Stop saying that. That isnt it at all and you failed to grasp his points, even as he himself spelled out his thinking in his essays on the topic.
Asimov never thought the rules he created were "not at all valid". On the contrary.
Asimov saw robots, seen at the time as monsters, as an engineering problem to be solved. he quite correctly saw that we would program them with limits (in the process creating the concept of computer science).
he then went about writing stories around robots that never failed to obey their programming, but as effectively sentient thinking beings, would interpret their programming in ways the society around them couldn't anticipate because they saw the robots as mere tools, not thinking machines. and thus he created his lens (like all good scifi writers) for writing about society and technology.
he NEVER said the laws were not valid or were insufficient. that was NEVER the point.
It wasnt so much that the laws didnt cut it, thats too simplistic and even in his own words not what it was about. it was that the robots could interpret the laws in ways we couldnt or didnt anticipate, because in fact in nearly all the stories involving them the robots never failed to obey them.
Asimov saw robots, seen at the time as monsters, as an engineering problem to be solved. he quite correctly saw that we would program them with limits, int he process creating the concept of computer science. he then went about writing stories around robots that never failed to obey their programming, but as effectively sentient thinking beings, would interpret their programming in ways the society around them couldn't anticipate because they saw the robots as mere tools, not thinking machines. and thus he created his lens (like all good scifi writers) for writing about society and technology.
yes. he was writing in the realm of wonder and what ifs, yet he was SO OBVIOUSLY having an axe to grind, not simply positing a background setting in to conveniently accommodate his story ideas that focused on exploration and wonder, and avoided the political quicksand of being a commentary on the conflicts of the day.
Chinas economy IS working very well. The USSR's economy may not have been stellar, but they were getting by.
the only reason Russia's communist government fell was because we outspent them. Literally. Reagan ramped up the military, and the Soviets felt compelled to match us. And they spent themselves into a severe economic depression, and they lacked the outside financial support to sustain it or survive it. We spent trillions on defense, and the Soviets tried to keep up, and they failed to such a degree that enough people finally said they weren't going to take it anymore.
Since then hasnt been pretty pink roses, but the ramnifications are simple: if Reagan hadn't spent them into the ground the USSR would still stand to this day.
And in other news, following a shakeup at the top levels, Google is being renamed Cyberdyne Systems (NASDAQ: CDSYS).
No word yet on whether the motto "Do No Evil" will remain in place or be changed.
Top executives after the shakeup say their new focus will be on merging their artificial intelligence development projects with newly developed tech such as Google Glass and robotics, in order to create life-like avatars. These avatars can be used as surrogates for disabled person, or even to replace human workers in extremely hazardous occupations. There has been speculation as well that these would also be used to gather even more data from the real world to further enhance their marketing capabilities. The military has also expressed in interest in these avatars.
and that's the problem with insurance. we have health insurnace to pay for medical bills we cant afford. but ultimately we all die in the end anyway. and it gets really expensive before we do. thats why insurance is insufficient as a concept to pay for medical bills.
the are only two real solutions: 1) Kill the insurance system as it exists, and go to catastrophic only coverage, everythng else is out of pocket. No cost sharing, no help whatsoever. 2) Kill the insurance system as it exists, and cover everyone, 100% all of the time for everything
Both would be effective at cost reductions by eliminating the insulation of our wallets from the cost of medicine, but only one of these actually benefits society as whole. The other only benefits rich people, while the poor die in teh streets (kinda like today, but cheaper).
Bad car analogy. An oil change is regularly scheduled maintence. That would be more akin to the $20 you pay for a doctor visit for checkups.
Using it for a cold or flu, unscheduled, unexpected maintenance is like using car insurance for a replacement windshield, or new tires when one blows driving down the road*.
Of course, as with everything contractual, actual use is determined by your own actual contract or terms of service. But essentially your point is invalid. It IS insurance like any other, subject to the terms and conditions you agreed to.
