AIs, not Is. We have not created true consciousness that is true. But leaving aside questions on what is consciousness and if it even exists, what does consciousness have anything to do with intelligence? People who are conscious have committed crimes stupidly and get caught. Are they more intelligent than a computer that can play Go?
Funny how I'm a troll because people can't handle the facts. Only 3000 people died from 9/11. Over 100,000 people died because of the invasion. Let's start with that.