Actually that's EXACTLY what it refers to. And concidentally, thats exactly how the English language works, taking root words, and deriving words from them using suffixes and prefixes. (seriously? how stupid are you?)
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Chris Jenks. Core Sociological Dichotomies. "Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labour of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labour of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit." London, England, UK; Thousand Oaks, California, USA; New Delhi, India: SAGE. p. 383.
Means of Production:
In economics and sociology, the means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production; that is, the "means of production" includes capital assets used to produce wealth, such as machinery, tools and factories,[1] including both infrastructural capital and natural capital. This includes the "factors of production" described in classical economics minus financial capital and minus human capital. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labor (natural resources and raw materials).
Socialism:
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism
Communism:
Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.
not meant as a rebuttal. just a handy collection of basically all known polls on healthcare, including the multiple sources for the claim that "sure, a majority opposes Obamacare, but thats because included in that number is the people who think its not liberal enough and want a socialized healthcare system"
Before tossing around the moron label, you should probably first amke sure it doesnt apply to yourself.
Capitalism != free trade != the exchange of goods/services for other goods/services
Believe it or not, even Communist Russia had private ownership of cars, homes, toothburshes, and didnt have forced sexual slavery of their women*. (*as a feature of communism anyway; russian mob bosses will be russian mob bosses after all)
Then you are short sighted and not admitting reality. and do not think i am a supporter of the rampant NSA spying. But let's be real, and think about it. (And refrain from hyperbole such as "all our rights")
This entire issue is once again the conflict between two competeing ideals that we ahve, and we want both to be true at the same time. Like it or not, old unverified quotes aside, people want both liberty AND security. (why else do we have laws and police and military?)
The truth is, no intelligence work can occur without "metadata" (as a concept, not just related to digital tech), which is basically just circumstantial evidence in the digital realm. it may not prove a link, but it does indicate worth look (much like the correlation/causation saw). metadata can indicate if something needs a further look, or not.
I am not against the collection of data from an individual, targeted with reason, and with proper due process, such as a warrant. The potential can analysed, and then dismissed or acted on further. If dismissed, the data is flushed and not retained. That is reasonable and even normal.
And I believe the Admiral is being disengenuous when he says they cant function without the collection of metadata. I believe that his implied intent, what he really means, is that they cant function without colelction of everyones data, all the time, and that is what he's trying to preserve. Essentially, a lie of omission.
I believe that to be wrong, and harmful. The problem isnt the mere collection of metadata. The problem is the collection of metadata ON EVERYONE ALL THE TIME, without cause or due process, and the permanent retention of that data. Blanket collection and the mentality of "everyone is a suspect" is the problem.
But the dudes in tight pants with massive crotch bulges, and muscles that would require living in a gym 24/7 (and or continuous steroid inject via IV) are ok?
and that is where the real money is yet to be made. makeno mistake, this game is perfect for mobile devices. and once it goes there, it will be a huge cash cow.
Is the money from an initial sale worth any less? Sales are sales. And to date D3 has over 14 million units sold. If you assume a 33/67 split between normal and collectors edition (which is conservative and probably on the low side for collectors), that's over 600 million dollars. And that's not including money made off the RMAH transactions.
A game was released and mode over half a billion dollars, and exceeded all company expectations, and is getting an expansion pack. By what definition exactly is that anything other than a big success?
Slashdot Mirror
so you're basically a troll who doesnt care about actual facts, actual logic, actual history, or actual legal precedent.
begone troll.
Stop saying that. That isnt it at all and you failed to grasp his points, even as he himself spelled out his thinking in his essays on the topic.
Asimov never thought the rules he created were "not at all valid". On the contrary.
Asimov saw robots, seen at the time as monsters, as an engineering problem to be solved. he quite correctly saw that we would program them with limits (in the process creating the concept of computer science).
he then went about writing stories around robots that never failed to obey their programming, but as effectively sentient thinking beings, would interpret their programming in ways the society around them couldn't anticipate because they saw the robots as mere tools, not thinking machines. and thus he created his lens (like all good scifi writers) for writing about society and technology.
he NEVER said the laws were not valid or were insufficient.
that was NEVER the point.
It wasnt so much that the laws didnt cut it, thats too simplistic and even in his own words not what it was about.
it was that the robots could interpret the laws in ways we couldnt or didnt anticipate, because in fact in nearly all the stories involving them the robots never failed to obey them.
Asimov saw robots, seen at the time as monsters, as an engineering problem to be solved. he quite correctly saw that we would program them with limits, int he process creating the concept of computer science. he then went about writing stories around robots that never failed to obey their programming, but as effectively sentient thinking beings, would interpret their programming in ways the society around them couldn't anticipate because they saw the robots as mere tools, not thinking machines. and thus he created his lens (like all good scifi writers) for writing about society and technology.
yes. he was writing in the realm of wonder and what ifs, yet he was SO OBVIOUSLY having an axe to grind, not simply positing a background setting in to conveniently accommodate his story ideas that focused on exploration and wonder, and avoided the political quicksand of being a commentary on the conflicts of the day.
or maybe youre just an idiot.
cloned more like.
Chinas economy IS working very well.
The USSR's economy may not have been stellar, but they were getting by.
the only reason Russia's communist government fell was because we outspent them. Literally. Reagan ramped up the military, and the Soviets felt compelled to match us. And they spent themselves into a severe economic depression, and they lacked the outside financial support to sustain it or survive it. We spent trillions on defense, and the Soviets tried to keep up, and they failed to such a degree that enough people finally said they weren't going to take it anymore.
Since then hasnt been pretty pink roses, but the ramnifications are simple:
if Reagan hadn't spent them into the ground the USSR would still stand to this day.
*whoosh*
And in other news, following a shakeup at the top levels, Google is being renamed Cyberdyne Systems (NASDAQ: CDSYS).
No word yet on whether the motto "Do No Evil" will remain in place or be changed.
Top executives after the shakeup say their new focus will be on merging their artificial intelligence development projects with newly developed tech such as Google Glass and robotics, in order to create life-like avatars. These avatars can be used as surrogates for disabled person, or even to replace human workers in extremely hazardous occupations. There has been speculation as well that these would also be used to gather even more data from the real world to further enhance their marketing capabilities. The military has also expressed in interest in these avatars.
you're barely worth responding to AC, but every word you said was false.
You cannot back up one thing you said with verifiable facts.
He probably thinks because "tax dollars".
Except tax dollars ALREADY SUBSIDIZE ALL "employer provided" insurance.
FALSE.
Common misconception, but false.
Your employer pays for NONE of it.
You as the employee pay for ALL OF IT.
You pay some directly, and the rest (the employer contribution) via lower wages.
You just don't realize it, cause people only think in terms of dollars, and ignore the wage value of the non-wage benefits they recieve.
I have almost your exact health plan.
Only I'm not deluded about what the ACA actually does.
Or what tax dollar actually ALREADY DO for health care.
If you have employer sponsored health care, congratualtions, you are sucking on the government teat.
Your plan is subsidized by tax dollars, already.
Now. In light of that fact, I'll allow you time to reexamine the absolutely moronic things you said about the ACA.
and that's the problem with insurance.
we have health insurnace to pay for medical bills we cant afford.
but ultimately we all die in the end anyway.
and it gets really expensive before we do.
thats why insurance is insufficient as a concept to pay for medical bills.
the are only two real solutions:
1) Kill the insurance system as it exists, and go to catastrophic only coverage, everythng else is out of pocket. No cost sharing, no help whatsoever.
2) Kill the insurance system as it exists, and cover everyone, 100% all of the time for everything
Both would be effective at cost reductions by eliminating the insulation of our wallets from the cost of medicine, but only one of these actually benefits society as whole. The other only benefits rich people, while the poor die in teh streets (kinda like today, but cheaper).
Bad car analogy. An oil change is regularly scheduled maintence.
That would be more akin to the $20 you pay for a doctor visit for checkups.
Using it for a cold or flu, unscheduled, unexpected maintenance is like using car insurance for a replacement windshield, or new tires when one blows driving down the road*.
Of course, as with everything contractual, actual use is determined by your own actual contract or terms of service.
But essentially your point is invalid. It IS insurance like any other, subject to the terms and conditions you agreed to.
capital goods being the means of production (ie, factories, or raw materials)
you read but you dont comprehend.
you should stop posting now.
Actually that's EXACTLY what it refers to. And concidentally, thats exactly how the English language works, taking root words, and deriving words from them using suffixes and prefixes. (seriously? how stupid are you?)
Capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Chris Jenks. Core Sociological Dichotomies. "Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labour of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labour of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit." London, England, UK; Thousand Oaks, California, USA; New Delhi, India: SAGE. p. 383.
Means of Production:
In economics and sociology, the means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production; that is, the "means of production" includes capital assets used to produce wealth, such as machinery, tools and factories,[1] including both infrastructural capital and natural capital. This includes the "factors of production" described in classical economics minus financial capital and minus human capital. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labor (natural resources and raw materials).
Socialism:
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism
Communism:
Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.
not meant as a rebuttal. just a handy collection of basically all known polls on healthcare, including the multiple sources for the claim that "sure, a majority opposes Obamacare, but thats because included in that number is the people who think its not liberal enough and want a socialized healthcare system"
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
Before tossing around the moron label, you should probably first amke sure it doesnt apply to yourself.
Capitalism != free trade != the exchange of goods/services for other goods/services
Believe it or not, even Communist Russia had private ownership of cars, homes, toothburshes, and didnt have forced sexual slavery of their women*.
(*as a feature of communism anyway; russian mob bosses will be russian mob bosses after all)
mod up.
Then you are short sighted and not admitting reality.
and do not think i am a supporter of the rampant NSA spying.
But let's be real, and think about it.
(And refrain from hyperbole such as "all our rights")
This entire issue is once again the conflict between two competeing ideals that we ahve, and we want both to be true at the same time.
Like it or not, old unverified quotes aside, people want both liberty AND security. (why else do we have laws and police and military?)
The truth is, no intelligence work can occur without "metadata" (as a concept, not just related to digital tech), which is basically just circumstantial evidence in the digital realm. it may not prove a link, but it does indicate worth look (much like the correlation/causation saw). metadata can indicate if something needs a further look, or not.
I am not against the collection of data from an individual, targeted with reason, and with proper due process, such as a warrant. The potential can analysed, and then dismissed or acted on further. If dismissed, the data is flushed and not retained. That is reasonable and even normal.
And I believe the Admiral is being disengenuous when he says they cant function without the collection of metadata.
I believe that his implied intent, what he really means, is that they cant function without colelction of everyones data, all the time, and that is what he's trying to preserve. Essentially, a lie of omission.
I believe that to be wrong, and harmful.
The problem isnt the mere collection of metadata.
The problem is the collection of metadata ON EVERYONE ALL THE TIME, without cause or due process, and the permanent retention of that data.
Blanket collection and the mentality of "everyone is a suspect" is the problem.
But the dudes in tight pants with massive crotch bulges, and muscles that would require living in a gym 24/7 (and or continuous steroid inject via IV) are ok?
This sounds exactly like the "UO and EQ players look elsewhere" posts when WOW was first released.
and that is where the real money is yet to be made.
makeno mistake, this game is perfect for mobile devices.
and once it goes there, it will be a huge cash cow.
Is the money from an initial sale worth any less? Sales are sales.
And to date D3 has over 14 million units sold. If you assume a 33/67 split between normal and collectors edition (which is conservative and probably on the low side for collectors), that's over 600 million dollars. And that's not including money made off the RMAH transactions.
A game was released and mode over half a billion dollars, and exceeded all company expectations, and is getting an expansion pack.
By what definition exactly is that anything other than a big success?